i got a 1984 1000cc sammy for $400 in order to build a LIGHT 4x4 buggy.
i stripped it off and liked very much what i saw, since it's
really sweet - light, light and then some...
i wonder what would be the max tire size these axles can take, locked ofcourse.
would it cope with 33"(??????????????), considering the GVWR would not be more than 1400lb and the engine would be the Vitara fuel injected 1600 cc?

Vitara = Sidekick

i got a 1984 1000cc sammy for $400 in order to build a LIGHT 4x4 buggy.
i stripped it off and liked very much what i saw, since it's
really sweet - light, light and then some...
i wonder what would be the max tire size these axles can take, locked ofcourse.
would it cope with 33"(??????????????), considering the GVWR would not be more than 1400lb and the engine would be the Vitara fuel injected 1600 cc?



No.
I don't forsee it being able to, since you obviously are going to be gearing down a transfer case to make a decent crawl ratio with those 33's, right?

If you are not putting T-case gears in, then even with a light buggy and efi 1.6 it won't be very enjoyable if you just leave it with the stock "Baby Lobster" t-case that's in it.

Geared t-case and what, 70-100 lbs per corner tires and wheels minimum, with 20 year old little birfs? :laughing:

sorry :p

Please..............

I think 33s are fine with me.

Uzi is right, those axles with just the 1.6L upgraded will = :nuke:

You can swap in a set of later SJ413 axles as a minor upgrade, and that will hold up to 31's well enough, 33's if you baby it. but if you get on the skinny pedal.... :nuke:

I dont know how available SJ413 axles are in your part of the world though. You could go to Toy axles, and not worry, but your Weight will go up a fair amount.

Tipover: sounds like he bought an Lj sries. Those axles are smaller than the Sammy axle :eek:

Please..............

I think 33s are fine with me.

:confused:

Hey more power to you if you can, but forgive me if I'm more than just a little skeptical at how far down a trail you get :nuke:

He had to of bought an SJ because LJs have 800cc engines. :D

Put some sami axles under it, that shouldn't add too much weight to it.

My Sammie axles have survived so far with 33's. I put Birf rings on and am running 4.56's with a 6:1 t-case. I have bent a rear housing and tweaked a set of YJ springs, but so far (3 Moab trips plus dozens of other outings) no axle breakage. I may be a little light on the skinny pedal however. It remains to be seen if they will hold up to my new 1.6.

He had to of bought an SJ because LJs have 800cc engines. :D

I dont know for sure, not that part of the world at least.
I thought all 2 stroke engines were Lj's and 4 stroke engines were SJ's

Not that it matters much, the stock axle for that series is still alot weaker than an SJ413's :eek:

Just do the swap :D

thanks for your answers.
what i got, is the sj with a carburated 1000cc four stroke engine, which is still in a superb condition after all these years.
today, when i had to move this baby vehicle inside my place and i had
two more rigs in there(including the frog which is a 6000lb beast), i simply pushed it sideways, and it moved!!! ofcourse, it was stripped off of its body, but still i was astonished by it's so very light weight, which is a huge advantage.
i've never seen such a toy and i simply love it.
the ONLY dissadvantage i see in it, is the fact that i'll have to get used to small tires. i now run 44" boggers on the frog and i simply go everywhere - i just point the rig, push the pedal and on it goes without stopping. i wonder what it would feel like, driving this baby.
BTW, i intend to move the front axle some 30" forward, lower the engine and make it a one seater with a simple & light roll cage. it would not exceed 1400lb whatever happens, but i'm still desperate to know what is the biggest tire size i'll be able to run.
my guess was 31", but i'd rather hear what you sammi experts have to say.
Barry

Its a SJ410 (since 1981), thats one model before the SJ413 (1987). SJ410 has 1.0 engine, nearly same body as SJ413 and Sam, but weaker and smaller axles. The t-case is stock 1,58 in high and 2,51 in low (SJ413 / Sam 1,41/2,27), 4,11 gears (SJ413 3,91 / Sam 3,72).
Here in Germany you still can see a lot of them. On these axles max you can run are 30``- locked.

Christian

i know a man with a 410 running 31s with a 4,16 t/case.he breaks cvs.maybe with birfield rings it may be stronger.

the 410 is the motor that you get the t/case from for the baby lobster

the 410 is the motor that you get the t/case from for the baby lobster


That's a little deceiving, as a 1985 model for example is a "410" designation but it does not have "baby lobster" t-case.

