wrightfox Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 so morgan ans nissandom47 have both sas'd an r50. why arent there more. and i was looking in to xterra's and they have a calmini sas kit. cant we still some of that and sas an r50 that way. leaf springs and just fab up a few components. im not all mechy but it cant be that hard why isnt it done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUELER Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 because most R50 owners are broke!!! Well not including myself, personally i think IFS will get you just as far Ah who am i kidding, im broke too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrightfox Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 not sure what ifs iseither but keep seeing it while researching the xterra. something intigrated frame suspension. or something haha now i look like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadm4x4 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 IFS------independant front suspension...... what we poor people have......lol SAS-----solid axle swap corect me if im wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 IFS------independant front suspension...... what we poor people have......lol SAS-----solid axle swap corect me if im wrong You are correct. The reason more R50's haven't been done is because a lot of folks saw the unibody chassis as a major hurdle. That, combined with the rack and pinion steering makes things more difficult, as compared to working with a full frame, and more traditional linked steering (steering box, centerlink, idler and pitman arms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexrex20 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 true. if it weren't for the need to convert to steering box, i probably would have SAS'd my R50 after the accident. the steering is just another major hurdle i wasn't prepared to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
180sx Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 And about the Calmini kit for the X. The X has leaf springs in the rear, so putting them up front isn't a bad option. Putting leafs in front of the R50 is rediculous. How you gonna have springs in back and leafs up front? Just kind of off... Jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmorgan4 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 How much do you have to spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrightfox Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 im looking at a max of 2k. i plan on getting a simple sas done w taxes. i was just curious because with the x they just mounted fron and rear shackles for the front leafs. why couldnt we put leaf al around. can it really be that difficult. and again im no mechy and i know nothing of this stuf thats obviously why im asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zibi Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 The reason more haven't been done is because while the R50 is a very capable offroad rig, it's lack of frame and stock IFS mean it is much harder (and therefore more expensive) to do significant suspension modifications to. Cherokees may also be unibody, but they come stock with a solid front axle and upgrading them is therefore simply a matter of modifying an existing suspension setup. Any rig that has a frame is much easier because you are guaranteed a solid setup so long as you are attaching suspension components directly to the frame (and the frame is in good condition). tmorgan has showed that it is not only possible, but also relatively easy to do a SAS on an R50, but because of the deterrents very few people have previously done them. It's a lot harder to completely design a suspension setup when you have little to no reference material or examples of successful previous attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSlowReliable Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Personally, the only way I would SAS a unibody with r/p steering would be if it was free or cheap, I could get all the parts for free or cheap, I already had everything needed to do it (welder, knowledge and such) and it was a dedicated trail rig. Otherwise, in the long run it is much easier to get a frame/body with linked steering Xterra or similar, and SAS it, because first off, they make KITS, which if I understand correctly, make it so the only welding is on the donor axle for mounting purposes.... and there is ALOT more room for error or being a little bit off.....on a unibody, putting a bracket in just the wrong spot could be disastrous, and then theres the entire steering deal as others have noted.... But hey, nothins stoppin ya! If you love your pathy that much, go for it...but it is definitely not something for the mechanically unable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshellis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 And about the Calmini kit for the X. The X has leaf springs in the rear, so putting them up front isn't a bad option. Putting leafs in front of the R50 is rediculous. How you gonna have springs in back and leafs up front? Just kind of off... Jose XJ Jeep Cherokee has leafs in the back and coils in the front. Is that 'rediculous' too? (sp) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavis0076 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 um.. look what happned to Go Pathy Go..... maybe its an exeaggeration.... but as far as I'm concerned unibodys are too weak! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxman0324 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 So do super duty Fords...and he was saying coils in the back and leafs up front would be off, and I agree, it would be weird, but I would like to see somebody do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshellis Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Right but the Ford is a dedicated utility truck and the leaves are used to carry sh*tloads of weight without sagging, y? Whereas we dont really have to worry about that, we're more concerned w reducing weight. See from an off road perspective I dont think its that weird. Heavy engine up front, the leaves will carry that without sag. Close to the same level of articulation as coils could be achieved. Higher load capacity makes bigger engine swaps possible, plus leaf springs spread the weight over a larger area of the chassis which allows for a much greater degree of weight distribution & more control over vehicle roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxman0324 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Right but the Ford is a dedicated utility truck and the leaves are used to carry sh*tloads of weight without sagging, y? Whereas we dont really have to worry about that, we're more concerned w reducing weight. See from an off road perspective I dont think its that weird. Heavy engine up front, the leaves will carry that without sag. Close to the same level of articulation as coils could be achieved. Higher load capacity makes bigger engine swaps possible, plus leaf springs spread the weight over a larger area of the chassis which allows for a much greater degree of weight distribution & more control over vehicle roll. Very good points, It is just a funny idea to those of us who aren't hardcore offroaders I guess...It is just so uncommon (do any stock vehicles use that setup?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zibi Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 If you're going to do an SAS you might as well link the front. Yeah you could easily justify leaves, but they generally flex like @!*%. You'll also have to look into building a front cross member to support the front of the leaves, and given the unibody construction I wouldn't be very confident with how strong that would be tying into the subframe that far forward. The subframe only extends far enough to support the engine as far as I can tell. Might be possible but would require research, whereas if you were to link it like tmorgan initially did it's a tested setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
180sx Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Right but the Ford is a dedicated utility truck and the leaves are used to carry sh*tloads of weight without sagging, y? Whereas we dont really have to worry about that, we're more concerned w reducing weight. See from an off road perspective I dont think its that weird. Heavy engine up front, the leaves will carry that without sag. Close to the same level of articulation as coils could be achieved. Higher load capacity makes bigger engine swaps possible, plus leaf springs spread the weight over a larger area of the chassis which allows for a much greater degree of weight distribution & more control over vehicle roll. While when you say it, it makes sense, I have yet to see any one put this idea together. So that's why I say it's wierd. Now just taking all the springs out and putting in leafs would be cool. Hell, we could do like HD GM's and use torsion bars! () Jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexrex20 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 leaf springs can flex just as much as links, if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexrex20 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zibi Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) I said leaves generally don't flex as well as coils because they don't. Yeah, using good products with a good design can have great results from both leaves and coils. But many stock leaves flex like a &^%*ing rollerskate. And for the sake of argument, I'm sure I could find a few thai hookers who don't have STIs, doesn't mean I'm going to take that as a good reason to dip my twinkie indiscriminately. Exceptions always exist but they don't speak for the entire sample. Edited August 22, 2009 by Zibi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleurys Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I just drooled all over myself .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexrex20 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 i still think a leaf SAS wouldn't be that bad on an R50. when it comes down to it, your link-rear/leaf-front SAS still made it up that trail that would otherwise be impassable to a front/rear-locked IFS truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamzan Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I know it's not an r50 but here is leaf front/coil rear SAS by Packie88 http://www.nissanpathfinders.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=19770&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magregor Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) If you look at all the pics posted...it isn't the leafs flexing, it is the links that support the leafs. If you do it up right with leaf springs (adding long, well-pivoting links) your suspension will flex well. Coils just compress and decompress...the lighter the wire gauge, the more coils in the design and if you throw in variable rate, you will have a better, softer flex than leafs...just my 2 cents worth.. Edited August 22, 2009 by magregor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now