A modern day K5?

[ZombieBlazer]

"

Your making the assumption that traffic can and will travel at different speeds because it always has. I am making the assumption that all traffic should travel at the same speed. Its really not hard to do.

You are assuming though that that had something to do with speed limits or that it could be changed.. as I said.. cars are going to go different speeds even if they all wanted to drive the same speed. You have cars coming on and off the highway at different speeds.. that is likely what accounts for the statistic you mention.

Lemme just say a couple of things.

You say design is your strong point. Well a car designed by a designer with very little practical mechnical knowledge will be a terrible car ( not a dig at you at all sorry if it came off like that)

I disagree.. we have a TON of history to draw from... and you can copy what others have done.. It's been done before it's just for the reasons I mentioned the manufacturers choose not to do it.

Also.. I'm not just a guy who likes drawing pretty pictures. I have some knowledge of engineering.. but I am not a very experienced mechanic. But that's why I am looking for people who could and would want to help. Just because that isn't you doesn't mean someone isn't out there.. maybe someone isn't but hopefully I'll see..

Just like a car designed by a mechanic would probably be terrible to look at.

I don't think so I think many mechanics have made cool cars and designers have made great cars too. Look at Gordon Murray...

One of the points I am trying to make is you are making assumptions based on your own ideas.

Rome wasn't built in a day my friend..

I have friends who love working on newer cars ( talking 2010 or newer) why? According to them they are so simple to work on. Plug in your laptop it tells you whats up. Fix it. Simple as that.

For not a ton of money you can get an extra 100 hp out of an engine and make it better no fuel.

Aftermarket modifications are something OEM guys don't care about at all. If there is money to be made selling some of the stuff then they will but no OEM ever said, will this make it easy for some Joe Schmo to modify?

I actually in principle agree with what most of what you say. But in the practical world alot of it just doesn't add up.

If you were to open source a 4x4 and the main contributors were hard core rockcrawlers and rock bouncers, well it would be way way different than if the main contributors were expedition wheelers.

What if it was people who wanted a horse.. horses used to be pretty good sellers.. sometimes we lose track of what we really want or need.. sometimes what's old is new again..

That is actually the main reason I see an open source type of vehicle just not being able to work on a less expensive rig. Too many different wants.

Look at the freakin population though... haha That Jonathan Ward said we are entering an era that makes it possible for him to do what he does.. o customize vehicles. He said he couldn't have done it before. I think he could take that same technology and do what i want but he just hasn't realized it yet.. because he is caught up in the nonsense that is in vogue...

Everyone wants a truck that can pull, go anywhere, get 30 mpg, is cheap, easy to work on etc. But its just not a reality.

It IS tho.. the issue is the rules the manufacturers have to deal with and that they want to make a ton of money and want us to keep buying cars.. it's been done man.. the VW did it! We are the perfect group to do it for again.. we spend much more effort and money than would be necessary to make the vehicle we want IMO..

Even on an open source type of thing you have specific things that specific people want, that others simply don't want.

Look at the bug though... and our own Blazers.. it's a blank canvas that we can make anything we want out of.. this should be the target...

Kind of the beauty of the aftermarket.

I want you to go and find some history books on the design of cars in the 50s. I will see if I can find some titles for you.

I have read alot about the history of the car. Easy to work on had to be back in the day because the vehicles broke down alot.

Newer vehicles don't have to easy to work on because they really don't break down very much.

The designers has the same philosophy back then as now. You are feeding a bit too much into the every corporation is evil and controlling us mindset.

I agree with you.. it's not so much evil etc.. they have to compete with each other.. in some ways they are very efficient.. but in some ways it's a complete joke too. And cars are so different.. why can't someone make a car that stays the same.. this is what I am talking about by divide and conquer... this has to be the case though to maintain a competitive market. IF everyone bought the came vehicle it would be a monopoly and it would be abused. That is the beauty of a open source vehicle...

I have to address this statement. I don't think someone who has never worked on cars would work on their car just cause it was easy to do so. The vast majority of people out there work on their cars out of necessity.

True.. but everyone isn't off roaders... do you think most off roaders would work on their vehicles if it was made more easy to do? But also how many don't do it because that is just how our society works and they have it ingrained that you don't work on your vehicle?

Shoot I work on cars out of necessity.

Society as a whole needs a huge paradigm shift to self reliance. We simply are not a self reliant people anymore.

I totally agree.

Like I said I really really like the principle of what your saying.

I think the best thing for you to do from a design standpoint is start looking way outside the automotive world. Look at other technology see how they can apply to what you want to do.

The answer to your question of how to do this is not in the automotive realm. It could be if you want it to cost a 100k but for something cheap that is also reliable, and durable, your gonna want to look around and incorporate new ideas into this.

But we already do it.. even if we take the chassis and then slightly modify the drivetrain and build our own bodies.. I think it would be advantage to the way we do things now...

I think the key is to make our vehicles lighter than the old Blazers we use now but to make the drivetrain smaller but tougher.. IS there a high torque engine that isn't a v8?

What I would maybe like to try is to combine the philosophies of the VW Thing and a Blazer... in that you have the light weight like the Thing.. a lightweight strong simply made body... and a lightweight but very tough chassis and drivetrain.

I think the VW thing is too light and not 4 wheel drive.. the Blazer is to heavy. By combining philosophies of each and using a old school mentality I think you could have the perfect vehicle.

I have another idea of how we could do this.. make the perfect off road vehicle.. people may not like it though.. haha.. And it will sound counter intuitive but I think it would be revolutionary...

I think the real solution could be a hybrid dravetrain for off road use...

Imagine a vehicle that had a diesel driven set of wheels and wheel motors on the other wheels. This way you wouldn't need a transfer case... yet you would still have 4x4 drive. I think having an electric drive like this would give you so many possibilities when off road. And your engine could charge the elctrical system while you were slowly crawling along over rocks etc.

Now people might think adding a electrical system would make things overly complex but I think it would be better than relying on a differential and the more complex drivetrain.

But it's just an idea..

Has anyone heard anything recently about hybrids being used offroad. There used to be Hummer that used a system like this..

 

[Greg72]

After more than a month and 4000+ views of this thread, it's becoming clear that your "open source 4x4" idea isn't interesting to anyone but you.

Personally, I think the whole idea full of contradictions and false assumptions about what people really want, and the concept is SO nebulous and undefined that it's impossible to nail down any tangible detail as a starting point.

For example, what is the budget? You mentioned that $10,000 is too much money for this project (even though you want it to be your daily driver as well). So WHAT is the price target? $50.... $500.....$5000? If you can't establish budget then every possible material (from carbon-fiber to plywood) are still fair game.

Second, what is your time worth? What value do you place on other people's time? One of the things that bugs me the most about where this thread has gone is an underlying implication that a "community" would need to spend literally thousands of man-hours coming up with designs and ideas for you to use for yourself. It's not as if you have provided a detailed framework for the project where people can contribute specific technology ideas... The discussion is very vague and open-ended. So it sounds more like a long daydreaming session than a workable project plan.

My suggestion is to invest some of your own time and write up a detailed specification so people can decide if they are still interested enough to contribute their time to the project.


-G

 

[MrSchaeferPants]

Two things about reliability and old vehicles.

1) design was simpler. Less to go wrong. But ride quality suffered. A Blazer with a straight axle with leaf springs doesn't have as many 'soft' parts that move and can fail. It's a stronger, simpler design. But it rides like a truck. Which of course I like, but most don't.

And to bring up the VW analogies again. Simple design. The standards used a front beam, the super's used a modern macpherson strut design. The standard's front beam was a solid tube of metal, with link pins and shocks. The Supers is had control arms, idler and pitman arms, struts and springs. It rode nicer, turned sharper. But you can't make bajas out of them like you can the standard. They also had no cooling system, no power steering, no power brakes, no vacuum components. Just less to go wrong.

2)old vehicles have lasted longer because they were taken care of, and had to be taken care of. My very first car was an 86 Cutlass Supreme Brougham with 36,000 miles, it was my step grandmothers. She bought it new, and had every receipt for every part and every service. You know your owners manual that has each scheduled maintenance? Yup, she did them all, on time, w/o fail.

No one does that anymore. You buy a brand new car, no one repacks bearings, changes tranny oil, changes out the fluid in the diff. They drive it 120k miles and trade it in. Then BAM all of that lack of maintenance catches up at once to owner 2 or 3.

 

[Renntag]

more diesel power !

... those Germans were crazy like foxes..
Look at this...

This is a VW Thing turned into a off road machine..

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/general-chit-chat/683089d1341850839-vw-thing-dez1.jpg

Now that is a sweet machine. If it were only diesel powered, I'd be seeking it out for sure.

 

[Mastiff]

Yeah, I have become disenchanted with "simple" a little bit. I got a 65 Scout and rebuilt every piece of it. I do like how simple it is, and that I was able to understand every system. But now I'm sort of done and I never drive it because it's simply outdated. It's scary over 55 mph, it has an all-drum single reservoir brake system that is a potential death trap, it's underpowered, and is hard to drive in traffic due to lack of synchro-mesh in 1st and reverse. Plus the old carb makes it hard to start, hard to drive until it's warmed up, etc. It also had literally no seat belts at all, though I put in lap belts in the front. Any serious accident and the driver will be impaled on the steering wheel, and everyone will be crushed in a rollover.

So, I agree that simplicity is cool, except when it's not. Funny thing is, I rewired the entire vehicle and even with almost no systems, I was amazed how many wires ended up in the harness. You'd still have the same wire ID problem with that Scout as I do with my K5 after not looking at it for a few years.

Stuff you end up "needing" just piles on the complexity. Power steering, modern brakes, better fuel delivery, modern transmission, EFI, enough power to get around on modern roads. Plus the whole thing can't shake and vibrate at 80 mph. I try to keep my CUCV at 55 and under, and it's a pain getting places with that limitation...

 

[Renntag]

Nothing worth a damn is going to be cheap. I'm not even going to play along with that part of your thought process.....

Unimog is utilitarian, has a German sensibility of design and insanely good engineering behind it. If you love German cars already (which it sounds like you do) then in the 4x4 realm the UniMog is the vehicle to aspire to.

-G

I can attest to the shear awesomeness of the UniMog. I have driven a 60s vintage 6cylinder gas version. We went offroading as well and there was almost no where this thing couldnt go.

I also got to check out a 90s vintage Mog that was 6 cylinder diesel powered. What an incredible machine. I think cost here in the US was 40-60K for the later model unit. I believe it holds value well so not much depreciation to be had over length of ownership.

In keeping with this forum however, the blazer is a pretty awesome base for a durable and versatile off road build. Anyone have pics or info of the K5 blazer with exterior roll cage bits along the factory body line? It was grey/black in colour. The body was cut along the body line forward of the front wheels and rear of the backs with tubing at the cut. Roll cage carried a spare tire and other gear. Super amazing build.
That is what I think of when considering a wild K5 build. I have a pic saved somewhere of it as a reminder. Someone here must have info on it.

 

[ZombieBlazer]

After more than a month and 4000+ views of this thread, it's becoming clear that your "open source 4x4" idea isn't interesting to anyone but you.

Maybe if some people weren't so negative others wouldn't follow along? It's much easier to throw stones than it is to come up with solutions... Maybe you should look in the mirror on this one.

I'm joking.. haha

Personally, I think the whole idea full of contradictions and false assumptions about what people really want, and the concept is SO nebulous and undefined that it's impossible to nail down any tangible detail as a starting point.

Of course it is.. I am still in the conceptualization phase... I have repeatedly said I wanted to find out what others were interested in. You seem to have your own ideas about what the thread is about that aren't in tune with reality. What I want and finding out what others want are 2 different things... What I wanted wasn't the primary point of the thread... it was really just an example...

For example, what is the budget? You mentioned that $10,000 is too much money for this project (even though you want it to be your daily driver as well). So WHAT is the price target? $50.... $500.....$5000? If you can't establish budget then every possible material (from carbon-fiber to plywood) are still fair game.

