Its time for me to start my build thread. I think there might be some interest.
My name is JD. I have been reading up on all the f-toys for a year or 2 now.
I am more into playing in desert then on the rocks. I loved the idea of the F-toy, but i wanted it to be more desert oriented.
This build is mainly for my family to cruise the desert and me to be stupid with a cage around me. My daughter is getting older and my wife is bored sitting around camp while i ride. So this is my build.

92' extracab

Drivetrain - chevy 4.3 (carbed for now)/ t350/ toy doublers w/stock gearing

Total chaos front with C/O's

Most likely Deavers in the rear. I have thought about trailing arms and links but i want to keep this as simple as possible.
I'm looking at 12" in front and 14+ in the rear.

33"s, maybe 35"s. I want the front end to survive. I know a few guys are working on some stout IFS parts right now, but until the tech is there and prices come down i will use the stock stuff. Or I have to replace it.
Anybody need a test mule for your products?!

This is my first attempt at anything this involved. Bear with me. I welcome your input into design, parts, and ideas.
I need this thing to perform well enough to keep up with my buddies mid travel baja!

Sweet!! About time somebody stop talking about doing this and actually did it! :beer: When you get this thing done and are ready for some action shots hit me up! :)

Will do.
I forgot to mention that i am shooting for a 108" - 110" WB.
I am thinking longer is better for the go fast stuff but i do need to keep within the boundries of the f-toy chassis.

Not sure what you are looking at, but Id look at getting the engine decently back in the chassis. FWIW, our ftoy is 106 WB, front axle is forward 4.5" I think, drivetrain back 8", and weight sits at 1600 Front, 1100 Rear.

Personally I would like to see the motor a 22re or 3rz but everything else you have posted sounds right on the mark.

Will you use a fiberglass cab and bed skins ?

Personally I would like to see the motor a 22re or 3vz
Dear god I hope you meant 3rz.:laughing:

Will do.
I forgot to mention that i am shooting for a 108" - 110" WB.
I am thinking longer is better for the go fast stuff but i do need to keep within the boundries of the f-toy chassis.

Mine is looking like right at 116/118", and I can't figure out how to make it shorter :p

DRM are you running a F-4 chassis? I have the regular formula chassis.

I am playing around with chassis placement front to rear. I pushed the chassis back 2"-4" to push the chassis over arch part of the frame. I also layed the front hoop back at the same angle as the "A" piller. I like the way it looks and it gives me room up front.
Here is the problem i am having with running long travel deavers (61.5") long. Even with pushing the chassis back, the front spring hanger would be around 10"+ into the flat part of the frame and the rear spring eye would still extend past the rear chassis bar by a few inches. The extracab frame needs to be sectioned 6"s or the chassis needs about 6"s added to it. Any suggestions? Not sure if i can run shorter springs and get the travel i want.
Or maybe build a tire carrier off the back to cover the fact that the frame extends past the chassis?

How do i seperate the pictures so i can write between them?

Pictures: Sign up for a free account at photobucket.com upload your pictures there, and post them in your thread

IMG]http://yourlinkfromphotobucket.jpg[/IMG] <---use the 'insert picture button'

Sorry for the bad light, but hopefully you get the idea for a frenched hanger like this.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd26/rockbuggyguy/e6925f73.jpg

Here is a better picture of a frenched rear hanger...

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy4/Mcrowe04/DSCF2505.jpg

DRM are you running a F-4 chassis? I have the regular formula chassis.

Nope, regular formula chassis as well.

Sell the 2 seater and get a 4 seater. You're going to need the extra room for a large fuel cell, pumper, and all the other stuff you'll need for KOH. Then configure so you can swap in a bench for the family.

Sell the 2 seater and get a 4 seater. You're going to need the extra room for a large fuel cell, pumper, and all the other stuff you'll need for KOH. Then configure so you can swap in a bench for the family.

This /\
The 4 seater is about 12inches longer. The extra room is so worth it and it would solve the frame length issue. You should have no problem keeping up with the bugs...well maybe. Those things are crazy! Remember to keep it light weight. I would push the engine back as far as you can. Better front to rear weight balance.


