26th July 2010, 19:06
| #196 |
| BHPian  Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pretoria
Posts: 39
Thanked: Once
|  Yes - That is the Thar that I am busy building in South Africa. It is fitted with 31*11.5*16 Maxis Mudzillas with a 65mm body lift! The Mags is a different PCD - I had adaptor plates made as those is standard for a Toyota Land Cruiser in SA -I wanted to fit those as we dont get 8" wide for Mahindra Last edited by Wild_Card : 26th July 2010 at 19:23. |
|
| |
|
26th July 2010, 20:41
| #197 | |
| Senior - BHPian  | Quote:
| |
|
|
|
26th July 2010, 20:54
| #198 |
| Team-BHP Support   Join Date: May 2004 Location: Bangalore
Posts: 19,462
Thanked: 12,696 Times
| Superb mods, could you share more details with the pictures of modification stuff please? |
|
|
|
26th July 2010, 21:03
| #199 |
| Senior - BHPian  | Hi Spike, Sorry I joined the party late. This Thar justifies the title of the thread and not what was displayed in the 2010 Delhi Auto show. With a original 540/ 550 shell and minimalistic cosmetics done, makes it international stageworthy . The GC the tryes have given it the look of a MAN'S JEEP and not a SISSY bling Jeep. Add to it a winch, a huge spare on the tail, a rugged looking roll bar, a thick antenna, a smart soft top, ac and the option of a FRP top. There was never a question on my mind of what it could deliver in the first minute of my 2009 test drive, what further test drives unfolded is there for all to see and some select few did. Spike, the little-lot like on this Thar needs to be done for turning heads. Not that you should roll it out with these exact tyres.... but you get the drift right? Why wasn't the Thar displayed at the Hyderabad Auto show this month when Mahindra had a stall displaying Bolero, Logan etc....if only this Thar would be there as it is with its hood wide open for all to see what runs it, the response would be beyond anybody's expectations. Regards, Thar could share the stage with big brands...... but?  |
|
|
|
26th July 2010, 21:30
| #200 |
| Senior - BHPian | Spike, The front articulation on IFS is huge, how much did the 65mm body lift contribute to this factor?  |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 08:58
| #201 |
| Distinguished - BHPian   | Spike, Any reason why the Army type front fender extension was discontinued in favour of the pick-up type. I feel the Army type as on the legend and on my 540 is a much nicer looking front fender extension than the pick up type on the Thar. |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 09:08
| #202 | |
| Senior - BHPian  Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Germany
Posts: 2,779
Thanked: 1,138 Times
| Quote:
Spike | |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 10:33
| #203 | |
| Senior - BHPian | Quote:
Hypothetically, lets say if anti roll /Stabilizer bar control and arm bump stops are not removed...would this articulation be possible on the stock setup, on just the 65mm body lift? Regards, | |
|
|
| |
|
27th July 2010, 10:57
| #204 |
| Senior - BHPian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Germany
Posts: 2,779
Thanked: 1,138 Times
| Good Morning Sir, The body lift provides room for the wheel travel (up/down motion). The articulation offered by the front wheels is in no way a function of the body lift. As you know the wheel travel is about to change (taking into consideration the tyre factor also), you must have a provision for this to happen, a very simple way of doing this is by changing the envelope around the wheels. Body lift helps in achieving the same. Articulation is always a function of the suspension components/wheel ends. Spike PS- This is the precise reason why Army fenders are different. |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 11:56
| #205 |
| BHPian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pretoria
Posts: 39
Thanked: Once
| Hi Guys, I enjoy your replies as I can see you guys are very sharp to detail. The body lift does not help in any way with the wheel atricilation as it is only effected by the suspension, I have lifted the body to ensure there is enough space for the bigger wheels. Yes, I did remove the front anti-roll bar to get more wheel travel - as the IFS (idependent front suspension) The other option is to modify the front bump stops - this also will supply more wheel travel - but one needs to be very carefull as the front travel is limited to the CV-joint angles, if you try to get to much travel - the CV joints will break. I dont have more pictures, but wil try to take a few over the weekend. |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 12:30
| #206 |
| Distinguished - BHPian | @spikek: You are right that articulation is a factor/function of suspension travel, but in the case of Thar we have seen it being limited due to the tire fowling with the front fender. Guess in this sense the Thar can do better as the articulation is no longer hindered by the tires hitting the fender. |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 13:06
| #207 |
| BHPian Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: New Delhi
Posts: 124
Thanked: 18 Times
| Errrrr Hi Spike, Come September....  I keep hearing this tune and then it gets drowned by the roar of a jeep.Heh heh |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 14:36
| #208 | |
| Senior - BHPian  | Quote:
Just curious about the bump stops...have you removed them? I am referrring to the circled spots in the below images. Lower arm stopper  Upper arm stopper  | |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 15:33
| #209 |
| BHPian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Pretoria
Posts: 39
Thanked: Once
| You are refering to the right stops, if you shorten the bottum stopper your wheel will travel higher up, in other words closer to your body, the problem here is that the gap between the tyre and the fender. That is why I have done the body lift, to increase this. The the top bump stop - We fit a different bump stop in SA, it is a lot smaller than the standard one that is in your vehicle. See the attached docs, but like I mentioned - the danger here if you cut these to much, the CV`s might not be handle the extra travel. |
|
|
|
27th July 2010, 18:43
| #210 |
| BHPian  | No expert here but wouldn't Spring suspension aka pata suspension be better & sturdy than the jeep being on air i.e IFS The ride would be stiff however tougher ..... Cheers |
|
|