More accurately, (1984 is the only model year of) sj410's that you get the baby lobster from. :D

There are two types of SJ410. The typ1 (81-85) has smaller drive shafts and also a smaller and weaker t-case, so you can´t use it as a baby lobster. Only SJ410s typ2 (85-89) have the t-case you can use, because its nearly similar to the one of the SJ413. The t-case of the typ2 has an electric cable at the shifter side for the 4wd lights in the cockpit - typ1 does not.

Christian.

SJ410 has 1.0 engine, nearly same body as SJ413 and Sam, but weaker and smaller axles.
Christian

Would you like to comment on why the axles are weaker?

typ1 axles are definitely weaker. typ2 axles have smaller diff housings, that I know for sure, beacuse I tried to get 410 gears in my 413 axles. Some people changed complete axles to get lower gearing and had many problems because of their strength. I guess the SJ413 axles are stronger because of the more-power of the 1.3 engine.

Christian.

excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by "baby lobster"???

410 t-case has stock 1,58 in High 2,51 in Low, called baby lobster.
413/sam has stock 1,41 in High 2,27 in Low. So you can use the "baby lobster" for 12% lower gearing in your 413 or Sam. Or you go to an 4:1, which is also called "rock lobster". Rock lobster is in High as low as the baby, but twice lower in Low. When you combine the High gears from 410 with the Low gears from a 413/Sam t-case, you get an "rock lobster". But you´ll have to weld the middle gear together, what is very difficult.
This is all oldschool, since 4:1 are getting cheaper and cheaper (in the US). But in Germany for example this method is still used, since import of a 4:1 will cost about 800$ ....

I am assuming you are the frog that ran in the TTC .
If so and if you intend to drive with the same style you did there you will nuke those babys right away.
If the bifrs don't blow then the axles will snap at the carriers.
I would go with the toyota axles. Your weight will go up but you won't be pushing it off the trail.
OR I would consider a 32" lightweight radial on a lightweight aluminum rim but LESS engine than a 1.6l.
Get a 6:1 or 8:1 sammy T-case and keep the stronger higher ratio ring and pinion.
I also wouldn't waste my $$ on a locker .With a weight like that welding the carriers will give you the same result and more $$ for the rest of the lightweight parts you will want.
Just my $.02
Good luck ...cool project ...please keep us posted.

There are two types of SJ410. The typ1 (81-85) has smaller drive shafts and also a smaller and weaker t-case, so you can´t use it as a baby lobster. Only SJ410s typ2 (85-89) have the t-case you can use, because its nearly similar to the one of the SJ413. The t-case of the typ2 has an electric cable at the shifter side for the 4wd lights in the cockpit - typ1 does not.

Christian.

You are from Germany?

This is a bit confusing to state these facts to a North American audience. We never got the wierd stuff you guys have, like cable rear locker for E-brake TUV rules, when SJ's used transfer case drum brake, for instance.

The only model year that I am aware of, that we can get the proper gear to make a 4.16 t-case for a Samurai, is a 1984 SJ410. Not an '85 and up. The ratio of that gear went to the same as the later sj410/sj413 Samurai models.

When I made mine, I had to clearly specify 1984 gear.

But you're right, this is old school-you can buy the gears for way less hassle nowadays.

i built some 4.16 myself and used t/c gears from '86-87-88 SJ410 combined with samurai/413 gears.
any 410 t/c from 84 and up work, I even put the new 4.16 countergear and the low output samurai gear in the SJ 410 t/c and they fit without problem since the t/c are identical.
but i agree there is no point to discuss about this in an us board since the last 410s were imported in your country in '84 (and maybe some in early 85)

Would you like to comment on why the axles are weaker?


410 birfields are smaller than samurai ones

This is an axle thread not another home brew 4:1 case thread .
Read the original question.

This is an axle thread not another home brew 4:1 case thread .
Read the original question.


well duh. thanks for your ever so insightful observation, Sherlock. The rest of us were trying to help/figure out what Frog was gonna do with his skinny little axles and potentially 33" tires, for gearing.

Aside from stating the obvious, add something helpful or piss off.

I am assuming you are the frog that ran in the TTC .
Good luck ...cool project ...please keep us posted.

1. yes, i am :p

2. sure will keep you posted. hope to post pics too.

3. never intended to put lockers in. i'm welding that diff in no time :smokin:

well duh. thanks for your ever so insightful observation, Sherlock. The rest of us were trying to help/figure out what Frog was gonna do with his skinny little axles and potentially 33" tires, for gearing.