My 2 seater Ftoy is at 112.5 wb. The rear shackle is on the outside of the chassis. Look just behind the tire in this shot and you can barely see the shackle.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d3/jedrattle/2010%20Rocktoberfest/150.jpg

Do you have a shot of your spring mounts? How long are your springs?

I am playing around with chassis placement front to rear. I pushed the chassis back 2"-4" to push the chassis over arch part of the frame. I also layed the front hoop back at the same angle as the "A" piller. I like the way it looks and it gives me room up front.
Here is the problem i am having with running long travel deavers (61.5") long. Even with pushing the chassis back, the front spring hanger would be around 10"+ into the flat part of the frame and the rear spring eye would still extend past the rear chassis bar by a few inches. The extracab frame needs to be sectioned 6"s or the chassis needs about 6"s added to it. Any suggestions?

I think I understand what you are trying to do. Here's a few suggestions.

I assume you moved that chassis back so you could better line up the front tire with the chassis for tire clearance. That's ok. I would shorten the front of the frame after you got the steering box in so it's not sticking out soo much.

If you need to shorten the x-tra cab frame anyway, you might consider sectioning out a piece in the middle where the rails are parallel instead of cutting the back off. This way the arch of the rear frame stays in the correct spot. Actually, you could do both. set the arch of the frame where you want it compared to the axle placement, section and bob the frame to make it perfect.

I wouldn't worry about the rear springs hanging over the frame a couple inches. you can take care of that by using fabricated shackles like this.

If you need to shorten the x-tra cab frame anyway, you might consider sectioning out a piece in the middle where the rails are parallel instead of cutting the back off. This way the arch of the rear frame stays in the correct spot. Actually, you could do both. set the arch of the frame where you want it compared to the axle placement, section and bob the frame to make it perfect.

I started with an xtracab frame (standard 2-seater chassis) and wish I'd have simply lopped off the extra length off the back. It would have been easier to fit back seats with the framerail arch farther back.

I haven't seen any FToys--or Toy trucks for that matter--where the axle tube gets anywhere close to the framerail--it seems like most of us run out of stuff when we flex and the tire hits the frame/chassis.

Does anyone use their full rear arch for vertical compression?

I haven't seen any FToys--or Toy trucks for that matter--where the axle tube gets anywhere close to the framerail--it seems like most of us run out of stuff when we flex and the tire hits the frame/chassis.

Does anyone use their full rear arch for vertical compression?

This brings up a good question. 112, do you plan on mounting your axle under the leaf springs on top. I would consider spring under if you are going for wheel travel.

....and spring-under for antiwrap! :smokin:

Desertoy,
I plan on a spring under setup. Jeff at deaver suggested a 10" shackle mounted on top of the frame. He said it should give me 14"-17" of travel. I want to set it up like a prerunner. Does toolboxguy make any longer travel shackles? I like his design and i think they would hold up better in the rocks as compared to the total chaos style.

Desertoy,
I plan on a spring under setup. Jeff at deaver suggested a 10" shackle mounted on top of the frame. He said it should give me 14"-17" of travel. I want to set it up like a prerunner. Does toolboxguy make any longer travel shackles? I like his design and i think they would hold up better in the rocks as compared to the total chaos style.




I'll make you whatever you want, as long as you're patient with how slow I am.:D

And by the way, I stole the shackle design years ago, so it really isn't mine.:laughing:

I haven't seen any FToys--or Toy trucks for that matter--where the axle tube gets anywhere close to the framerail--it seems like most of us run out of stuff when we flex and the tire hits the frame/chassis.

Does anyone use their full rear arch for vertical compression?

Pretty much impossible to get near the frame once you move up over 35" tall tires, IMHO.

Get on up into 39-40" territory and there's no way.

I still can;t figure out how you guys are getting your wheelbase so short with big tires :p

I'll make you whatever you want, as long as you're patient with how slow I am.:D

And by the way, I stole the shackle design years ago, so it really isn't mine.:laughing:

All of that type of shackle I have seen have been yours, so you are getting the blame:flipoff2:

All kidding aside, get with ToolBox Guy and tell him what you want, then be patient. He will design and build you exactly what you need, mabey better.

:) 106" with 36's :smokin:

And by the way, I stole the shackle design years ago, so it really isn't mine.:laughing:


I designed them for ftoy #001 and had them built by Nick Cone :smokin:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176473&highlight=formula+toyota+001

they work well for all the reasons posted.

allows a longer spring
lowers ride heights
provides a ramp when backing into a rock
keeps the spring from caming under when you back into something
but mostly just looks cool :laughing:

I designed them for ftoy #001 and had them built by Nick Cone :smokin:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176473&highlight=formula+toyota+001

they work well for all the reasons posted.

allows a longer spring
lowers ride heights
provides a ramp when backing into a rock
keeps the spring from caming under when you back into something
but mostly just looks cool :laughing:









How do you think I came up with this? From studying that buggy, and a little help from John James :laughing:

I always loved that FToy.

How do you think I came up with this? From studying that buggy, and a little help from John James :laughing:

I always loved that FToy.

Huh, I always thought you stole that design from Jerry :p. That's what I was told.:flipoff2:

I dig the concept and it looks like you are off to a good start. By the time you buy deavers and good shocks you may as well link it. It's really not that hard if you skip the trailing arms with shocks mounted to them and just do a 4link with the shocks on the axle. I also vote for a prerunner/class1 style bumper to go with those fenders.

Nice to see another rig being built here in Simi, I would love to check it out sometime.



.

Cool to see this build happening...

X2 on the linked rear set-up.

I am starting to lean that way (links or trailing arm type setup). It looks like thats the easiest way to get my axle placed where i need it.
My plan was to build this in the spirit of the Formula Toy concept. Just in a prerunner/ IFS style. Thats why i wanted to run the leafs. But i guess i did away with that when i picked up the chevy drivetrain.
Can someone educate me on how a 4 link setup (shocks on the axle)would perform as opposed to a training arm setup (shocks on the arms)? How would the travel be?
How would a pre made 4 link setup work from one of the after market guys?

the main reason for running the shocks on the links is that you are leveraging them so you get more wheel travel than you have shock travel. An example would be a trophy truck with 30" of wheel travel, It is not practical to build a 30" travel shock so they would run an 18" travel shock 60% of the way down the trailing arm. The downside to this is that because you are leveraging the shocks you have to increase the valving which creates more heat. Unless you want more than 18" of wheel travel you are better off mounting your shocks to the axle which makes linking your rig much more simple.

With the front suspension at the 13" travel range you do not need and actually do not want much more then 17" of travel in the rear at most.

Your goal should be to build a well balanced rig and matching the weight to horsepower and having the travel to match is what you are after.

You can get all the travel to meet your current design with leafs.

With the front suspension at the 13" travel range you do not need and actually do not want much more then 17" of travel in the rear at most.

Your goal should be to build a well balanced rig and matching the weight to horsepower and having the travel to match is what you are after.

You can get all the travel to meet your current design with leafs.

I agree with not needing more that 17" of travel and while it can be done with leafs it not easy. I ran a 1450 truck with 17" of travel on rear leafs and it took very long, very expensive springs to do it and they still broke almost every race. If we hadn't had to keep the leafs to meet the class rules we would have linked it in a heartbeat.

Sure he could meet his current design goals with leafs, he could also get 13" of front travel out of a leaf sprung solid axle front end or power it with a 66HP Samurai motor and still have it move across the desert.......but he is not.



.

If this build was intended to be raced then sure links would be a requirement but it is a family play car.

Links would be cool but absolutely unnecessary.

Set them us so they do not negative arch and they will last the life of the car.

I still need to talk to the guys at deaver. I really don't want any frame Hanging past the back of the chassis. If I was to run the deaver 62"s the rear shackle would be around 6" past the rear chassis and the front hanger would be around 10" to 14" into the flat part of the frame. This would also put the axle right were the frame starts to arch up limiting the up travel. They said they could build me what ever I need. I just need to get them some measurements or bring it down to them and see what they can do.
With links I could put the axle where it needs to go. Chime in and correct me, but wouldnt the price be within $500 depending on shocks?

I agree on not designing it so the leafs extent past the frame, simply because it looks dumb.

If you are having custom springs made they can put the center pin that locates the axle where ever you like.

As far as cost, depends on What componts you are using, heat treated links and top grade joints are obviously more expensive then poop pipe and tractor joints. Like wise custom springs cost considerably more then junk yard take offs. Personally I would build it the way you think is cool, the initial build cost will long be forgotten and you don't want to end up with something that is not what you wanted.

for what your paying for a custom set of deavers, youll be able to buy all the stuff you need to link it. a 12" coilover and 14" bypass on the link and youll be good to go. seems a waste to put all this effort and then put leaves on the rear.

from ruffstuff
7/8 on both ends of the uppers will be around $130
1-1/4 on the lowers will be $260

did the frenched deaver thing ... without a significant amount of arch youre not going to get much uptravel. constantly kickin myself for not linking my truck

The fox internal bypass coil over would be a better option for this build and save you a heap of cash over separates. :smokin:

Please keep it leaf in the rear. For an all around trail rig, leafs are great. When you load all your $hit in it to go to the Rubicon, Coilovers suck.

Don't take the easy route. Step up and see what you can accomplish with leafs.

The fox internal bypass coil over would be a better option for this build and save you a heap of cash over separates. :smokin:
what size springs those things run? couldnt find an answer on the net.

are they externally adjustable?

what size springs those things run? couldnt find an answer on the net.

are they externally adjustable?

Search is your friend!!:flipoff2:

what size springs those things run? couldnt find an answer on the net.

are they externally adjustable?

What ever sixe spring you need I suppose. :laughing:

depends on the shock younger running. When I was down at their skunk works lab shooting the fox factory tour for pirate4x4 tv. I saw everything from 2" utv to 5" military applications.

No not externally adjustable, hence the name..... Internal bypass. :smokin:

Because they are also a coil carrier the valving is all on the inside but just like an external you have separate zones that can be indvidually setup and adjusted. It isna slick ( and patented ) design.

What ever sixe spring you need I suppose. :laughing:

depends on the shock younger running. When I was down at their skunk works lab shooting the fox factory tour for pirate4x4 tv. I saw everything from 2" utv to 5" military applications.

No not externally adjustable, hence the name..... Internal bypass. :smokin:

Because they are also a coil carrier the valving is all on the inside but just like an external you have separate zones that can be indvidually setup and adjusted. It isna slick ( and patented ) design.
so to effectively run a 2.5" bypass hes going to be needing a 3.63" ID spring and is now severely limited in rates and lengths. check polys site and its $800 for a 2.5, which im guessing gives you an effective dampening diameter of 2.0. 2.0 aint going to cut it.

while cool, having to disassembly the shock to make adjustments is fundamentally retarded.

a used 2.0 coil over (theres a set in the classifieds in the for $500, in simi valley of all places), which opens up a large selections of springs and he could buy brand new bypasses (650 for 2.5s or 1100 for 3.0s - prices from polyperformance as a baseline) and still be money ahead due to the cost of springs.

Since the subject of coilovers is going on, if i were to link it what size coilover should i run? 2.0, 2.5? I know i said I was building a family buggy but if my daughter isn't in it I want get on it!

Since the subject of coilovers is going on, if i were to link it what size coilover should i run? 2.0, 2.5? I know i said I was building a family buggy but if my daughter isn't in it I want get on it!
do you plan on running a bypass?

Eventually as money permits. I have a feeling this build will go in stages.
I just spent my shock budget on a termite treatment!

id go with a 16" 2.5 up the link a little. then when money permits replace the c/o with a bypass and then put a 14" 2.0 coil carrier infront of it.

FYI, you need to disassemble external bypasses to change the initial valving just the same as an internal bypass.

An external allows a degree of fine tunning externally but you still need to take them apart to set the main valving setup.

It may take an extra time or two of disassembly to dial in and nail the internal bypass but during a day of testing doesn't really amount to much extra work.

Worth the effort if packaging and simplicity is a goal. Only having one shock per wheel is a often a major benefit. Maybe more so in the front of manynrigs where 2 shocks just will not fit.

Top

I was reading through the F-toy KOH thread and thought about this build. Did it ever get finished? Any updates?

Top

I was reading through the F-toy KOH thread and thought about this build. Did it ever get finished? Any updates?

I haven't finished. I built the mounts for the engine, tranny and transfer case. So they are finally in the frame. Also clearancing the oil pan away from the IFS front dif.
I moved into a new house last august that needs work. Most of the funds are being put into the house. Very little toy money!

My goal is to get it done by this October. I might have to revise my plans a little.