The budget still isn't up for discussion because we don't know what people want...

What I don't understand is the impatience... it could take a long time to get a good view from everyone who posts here periodically. I don't understand what the rush is...

Second, what is your time worth? What value do you place on other people's time? One of the things that bugs me the most about where this thread has gone is an underlying implication that a "community" would need to spend literally thousands of man-hours coming up with designs and ideas for you to use for yourself.

See.. you are being negative again.. that was IF it was my idea that people wanted to do.. it could be someone else's. I just tried to propose what I wanted.. but someone else could come along and hit on what people want.. maybe even YOU Greg.

It's not as if you have provided a detailed framework for the project where people can contribute specific technology ideas... The discussion is very vague and open-ended. So it sounds more like a long daydreaming session than a workable project plan.

I said that's mostly what it is.. I have a TON of ideas... that's what I am good at. You may not find value in that but it's what I love doing.... I want to see what Ideas I have that might apply to what others want.

My suggestion is to invest some of your own time and write up a detailed specification so people can decide if they are still interested enough to contribute their time to the project.


-G

I still am not in that phase yet Greg.. you are way too rushed I think... what's the rush? haha

I think you are confusing the process for someone's vehicle build with developing a completely different type of vehicle.

This also doesn't necessarily have to be one vehicle.. but a philosophy of what kind of vehicle is developed in the future by everyone.

 

[blazinzuk]

Okay so some specs for you.

Must seat 5.

Must have solid axles.

Minimum tire size 35.

Lockers front and rear, selectable front.

min of 250 hp.

automatic trans. (min 4 speed)

Low geared t case. ( mainly to allow for more ability to put highway gears in it)

I would say the dry curb weight would need to remain under 5000 lbs.

Needs to be able to tow at least 5k lbs



If you wanted a smaller, seats less, super cheap rig that doesn't have a ton of power go buy a samurai.

 

[ZombieBlazer]

Okay so some specs for you.

Must seat 5.

Must have solid axles.

Minimum tire size 35.

Lockers front and rear, selectable front.

min of 250 hp.

automatic trans. (min 4 speed)

Low geared t case. ( mainly to allow for more ability to put highway gears in it)

I would say the dry curb weight would need to remain under 5000 lbs.

Needs to be able to tow at least 5k lbs

Thanks Blazinuk.. that's the kind of info I am looking for.

 

[blazinzuk]

If your good at design. Look at a modular type of setup.

If you build a basic rig and then make other things that will literally bolt on. ( I was thinking small camper or something, that would make it more suited to one type of wheeling than the other


OH yah one more thing, it absolutely must have some sort of link suspension. Coils, coilovers, struts, airbags, gyroscopic hydraulic rams, I don't care but it needs to ride nice.

The trick is gonna be figuring out how to use all those parts and keep costs down. Like I said out of the box thinking is going to be needed.

 

[ZombieBlazer]

I was thinking of something modular too. Another way to do it would be like the Blazer and the Suburban - two different models.

But maybe in hindsight people might have a different idea of what kind of dimensions they would want.

My thinking is that the thing that would really be beneficial to a off-road vehicle would be light weight. But not at the cost of making the vehicle tiny OR making it less durable.

This is why to me the thing I personally could do without is performance -- high speed.

I want the power-the torque - but I could live without the high speed capability.

Because when you get fast light and strong/durable that's when it seems to me the money comes in. You need high performance parts.

This is why I think the old Willy's jeeps were so successful. They weren't high speed but they were high torque durable and tough as nails. Just imagine up-sizing that concept a bit to a Blazer size.

But some people may not want to live without that performance. I get that too. It's a tough call.

 

[Mastiff]

Why do you think Willy's is so tough? I haven't owned one, but I think the drive train is similar to my old Scout, with way too little power, undersized axles (Scout has D27), sloppy steering, etc. Maybe it just looks tough, and you generally don't care about scratches and stuff, but I think the stock stuff would easily break with non-stock (puny) tires. I guess my Scout does have a pretty intense fully boxed frame...

I love the look of Willy's, and maybe some day I'll have the time/money to build one from the ground up, but I'd plan on putting a 350 in it and at least D44 class axles, etc. The only Willy's thing in it would be the body styling.

 

[MrSchaeferPants]

If your good at design. Look at a modular type of setup.

If you build a basic rig and then make other things that will literally bolt on. ( I was thinking small camper or something, that would make it more suited to one type of wheeling than the other


OH yah one more thing, it absolutely must have some sort of link suspension. Coils, coilovers, struts, airbags, gyroscopic hydraulic rams, I don't care but it needs to ride nice.

The trick is gonna be figuring out how to use all those parts and keep costs down. Like I said out of the box thinking is going to be needed.

Hydro-pneumatic struts?

 

[TerryD]

If your good at design. Look at a modular type of setup.

If you build a basic rig and then make other things that will literally bolt on. ( I was thinking small camper or something, that would make it more suited to one type of wheeling than the other


OH yah one more thing, it absolutely must have some sort of link suspension. Coils, coilovers, struts, airbags, gyroscopic hydraulic rams, I don't care but it needs to ride nice.

The trick is gonna be figuring out how to use all those parts and keep costs down. Like I said out of the box thinking is going to be needed.

Buy a Wrangler?

You all keep coming back to the JK Wrangler X in every sense except it isn't carbureted. At the end of this, you will be competing with it and it will be cheaper with more parts availability and more places to be serviced than yours. Let's examine it's previous rivals quickly:

FJ: dead
Bronco: dead
Blazer: dead
Samuri: dead
Rocky: dead
Tracker/Sidekick: dead
Amigo: dead
I'm sure I've missed a few though...

The Wrangler and it's Jeep predecessors has successfully, if not single handedly, filled the exact niche you are aiming at for nearly a century now. You can't expect to roll a wheel down main street bragging you just invented it.

Let's be original. Small light weight turbo charged 3-4cyl diesel. Has to get 25mpg at least when not towing.

Six speed manual or 4-5 speed automatic. At least 3:1 low in the t-case if not 4:1+. Something like a Toyota axle or maybe small portals for ground clearance but easy to achieve the proper suspension and seeing geometry. Probably a base 33" (285/75/16) tires with 35" as an option.

Let's stick with dimensions similar to a Grand Cherokee or Durango where three car seats across the back is easy to get in and to. Stretch the wheel base so the rear wheel wells are not eating rear seat width. With a link type suspension, that should be easy, but may require a mid mounted fuel tank.

I would prefer a four door, having done trips with the kids in a two door Jeep. It has to have a good stereo, cruise control and air conditioning. Manual windows and locks I can live with. Plus that simplifies removable doors which are a must.

Rear seats remove or fold down to open up cargo area. Exterior spare tire storage with easy access. The rear tires pushed back will help with the tippy feeling ascending banks and ledges. Hard top that the side panels remove from to make a hard bikini but stowable soft flaps to putt in place should you get caught in bad weather.

You will want an all new body design. Don't want any "it looks like a 'x'" remarks from the populace. Sleek, clean, with attitude and grace to it. I don't buy ugly vehicles, they HAVE to have attitude of some sort or they are no fun. Vehicles should be sexy. The "Thing", is not. Most straight panel vehicles look cheap. Just make all panes bolt on, even the quarters. No need to worry about extensive amounts of body work when it is faster and cheaper to buy a new panel that you can have in in about an hour excluding paint. Limiting paint colors to three or four factory colors would make it so you just bought the panel in the factory color and bolted it on. No paint work or body work. Easy-do-it-yourself at home with minimal tools and mess.

Unitized construction could cut down cost and weight. Makes at home suspension build tricky, but with a link suspension and already on portals, 38s would clear with a coil spacer lift...

 

[blazinzuk]

Hydro-pneumatic struts?

yah those too LOL

There used to be this old scout II saw him in Moab years ago was running hydraulic rams converted to pneumatic with gyros on top of all of them to keep the body level.

It was cool but it reacted to slowly to really be useful. Was way cool to watch

 

[ZombieBlazer]

TerryD, you said you weren't into the look of the VW Thing... what do you think about Humvees?

 

[TerryD]

I like the H1 mainly on principle. With the headlights set down into the nose and the stance is just mean. They have attitude and the panels are slender unlike the H2 with the massive flat sides making it look like a storage shed on wheels. The H2 was a waste of resources IMHO but I like the H3T and the little two door concept they put out. Still, if you make it look like a hummer, people are gonna say you copied the hummer.

Besides, there is already a company you buy the "hummer" body from and stick on a Suburban frame. And you can do anything from a kit to turn key stuff. I'd rather have the Suburban. Classier than a knockoff hummer I think.

 

[ZombieBlazer]

The major problem I have with the Humvees though is that the freakin engine is in the passenger compartment. haha

That is the big problem with trying to replicate the Hummer design.

 

[ZombieBlazer]

Why do you think Willy's is so tough? I haven't owned one, but I think the drive train is similar to my old Scout, with way too little power, undersized axles (Scout has D27), sloppy steering, etc. Maybe it just looks tough, and you generally don't care about scratches and stuff, but I think the stock stuff would easily break with non-stock (puny) tires. I guess my Scout does have a pretty intense fully boxed frame...

I love the look of Willy's, and maybe some day I'll have the time/money to build one from the ground up, but I'd plan on putting a 350 in it and at least D44 class axles, etc. The only Willy's thing in it would be the body styling.

Sorry... missed this question.

That's just the impression I got from the reputation of them. I mainly attributed that to them making stuff tougher back then AND the small size and weight of the Willy's.

Also, I myself am interested in torque.... if I could, I would prefer a small high torque diesel but there are so few diesel engines to choose from in the US.

I like the Willy's because they were durable and reliable and simple. Those are the priorities to me rather than high performance - speed.

My dream is making a low budget 4x4 vehicle because there isn't really anything made filling that niche.

But again i am open to different things.

 

[blazinzuk]

You need to stop calling certain things certain things. High performance is not speed all the time. High performance can be a whole lot of things and high performance in certain things are gonna be needed.

Your motor in all reality needs to be high performance. Efficient, reliable, torquey, good mileage, all those terms combined into one motor are high performance.

Old willys Jeeps high speed even medium speed is not cool.

High speed on an old willys Jeep was 45.

I really really think that the rig needs to be able to do the legal limit. And get good mileage at the legal limit.

The vast majority of mileage put on any rig is on the highway. Since I took Horton off the road to a mainly toy I don't think I have put 500 miles a year on it. Mostly cause off roading is slow. Highways are fast, takes alot less time to put miles on something. Whatever you build is gonna be way way heavier than a flatty, they were just over 2k with fluids in em, had about 60 hp and just over a 100 lbs feet of torque.

Were they zippy to drive around, sure they were, cause they had 5.38s. But stock flattys struggle to get past 50 mph.

You really need to put the flatty out of your head as a target. It was great at its time, easy to produce, easy to work on, used readily available parts. But after the war a new Jeep was considered very expensive. Not cheap.

If you want to rock a diesel in this future do it all off roader I would shoot for a 6 or 7 speed transmission. Way easier to keep the diesel in its rpm range. The motor could be fairly small if it were utilized in the proper manner. Keeping a motor in its "sweet spot" will make it more efficient.

Just for advertising sake lemme give you some advice. The vast vast majority of people out there even a ton of car guys who aren't as serious as someone like me, only talk about HP even some of the diesel guys will give you HP numbers before they give you torque numbers. Why thats what you always hear. Torque although the only number that defines real work ( horsepower is a derived number) does not carry the weight that the term horsepower. So if your motor is 100 hp and 250 lbs feet of torque, 98.9% of the people looking at it are only going to see 100 hp, that will turn a ton of people off, that is of course my opinion but its an opinion based on talking to a whole lotta people who know less than me about cars.

I say shoot for 200 hp on the engine ( at the weight I think this creation may end up at, that is what I would consider the low end of acceptable) and 350 lbs ft of torque. Those are solid numbers and with the right gearing would probably be able to haul something around at acceptable levels.