Aside from stating the obvious, add something helpful or piss off.
Actually I think I have added something helpful.
Don't get your shit in a knot ...there is like 100 posts about the t-cases and Frog asked about axles ....just trying to keep this on track.
People freaking out like you is why some people won't post their "helpful "information ...tone it down and lets help him out with his questions.

I am running an SJ410 with open diffs 4:6 to1 T-Box and 31x10.5x15 tyres and have found that that is about as much as the 410 axles can take with out being locked.

And i find that i regulary blow diffs and Birfields.

If i was going to 33"frog i would at least go to 413 axles (would be a straight swap) Sammy axles would be a little harder to bung under the 410

Actually I think I have added something helpful.
Don't get your shit in a knot ...there is like 100 posts about the t-cases and Frog asked about axles ....just trying to keep this on track.
People freaking out like you is why some people won't post their "helpful "information ...tone it down and lets help him out with his questions.


no worries. my shit is knotless :D

keeping threads on track is a good thing if they stray too far.

I don't believe learning more about the powertrain prior to said axles, and how to optimally use available gearing for the axle/tire combo in question, is out of line.

Telling everyone that the thread is about axles and not t-cases was insultingly redundant when all the posts were generally trying to be of a helpful nature, contributing to Frog's understanding of Suzukis and not "search dumbass" and "you are stupid to be trying that" etc etc.

I think that you will find that the LJ, SJ410 , SJ 413, Samurai, and SideKick all have the same inner axles in the rear. Same bearing retainer, same spline count, same strength. The only weakness is in the size of the ring and pinion and the carrier. We have used LJ axles with SideKick rear ends for hybrid build ups.

ANYHOW.....Back to your previously discusion about axles and Drivelines:

I'm Stoopid...I completely forgot about the SJ410 series :rolleyes: (Though I have never even seen one in these parts, did the Eastern United States even get the SJ410?)

The sugestion of upgrading to the Toy axles is good, though I think that your trying to keep it on a diet. they may be too heavy for your purpose.

If you know a fabricator there, you could get better axleshafts made up for the front and go to a stronger Birf as well. (modified Toyota perhaps?)

Running lightwiegt rims is ok, but i'd rather run lighter steel over aluminum, those can be pounded out in a pinch if you the bend the bead, cant do that on alluminum.

Run light, skinny tires and rims, that will help alot with the SJ413 axles.

good luck and keep us all up to date on it. :D

no worries. my shit is knotless :D

keeping threads on track is a good thing if they stray too far.

I don't believe learning more about the powertrain prior to said axles, and how to optimally use available gearing for the axle/tire combo in question, is out of line.

Telling everyone that the thread is about axles and not t-cases was insultingly redundant when all the posts were generally trying to be of a helpful nature, contributing to Frog's understanding of Suzukis and not "search dumbass" and "you are stupid to be trying that" etc etc.
Ok ...My bad ...I have seen too many threads go very off topic and fill up with the old "search asshole" remarks ....No insult was intended I just wanted to stick with the question .
The Frogs last rig was great and the fact that he needs info from us is what this site is all about .
It's also neat to see someone going way small instead of way big .
Can't wait to see the build-up thread !!!

This may be sort of off track here, but is the weight of the tire and wheel combination more important than the physical dimensions of the tire as it relates to birf/axle/carrier breakage? If so wouldnt it be best in a competition setting to use the lightest alloy wheel and the tallest lightest tire available with respect to the weight breakage threshold?

Or am I just making shiat up?

I always thought that one could go to a 33" tyre if it is a narrow 33" such as the old BFG 33x9.5x15. The rotational mass is less, surely?
There is always the 235x85x16 BFG MT also. And the TsL 32x9.5x15 too.
These must be lighter and less likely to wreck barfields and axles,than a 12.5" or 14.5" wide tyre, yes?
Paul.

410 birfields are smaller than samurai ones

Are they? That's the answer I was looking for. I knew about the spiders gears, width, spline count but I had never compared the birfields.

The greater the radius of the wheel the more mechanical advantage or leverage the tire has on the axle .
A very light 33" may be easier on the axle than a heavy 32".
So its a combination of both PLUS the amount of friction the tire gets on the surface it is driving on .
This is VERY generalized ....there are many other factors to consider .

