What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

Put your Blazer on a diet

I'd really like to see that. I won't touch fiberglass fenders for the simple fact that I don't want to kill them. I'd have to see them in person smack a tree and live. And skinned out metal fenders weigh almost nothing, and are cheap. Do your fiberglasses have some type of inner structure and supports? Or inner fender wells? Cause if they don't then eliminate the same stuff from a steel fender and its going to be very light. Sure flimsy but if you are this worried about weight I'm not sure a few smashed fenders will be a problem for you. Natures way of telling you what needs to be modified /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see that. I won't touch fiberglass fenders for the simple fact that I don't want to kill them. I'd have to see them in person smack a tree and live. And skinned out metal fenders weigh almost nothing, and are cheap. Do your fiberglasses have some type of inner structure and supports? Or inner fender wells? Cause if they don't then eliminate the same stuff from a steel fender and its going to be very light. Sure flimsy but if you are this worried about weight I'm not sure a few smashed fenders will be a problem for you. Natures way of telling you what needs to be modified /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just run the fiberglass fender skins and they have been cracked from rollovers a couple of times.
I love the ease of slapping on some matt over the top of the damage and they look new again.

im not like everyone else regaurding dents. I am very abusive to my truggy and it has been over plenty of times but when I get it back home I fix the damage. I dont like it to stay beat up looking. atleast once a year it gets a make over /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I took some 75lbs. estimated out of the front of mine with the narrowing job. Maybe more. I got all the sheet metal in my pickup and I'll run it across the scale before and after the dump.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds about right. Made up for the winch on the front. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I would like to run the Fiber glass as well. I was on a budget this go around so I elected to skin what I had. They do end up pretty light when its all done. I could get away with it with that side armor that I run (and used).

Just the cost of it stops me at first but eventually I will. At least on the hood. It is somewhat of a pain to remove by yourself. Its wobbly without the structure underneath but I wanted it as light as possible.

Next for me is a custom dash. I like the look of the stock one so it might be some time before I go that route. I does open up possibilities for weight savings and waterproofing though.
 
My cut down and skinned hood has a light framework build from 1/2 x 0.062 square tube to stiffen it up. Still light enough to move easily, but rigid enough that it does not flop around and works with the factory hinges requiring only 2 pins.
 
If my hood were hinged, I would need the frame like you have done. Since its a full pin on job. I dont see the need. I kept an eye on it on my last run to see how wobbly it might be and to see if a frmae made sense. It rode just fine. I have though about a hing setup and I still might do it. Then I'll have to look at your pics again.
 
I'm skinning and 4 corner pinning my hood as well. Or do the samething my dad did on his car, a simple hinge setup with front pins. I will get a picture of it soon. It works quite well, and his hood is fully skinned.
 
When should the power to weight ratio be considered? If a light weight rig using a 4 banger and the right gearing does well doesn't the p/w ratio have a lot to do with it? I know it would help in the sand and mud although I'm not too sure about the rocks.

If you were to take a small lightweight rig and a large heavy one and proportionally made the COG, Axle width, Wheelbase, contact patch, flex and then finally power to weight ratio fairly equal, would they not function fairly similar to eachother? Just one would have the ability to tackle larger obstacles than the other right? It would also have more creature comforts than the other.

The COG could be kept roughly equal because whatever weight issues you have up top are countered by the additional unsprung weight of your axles.

The wheelbase and width are easy to imagine with spring relocations and backspacing.

We might have to go pretty low on our gearing to match up but it is definitly possible. (think portals or dual 60's)

Flex might be harder but I'm sure with the bigger rig there must be a good way to net more travel through longer springs/coils. Could be wrong on this one though..

As far as contact patch for traction just use a wider tire. Most buggys now use a narrower tire so us with larger axles use a wider tire.

That just leaves the power/weight ratio. How much more power do you need to move that extra 1000#'s? How much more power can you gain from a hopped up big block or diesel? Can you balance out the ratios between the rigs or is that just way to much power to make for the larger rig.

I really don't get into these tech discussions cause I'm still just learning all this but I really don't see why these two rigs would perform differently.

Someone care to fill me in /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Lighter will always win. (Edit: Assuming we are talking about rock crawling and climbing/off-camber work)

Heavier (more massive) has other factors like inertia, maximum traction of the contact patch, and weight (force vectors) shift. When at an angle, assuming all other things remain the same, the heavy vehicle will slip at a lower degree due to less friction from the force pressing tires to the surface vs. the component vector pulling it down the grade. Friction at the contact patch is a function of ksi, which is the force component effectively pressing the tire to the surface, but there are other factors at play which work to overcome that friction and pull the vehicle down slope...
 
[ QUOTE ]
When at an angle, assuming all other things remain the same, the heavy vehicle will slip at a lower degree due to less friction from the force pressing tires to the surface vs. the component vector pulling it down the grade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! That was the comment I could not say the way I wanted too. That is why I started this thread to look for ways to get the vehicle as light as possible and still be reasonable (defined differently by different people).

I'm looking for the cost effective limit of the lightening (is this a real word in this context?). Sure, you could spend big bucks and shave some serious weight, but is it worth the extra 150 pounds that costs $500 to get there? Not to me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
When should the power to weight ratio be considered? If a light weight rig using a 4 banger and the right gearing does well doesn't the p/w ratio have a lot to do with it? I know it would help in the sand and mud although I'm not too sure about the rocks.

If you were to take a small lightweight rig and a large heavy one and proportionally made the COG, Axle width, Wheelbase, contact patch, flex and then finally power to weight ratio fairly equal, would they not function fairly similar to eachother? Just one would have the ability to tackle larger obstacles than the other right? It would also have more creature comforts than the other.

The COG could be kept roughly equal because whatever weight issues you have up top are countered by the additional unsprung weight of your axles.

The wheelbase and width are easy to imagine with spring relocations and backspacing.

We might have to go pretty low on our gearing to match up but it is definitly possible. (think portals or dual 60's)

Flex might be harder but I'm sure with the bigger rig there must be a good way to net more travel through longer springs/coils. Could be wrong on this one though..

As far as contact patch for traction just use a wider tire. Most buggys now use a narrower tire so us with larger axles use a wider tire.

That just leaves the power/weight ratio. How much more power do you need to move that extra 1000#'s? How much more power can you gain from a hopped up big block or diesel? Can you balance out the ratios between the rigs or is that just way to much power to make for the larger rig.

I really don't get into these tech discussions cause I'm still just learning all this but I really don't see why these two rigs would perform differently.

Someone care to fill me in /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

it is real hard to put the answer of this into words but a visual would explain it perfectly.

we were in moab this year for the easter safari.

steven from ORD went in to the big hot tub up on hells revenge. it had about a foot of water in the bottom it took him everything that his blazer/truggy had to climb out of it after many attemps. if you dont know his rig it is as set up as it can get with a shitload of power.

his brother brandon went into the same tub in his extremely well built buggy that is lighter but only has about half the power of stevens rig and the same thing he struggled a few times but eventually made it out.

then a light ass comp buggy pulled in and walked right through this thing. he made the climb look boring.

even though this comp buggy walked through it like nothing the people there werent impressed but steven and brandons runs were awesome and the croud went crazy.
I wasnt sold on this light weight theory until I watched this.
I will stick with my heavy rig because it takes me anywhere I want to go and it is very reliable but if I build another rig it will be very similar to brandons buggy but with an alluminum big block and a ton of power.
 
I want to build a light buggy, and I will for my next rig, but I won't be without the V8. Yeah sure lightweight and whatever works but come on, who could even offroad without the sound of a V8 winding out once in a while?
 
While talking about weight, I decided to lighten up my K5 by removing the body and throwing it away and I replaced it with the cab from a pick-up. I mounted the cab 12 inches back from the stock location to put a little more weight on the rear. I don't plan to run a bed. For the front I am going to cut the core support only wide enough for the radiator to fit, cut the hood so that it is as wide as the core support in the front and taper out to be as wide as the cab where it meets by the windsheild. No front fenders or inner fenderwells. The dashboard, A/C, and heater core is removed. No bumpers, rear frame chopped off to the rear shackle mount brackets, gas tank relocated. I plan to keep the doors on because most of my wheelin' is in the mud (due to the lack of rocks around here).
 
I was just reading ugly blazers last post,so I got thinking about my project blazer, is it possible to move a BLAZER body back a few inches from the front? Or will mounting the motor interfere with things? Just so the weight is closer to the back for more traction in mud. Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
 
One of the problem I ran into with the narrowing was that the core support went back. I ended up running electric fans to make everything fit. If you move the body and the motor back, It migh just be easier to move the axles forward or something like that.

If you put the radiator in the rear, then I bet you could get away with quite a bit. Might want to bob the back end though. /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
While talking about weight, I decided to lighten up my K5 by removing the body and throwing it away and I replaced it with the cab from a pick-up. I mounted the cab 12 inches back from the stock location to put a little more weight on the rear. I don't plan to run a bed. For the front I am going to cut the core support only wide enough for the radiator to fit, cut the hood so that it is as wide as the core support in the front and taper out to be as wide as the cab where it meets by the windsheild. No front fenders or inner fenderwells. The dashboard, A/C, and heater core is removed. No bumpers, rear frame chopped off to the rear shackle mount brackets, gas tank relocated. I plan to keep the doors on because most of my wheelin' is in the mud (due to the lack of rocks around here).

[/ QUOTE ]
You just described my trucks early incarnation except for the doors...
 
[ QUOTE ]
One of the problem I ran into with the narrowing was that the core support went back. I ended up running electric fans to make everything fit. If you move the body and the motor back, It migh just be easier to move the axles forward or something like that.

If you put the radiator in the rear, then I bet you could get away with quite a bit. Might want to bob the back end though. /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the radiator will be in the back, and if I do move the body back I will bob the back end so it's even with the frame or something. Just thinking out loud. Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

I will stick with my heavy rig because it takes me anywhere I want to go and it is very reliable but if I build another rig it will be very similar to brandons buggy but with an alluminum big block and a ton of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's me, I have this vision of a new wally with 4-5 seats, big beans, good balance and 4K-4200# with a full tank and no people. I don't know about making that weight with the big block but I'd like to try it. Even at 4500# it would be fun and we could drop a big block into my brother's as is and be lighter than 4500#.

For a full body truck I like Zcar's buildup idea but I think I'd consider link and coil more heavily now that I've been both ways. A good compromise in performance vs. weight might be coiling the front and leaving the rear alone but the pounds gained are well worth it either way.
All coil setups don't have to use a 2.5" king coilover either, a smaller shock and separate coil would probably work just fine (within the limits of the shock at least) and might come in a bit lighter.
 
i understand why and how the core support must be oved back when narrowing. its just simple geometry. how did you go about the core support mounts with the shorter nose? im envisioning something similar to a stock mount, mounted behind the original as the original is an important part of the front suspension mounting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's me, I have this vision of a new wally with 4-5 seats, big beans, good balance and 4K-4200# with a full tank and no people. I don't know about making that weight with the big block but I'd like to try it. Even at 4500# it would be fun and we could drop a big block into my brother's as is and be lighter than 4500#.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think its possible but the cost might be unrealistic for a general trail cruiser. I'm thinking lightweight aftermarket axles and such. Would be nice though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom