NAS 90 #407

Ash

Ash

0
madcowdungbeetle said:
My plan is to do coil overs for packaging purposes, and I always thought the SG Stage IV D90 (Brendon Loveday's rig) was super cool, so I wanna go that direction... and #407's frame has taken a beating, so it's not like I'm violating a sacred clean NAS 90 frame. The frame needs some repairs.

Also, thanks for that pic, that does give me a frame of reference to work with.
Click to expand...

I could give a shit about cutting up a NAS, that comment was solely in the context of time, complexity and expense. 10-12" of fully usable travel front and rear is attainable with coil springs, so unless you really need the tunability that coilovers offer, I do see them as unnecessary on a mid-travel build. To echo @Robert, sometimes less is more and you may reach a point where you wish you'd bitten off less, especially if you're building this with limited resources. Just something to consider. It'll be a cool build whatever the case, I'll be watching for sure.
 
M

madcowdungbeetle

0
Ash said:
I could give a shit about cutting up a NAS, that comment was solely in the context of time, complexity and expense. 10-12" of fully usable travel front and rear is attainable with coil springs, so unless you really need the tunability that coilovers offer, I do see them as unnecessary on a mid-travel build. To echo @Robert, sometimes less is more and you may reach a point where you wish you'd bitten off less, especially if you're building this with limited resources. Just something to consider. It'll be a cool build whatever the case, I'll be watching for sure.
Click to expand...
I know what you meant :) and I do agree some of my plans are overkill, but I want to have some fun with this build, and my tune may change along the way to err on the side of simplicity.

This project is going to be largely done in SolidWorks first. I'm starting to explore some 3D scanner options now that they're prices are in the realm of reality, and I think they are a handy tool to have, even though my measuring skills are on point these days, haha.

My partner and I are currently house shopping. As soon as we find the right place and I get a shop set up on the property (if it doesn't already have one) then I will begin the build in earnest. Till then it's SolidWorks only. The last thing I want to have to do is to move an exploded truck and I don't want to start the build until I have all the parts in hand. I want to be able to go start to finish, without having intermittent shopping and shipping breaks. They are total momentum killers.

Also, I really appreciate your input on this, and when it comes to getting the engine and wiring setup, I'll be reaching out for your expertise.
 
Last edited:
Robert

Robert

0
I think I've got about half of my disco modeled in cad. Speaking from experience, once you buy that house you won't have time for unnecessary drafting.
 
M

madcowdungbeetle

0
Just a quick exercise in SolidWorks for the sake of science. It looks like the SD60 could work in theory, packaging to @Ash's point will be TIGHT, and you're going to be restricted to some kind of 3-link. The HP44 D50 setup @KW1985def110 suggested would definitely free up some room. I'm not sure about room in the vertical at the moment and what kind of ride height/up travel would be achievable. I need to take some measurements off the 90. I modeled the axle at 67.5" WMS so its an apples to apples comparison with @Ash's setup. If I do go this route, I'll probably bump it out slightly wider, but that's a personal taste call. 67.5" is pretty much the absolute minimum width you could run with the SD60 stuff.

For context: CO's are 2.5" Kings, bumps stops are 2" Kings, and the "bracket" is for a standard 2.625" wide cartridge joint like a Johnny Joint at 0.25" bracket thickness, pink lines are factory frame width.
 

Attachments

  • HP1.JPG
    HP1.JPG
    76.7 KB · Views: 14
  • HP2.JPG
    HP2.JPG
    65.4 KB · Views: 13
  • HP3.JPG
    HP3.JPG
    118.1 KB · Views: 13
  • HP4.JPG
    HP4.JPG
    88 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Ash

Ash

0
Yeah, and with that tiny amount of tube on the passenger side you need to package a link bracket, panhard bracket, bump pad, sway bar endlink and coil over mount. Personally I’d throw the shock tabs up on the C to get some angle to the shocks and free up some room. Keep in mind with a 3 link you need to account for axle swing and you don’t want the shocks to go negative angle at full droop. So yeah…it’s tight. The center forging on mine has been milled to cheat a little extra room for a flat surface to stick a bump pad on. That may be a possibility with the 60 as well.

IMG_9217.jpeg
IMG_9245.jpeg
 
Ash

Ash

0
madcowdungbeetle said:
@Ash, I am curious how you tied in your panhard mount and how you have your upper link located at the frame. The narrow frame rails on the Defenders don't make things easy.
Click to expand...

You’re in for a really fun time trying to find room for links with that LS lol. The Cummins exhaust dumps on the passenger side so the entire drivers side frame rail is clear and there’s heaps of room for an upper.

You may want to consider something like a parallel four link or a modified radius arm where you can keep everything outboard of the frame rails. I’ve seen guys flip a manifold and wrap one side of the exhaust around the front of the oil pan to free up some space but I still think you’re in for a packaging nightmare if you want to keep ride height low. The upper bracket on my axle uses every bit of free space between the frame rail and oil pan when I cycle the suspension.

I went to a P38 box and just placed my own panhard mount at the frame. I didn’t want to get too in the weeds on fabrication, so my goal was to use off the shelf brackets for all of my suspension mounts. I think TMR offered a panhard bracket that just barely fit in the space I had on the axle.

IMG_7456.jpeg
IMG_9210.jpeg


IMG_7302.jpeg
 
Last edited:
KW1985def110

KW1985def110

Well-known member
For the modified radius arms below is one of a few options,

adrenalin4x4.co.uk

Extended and Johnny Jointed front radius arms for Defender, Discovery 1 and Range Rover Classic models

Made to order, lead time 5 working days. Measurement from customer required from centre of Johnny joint to centre of first axle bush. Requires fitment of chassis boxes and trimming of bulkhead outrigger on Defender chassis.
adrenalin4x4.co.uk adrenalin4x4.co.uk

If your heart is set on a 3-link, consider 69-70” WMS. It’s not that big of a jump and buys you significant room. I think the V8 exhaust issues Ash mentioned are going to be your biggest hurdle.

Another axle option if you have badass fab skills, is a ford 9” axle. Bonus that it is not a cast housing. See below for some inspiration, (sorry to the nas-row forum gods for linking to an outside forum)

Junkyard 609 axles

I built a set of junkyard 609 housings recently and couldn’t find much info on the topic before hand. In general and on the combo of parts I wanted to use in particular. So this is my attempt to add tech for anyone out there wanting to do something like this on their own. Just a quick...
irate4x4.com irate4x4.com
 
M

madcowdungbeetle

0
KW1985def110 said:
If your heart is set on a 3-link, consider 69-70” WMS. It’s not that big of a jump and buys you significant room. I think the V8 exhaust issues Ash mentioned are going to be your biggest hurdle.

Another axle option if you have badass fab skills, is a ford 9” axle. Bonus that it is not a cast housing. See below for some inspiration, (sorry to the nas-row forum gods for linking to an outside forum)
Click to expand...

69-70” WMS is where I will likely end up. 69” has been the number in my head for a while. I want to make sure the 90 could fit between the fenders of a trailer for long trips. Never been out to Moab, really would love to make that trip.

I love the idea of a 9-60 or 609, I’ve actually modeled a set F&R in the past. My only issue is the real lack of a high pinion option that isn’t a super expensive bespoke solution.

My only real concern in this whole project is the V8 exhaust and routing for the exact reasons mention, but I have a few ideas I’m kicking around in my head.
 
Ash

Ash

0
Rwollschlager said:
having zero fab skills and zero first hand knowledge personally here, but why are 80 series axles off the table? Won ton diffs hang lo mein
Click to expand...
Width, or really lack of, is probably the biggest drawback with the 80 axles. They’re a great option for a mild-ish truck if you want a near bulletproof solution but a wider track width really opens up a lot of breathing room when you start running bigger tires and longer travel suspension.
 
Ash

Ash

0
Yeah. hurry up. I need inspiration to finish mine.

What’s your plan for rear suspension geometry?
 
M

madcowdungbeetle

0
So I honestly haven't given much thought to the rear just because that's probably the easiest and most straightforward part of this whole project in terms of spatial constraints.

If I had to tell you my exact plans right now I'd say I'm leaning towards a 4-link with AS around 70% or so ensuring that at no point in the travel the AS exceeds 95%.

Beyond that I want to get the lower links as flat as I reasonably can without a major sacrifice in ground clearance and I'll triangulate the lowers a bit as well given the extra axle width I'll be working with.

Also I plan to run a torsion style sway bar in the rear to keep body roll in check.
 
Tbaumer

Tbaumer

Technical Excellence Contributor
Reading this conversation is like listening to a foreign language. Huge respect for those who have the skills & confidence to redesign the entire suspension. I can't say I'm learning anything, but it going to be fun watching it come together!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top