I always thought that one could go to a 33" tyre if it is a narrow 33" such as the old BFG 33x9.5x15. The rotational mass is less, surely?
There is always the 235x85x16 BFG MT also. And the TsL 32x9.5x15 too.
These must be lighter and less likely to wreck barfields and axles,than a 12.5" or 14.5" wide tyre, yes?
Paul.

well, actually, no.
there are two relevant factors for a given wheel diameter:
1. the wheel's mass.
2. the wheel's flotation.

although it's true that a wheel should weigh as little as possible, it's more(or at least equally) important that the amount of pressure per sq.inch of tread, will be as low as possible.
therefore, and assuming thattwo wheels weigh the same,the wider tire will produce less stress on the axle than the narrower one.
this is why snow and sand require wider tires - the flotation, or the amount of pressure on the surface, is much smaller. and when the pressure is lower, the lower the stress on the axle.
so it would be the right thing to look for both wide and light tire, and mounte it on the lightest possible rim.

what would you say about the idea (derived from the need for lighter weight and lesser load on those tiny axles), to adapt motorcycle wheels to those axles?!? i think it may work fine and significantly ease the stress on the axles.

...................what would you say about the idea (derived from the need for lighter weight and lesser load on those tiny axles), to adapt motorcycle wheels to those axles?!? i think it may work fine and significantly ease the stress on the axles.

Building a Hub into a motorcycle wheel that will bolt onto a axle is going to be no small feat. not to mention that even spoked rims come close to the wieght of a steel rim. then you have the rim flex issue you get with the higher wieght chassis, then sealing the tire to the rim(use a tube)

I would get narrow cheep rims, and go from there.

As far as what your saying about ground preasure, you are correct about the larger the contact patch, the less wieght you have per sq inch. but when increasing the surface area of the contact patch, the amount of traction increases as well, despite the lower ground preasure. this will make a taller, wider tire into a more effeciant lever, and snap the axle shafts faster than a taller, narrow tire.

Look at Trail Toughs Crab with the eight skinny tires. it produces less traction overall, but maintains less ground presure as well (as long as its on flat ground) best of both worlds in alot of ways.

Just My insight on it is all. :)

i run 33 TSL Thornbirds on stock sammy axles, used to ahve a rear locker and 4.56 gears, stock Tcase.
i beat on it pretty hard a few times, front end a good 2ft in the air comming out of a mud hole. (i hit the bank so hard everything that was not bolted dow up front flew into the back seats), foot to the floor powering out of mud, flying across open fields deeply rutted and lots of deep holes. I havn;t had a real problem on the trail. I have broken stuff on the street (ujoints, and rear R&P). i also run a 1.6 8v.

IMOP I would ru a light weight tire, such as a BFG/MTR on a alloy rim and Toy axles. I know they are heavy but.... I went from samy axles/33 BFG/steel rims yadda yadda at 2600lbs to 35 MTR and alloy rims toy axles and 2400lbs. It's all in the details I lost a heavy bumper and armor to lighter bumpers and armor and still lost 200lbs

Not to mention that if your cage design is light wieght, with toy axles where is your COG going to be? ;)

dual motorcycle wheels


http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/ecars/2000/PiCs37/edge05.jpg

http://www.git.com.au/~theedge/images/buggies/ballistic/ballistic_pines.jpg

http://www.git.com.au/~theedge/buggies_ballistic.htm

i run 33 TSL Thornbirds on stock sammy axles, used to ahve a rear locker and 4.56 gears, stock Tcase.
i beat on it pretty hard a few times, front end a good 2ft in the air comming out of a mud hole. (i hit the bank so hard everything that was not bolted dow up front flew into the back seats), foot to the floor powering out of mud, flying across open fields deeply rutted and lots of deep holes. I havn;t had a real problem on the trail. I have broken stuff on the street (ujoints, and rear R&P). i also run a 1.6 8v.
Thats because you drive mud...the tires can slip a bit .
Go run some rock and lock the front too, then turn a hard right and hammer it .
You will be parked in that very spot for a bit because your front birf will blow all to hell.
The "rock like" traction you get on the street is why your rear end blew.
So you actually told him that no 33's are to big for stock Sammy axles.

I think it depends on what you standards are. If replacing blown ring-n-pinions and birfields doesn't scare you, you can go as high as 35 (at least small 35s, maybe not so much with a true 35 like Interco makes) and still get through a whole run without breakage. But you will need to have spares on hand, and that adds to your weight. This approach is nothing new - Jeeps have needed axles etc. since they started running the 'Con way back in the day. I have tripled my low end torque. I run 35's, I like the light weight, but I am giving up already and going full Toy drivetrain this summer/fall. This is even though I run soft snow at times, and weight can be the difference between making it and not. If you run 33 or larger, you will break things. You can break pretty easy even with 31's and the right conditions. Are you ok with that?

Are you ok with that?

NO :D

OK I see everyones point. But isn't a 9.5" tyre wide for a light little Zook anyway ?
And a radial is also lighter than a Bias normally ?
I am aiming for a 32"x9.5" radial tyre myself. And I hate working on axles etc.
One last thought, on slippery mudlike conditions isn't a real wide tyre going to float too much?
Where I drive, the top of the earth is soft mud, and under that it's hard like ice.
A 10.5" tyre even floats a little too much some times.
.02
Paul.

therefore, and assuming thattwo wheels weigh the same,the wider tire will produce less stress on the axle than the narrower one.


The wider the tire/wheel, the more leverage placed on the hub/spindle. This leverage also contributes to housing bending loads. Ground pressure has everything to do with the surface you intend to ride on. High ground pressure is ok on rocks etc., but not sand or permafrost. For a given ideal ground pressure on ,say...mud, the weight of the vehicle will determine how many sq. in. of tire you want on the road. A 2500# vehicle can have the same, or less, ground pressure on skinnys as a 5000# vehicle on wide tires. Too little ground pressure can cost traction (probably pressure/area/friction). Axle breakage due to twisting is all about, torque/traction/leverage. Big dia. makes for more leverage quick. I think axles break as a combination of flex and twist (at least in Sami's). I've only ever wrung one off from shock load though, guess I'm lucky, MIKE

o.k. guys, here it is:
i started my very light zuki project(yea, i know, i know, where are the pics...they are coming soon enough :D ), and so far i did the following:

- completly removed the body and it's mounts.
- cut the rear of the frame by some 12" to the rear crossmember.
- lowered the engine & the tranny some 10".
- as a result, i was able to get rid of the the small driveshaft connecting the tranny and the t/case, and by that gained another 10". i simply used one of the two u-joints to connect the tranny's yoke directly to the t/case yoke, so now the whole drivetrain is on the same level and it is lower than before.
- i completely dissasembeled the axles and got rid of the drums, calippers and disks.
- i got rid of the handbrake on the t/case, and started to build the mount on which i'm going to fit one of the calippers in. this is because i'm going to use only one pinion brake instead of four brake drums/calippers on all corners(weight, friends, weight).
- i moved the whole drivetrain an additional 8" backwards, in order to get in the end, a 100" wheelbase.

guess what i found out after i reassembeled the rear axle and weighed it?!?!?
it weighs ONLY 70LB!!
would you beleive it??
i guess the front axle without the brakes but with the birfs on, will be a bit heavier, but not by too much.

so, each of my axles with the wheels on, will weigh only about 150lb - i never would or could expect such an astonishing figure, taking into account that i'm used to a beasty Rockwell which weighs(with the 44"s) a freightening number of 900lb!!!!!!!

as soon as i get them pics, i'll post them here.

SHOULD I START A NEW BUILDUP THREAD??

o.k. guys, here it is:
i started my very light zuki project

SHOULD I START A NEW BUILDUP THREAD??


well DUH :flipoff2:



definately sounds like a cool/weird contraption ya got goin on :D


most people used to domestic iron don't believe it when hearing how light most Sammy stuff really is. The look in their eyes when you say you can easily chuck an axle with the pumpkin and brakes still on, over your shoulder and walk over to the rental car to throw it in the trunk like a sack of flour, usually gets :rolleyes: and "ya right"

By your figures aprox 30lbs each, for a mounted tire and wheel? that's pretty darn light....my 7" aluminum wheels and 31" General MT's are 50 lbs when mounted together.

:beer:

By your figures aprox 30lbs each, for a mounted tire and wheel? that's pretty darn light....my 7" aluminum wheels and 31" General MT's are 50 lbs when mounted together.
:beer:

no.
by my figures(based on weighing the stuff):
rear axle w/o brakes = 70lb
one wheel(steel rim + 215x15 tire) = 41lb

total = 2 x 41lb + 70lb = 152lb.

no.
by my figures(based on weighing the stuff):
rear axle w/o brakes = 70lb
one wheel(steel rim + 215x15 tire) = 41lb

total = 2 x 41lb + 70lb = 152lb.




gotcha. I was forgetting there are smaller (and lighter) tires than my 31's :D


boy this must feel wierd for you to be doing. kinda like making a 1/2 scale model RC car :laughing: