|
|
 Posted 3/16/2017 7:36:37 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
A FEW WAYS WE SUPRESS OUR NATURAL CREATIVE ABILITIES
Are you suppressing your Bat Vehicle creative planning and building abilities?
PART TWO: LOGICAL THINKING
Real life is not only ambiguous; it is often illogical as well.
Critical thinking skills based on logic are one of our main strengths
in evaluating the feasibility of a creative idea but at the same time
it is often the enemy of truly innovative thinking in the first place.
Many people believe that creativity and innovative thinking are traits
that we are born with—we either have them or not. However, it is found
that people who are highly innovative are a work in progress, forever
questioning and examining themselves and the world around them. Far
from being something we are born with, we can all become more
innovative and creative by developing the traits that innovative
people share. Here are some of the attributes that innovative people
share.
Innovative people have their ego in check and are open to others ideas
and in this way accumulate from a larger source of information. They
are confident and not arrogant.
A common factor in all innovators is they see failures and setbacks as
temporary and do not take them personally.
They are continually curious about concepts, issues, ideas,
technology, and are constantly expanding their knowledge base and
repertoire of tools for future use. They are good listeners; adept at
processing information from listening.
They don’t let their emotions affect their innovative efforts and
don’t feel they have to defend an idea of theirs that has been proven
to be wrong. They can be assertive without being aggressive.
Innovative thinkers and builders love to create because to them this
is their life purpose.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/16/2017 7:42:35 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
A FEW WAYS WE SUPRESS OUR NATURAL CREATIVE ABILITIES
Are you suppressing your Bat Vehicle creative planning and building abilities?
PART THREE: FOLLOWING THE RULES
Creative thinking may be looked at as a destructive force. A force
used to destroy the often arbitrary rules that others have set for
you, or that you have agreed with and set on yourself. Those set on
your self are the hardest rules to break as the belief in their
validity come from within the self. Richard Branson said, “Quit
worshipping rule breakers and start breaking some rules.” Einstein
said, “Everything is possible but few are probable.”
PART FOUR: BEING PRACTICAL
Like logic, practicality is very important when it comes to executing
an innovative idea into physical existence but that same practicality
often stifles innovative ideas before they are turned into reality.
Try not to evaluate the actual feasibility of approaches and ideas
until they have simmered for a few days.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/16/2017 7:47:07 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
A FEW WAYS WE SUPRESS OUR NATURAL CREATIVE ABILITIES
Are you suppressing your Bat Vehicle creative planning and building abilities?
PART FIVE: PLAY IS NOT WORK
A mind at play is perhaps the most effective way to stimulate creative
thinking, yet many people disassociate play from work.
You have heard the expression “work hard and play hard.”
All you have to realize is that they are the same thing to a creative thinker.
PART SIX: THAT IS NOT MY JOB
In an era of hyper-specialization, those that seek knowledge in many
non-related areas are those most likely to realize that everything is
related. The eclectic explorers of the machines (Bat Vehicles
included) run circles around the hyper-specialized technical masters
when it comes to innovative creative thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/18/2017 7:01:12 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
Placed a copy of this post here because someone may be able to benefit from the demonstrated proxy tire technique used to figure tire clearances, tire backsets, turning ranges, and overall fit.
Used proxy tire method to determine my Tumbler's tire clearances, tire backsets, turning ranges, and overall fit.
Problems loading the related photo images to this posting.
They can be seen in the post titled: In the Tumbler section
UNIVERSAL BAT VEHICLE: WELDING, TOOL MAKING, AND SPECIAL TECHNIQUES
vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/23/2017 7:54:45 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
I placed a copy of this post here because it may be of some use to
someone doing a Bat Vehicle build or planning to do a Bat Vehicle
build.
Based on my collective research and study, so far, of the Batman v
Superman Batmobile it appears the easiest way to build this Bat
Vehicle with the least amounts of man hours and expense is to build
the body first completely in wood.
An alternative to building the body in wood is to use one of the 3D
available programs to have the vehicle routed life-size in foam. This
would be a great way to go but the lowest price I found to have this
done is 12,500.00 delivered to my door.
The next step is to find a donor vehicle, with the title, could be a
car but most likely a truck, conforming closely to logical body
attachment points.
After acquiring a suitable donor vehicle, one would probably fabricate
a frame around the donor vehicle that matches the bottom edges of the
wood body and weld in additional braces as needed.
Once the wood body fits on the donor vehicle frame then the builder
will have two choices. Remove the wood body, build a frame on the
lower frame, attach the body panels that have been translated into
steel or other materials, and join together. The second choice is to
remove the wood body and translate it into steel or other materials
with the end result being a bolt on body, probably with a few modules,
that can be taken, on or off, at will.
Completing these steps should get you to approximately 80% completion.
vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/25/2017 8:16:03 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
I put a copy of this post here because it may prove useful to a Bat Vehicle planner or builder.
One method used by a friend of mine who has worked in metal sculpture for 40 years might prove viable in building the Batman v Superman DOJ Batmobile body.
SKIN and BURN is his name for the method but the method has been documented to have been used for more than two-thousand years in art and construction, etc,....
I am currently thinking about using it in my DOJ Batmobile build.
Here is how SKIN and BURN would work on the DOJ body.
Build the body and other pieces in wood, cardboard, or foam.
Cut steel pieces, fit to wood body, and secure with adhesive. Repeat procedure until all translated metal pieces are attached. Then use a MIG welder with a dwell timer set to 1/4 to 1/2 second on high heat. Same welding method is sometimes used by custom exhaust welders. Tactical welding techniques must be used to avoid distortion effects. The wood is then burned out slowly or cut away inside in pieces. I probably would cut away the wood so I could weld inside as I cut away the wood pieces.
Cut steel pieces, fit to foam body, and secure with adhesive. Repeat procedure until all translated metal pieces are attached. Then use a MIG welder with a dwell timer set to 1/4 to 1/2 second on high heat. Same welding method is sometimes used by custom exhaust welders. Tactical welding techniques must be used to avoid distortion effects. The foam is then dissolved with solvent, but could be burned out slowly or cut away inside in pieces. I probably would use solvent.
If a 3D routed 1:1 foam Batmobile didn't cost 12,500.00 I could embrace the foam method. vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/7/2017 8:26:06 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
Put a copy of this post here as this information may be of use to others that might be considering/planning a DOJ bat vehicle build.
"I've been thinking about the idea of using a donor. So here's an idea
I would like to run past the mechanic/car builder gurus here.
What if:
You take a pick up and strip it down.
Keep the motor, transmission, etc. intact
Take the suspension and switch it around so that the steering is
opposite the motor. The frame humps up in the rear so that may need to
be modified.
Now you have the motor in the back like it needs to be. Put in a
V-drive transfer case and run the driveshaft back alongside the
engine.
Attach swing arms to the end of the frame and attach the rear axle and
suspension components to that.
Might need to cut and reform the frame in the front, but I think it
might be an easy way to get the car to be rear engine.
Please, give me any thoughts. Positive or negative?"
I think this is an excellent idea. Over the past month, or so, I
pretty much have come to almost exactly the same set of conclusions.
Thinking about this so much is why I have not jumped in and torn my
donor vehicle down yet. This method has been done before successfully.
I read about it being done in other types of build forums but they
didn’t have any photo images posted and they only generalized about
how they completed their conversions. I have been searching the web
for books on these “switch conversions” but have yet to find one.
Also currently studying low profile engines that could be mounted in the front that would allow for conventional driveshaft arrangements. High performance Subaru, VW, Porsche, Boxer, etc. engines have
definite possibilities as do various small and medium size bus
engine/transaxle systems. Also looking at some of the modular building techniques. vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/7/2017 8:38:42 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
I put a copy of this post here because it might be of some benefit to others
considering/planning a Bat vehicle build.
Might have to weight the front end on this vehicle a little to move the center of balance forward a little, so as to off-set some of the stability and potentially lethal characteristic issues?
Rear-Engine, rear mounted engines, and rear-wheel-drive layout.
The disadvantage to a rear weight bias is that the car can become
unstable and tend to over-steer.
In turns, this tendency is much more pronounced, to the point that
even letting off the throttle slightly while turning can cause the
rear tires to suddenly lose grip, and the vehicle to slide rear-first
(see lift-off over-steer).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RR layout
“In automotive design, an RR, or Rear-engine, Rear-wheel-drive layout
places both the engine and drive wheels at the rear of the vehicle. In
contrast to the RMR layout, the center of mass of the engine is
between the rear axle and the rear bumper.
Most of the traits of the RR configuration are shared with the
mid-engine rear-wheel-drive, or MR. Placing the engine near the driven
rear wheels allows for a physically smaller, lighter, less complex,
and more efficient drivetrain, since there is no need for a
driveshaft, and the differential can be integrated with the
transmission, commonly referred to as a transaxle. The front-engine
front-wheel-drive layout also has this advantage.
Since the engine is typically the heaviest component of the car,
putting it near the rear axle usually results in more weight over the
rear axle than the front, commonly referred to as a rear weight bias.
The farther back the engine, the greater the bias. Typical weight bias
for an FR (front engine, rear drive), is 55/45 front/rear; for MR,
45/55; for RR, 35/65. Rear weight bias reduces forward weight transfer
under braking, and increases rear weight transfer under acceleration.
The former means that traction is more evenly distributed among all
four wheels under braking, resulting in shorter stopping times and
distances. The latter means that the driven wheels have increased
traction when accelerating, allowing them to put more power on the
ground and accelerate faster.
The disadvantage to a rear weight bias is that the car can become
unstable and tend to oversteer when decelerating (whether braking or
lifting off the throttle). In turns, this tendency is much more
pronounced, to the point that even letting off the throttle slightly
while turning can cause the rear tires to suddenly lose grip, and the
vehicle to slide rear-first (see lift-off oversteer). When this
happens, rotational inertia dictates that the added weight away from
the axis of rotation (generally the steering wheels) will be more
likely to maintain the spin, especially under braking. This is an
inherent instability in the design, making it easier to induce and
more difficult to recover from a slide than in a less
rear-weight-biased vehicle. All cars, regardless of drivetrain layout,
obey the same laws of physics and can do this, but it is much easier
to do and harder to correct in MR and RR vehicles.
When not braking, the decreased weight over the front wheels means
less traction, resulting in the car having a tendency to understeer,
which is safer and more stable (further allowing a driver to get on
full throttle sooner) but is undesirable in cornering. To counteract
this, it is necessary to induce forward weight transfer to increase
front grip, but this significantly destabilizes the car and can be
hard to do properly, that is, without spinning. High-performance
driving necessitates inducing weight transfer, regardless of
drivetrain layout, but it is more important in MR and especially RR
layouts, and the greater effect from it is more difficult to handle.
In these respects, an RR can be considered to be an exaggeration of MR
- harder braking, faster and earlier acceleration, and increased
oversteer, but faster turning if it can be controlled.
In off road and low-traction situations, the RR layout has some
advantages compared to other 2WD layouts. The weight is biased towards
the driven wheels- as with FF vehicles. This both improves drive-wheel
traction and reduces the tendency for the undriven wheels to dig in.
In addition, the driving and steering requirements are split between
front and rear- as with FR vehicles- making it less likely for either
to lose traction. Many dune buggies successfully use a Volkswagen
beetle as the donor car for this reason. The relative simplicity and
light weight compared to 4WD can therefore sometimes outweigh the
disadvantage of only having two driven wheels.
Where RR differs from MR is in that the engine is located outside the
wheelbase. The major advantage of MR - low moment of inertia - is
negated somewhat (though still lower than FR), and there is more room
for passengers and cargo (though usually less than FR). Furthermore,
because both axles are on the same side of the engine, it is
technically more straightforward to drive all four wheels, than in a
mid-engine configuration (though there have been more high-performance
cars with the M4 layout than with R4). Finally, a rear-mounted engine
has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving,
allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles (more of which
have been RR than liquid-cooled, such as the Volkswagen Beetle, and
one of the few production air-cooled turbocharged cars, the Porsche
930).
For liquid-cooled vehicles, however, this layout presents a
disadvantage, since it requires either increased coolant piping from a
front-mounted radiator (meaning more weight and complexity), or
relocating the radiator(s) to the sides or rear, and adding air
ducting to compensate for the lower airflow at the rear of the car.
Due to the handling difficulty, the need for more space efficiency,
and the near ubiquitous use of liquid-cooled engines in modern cars,
most manufacturers have abandoned the RR layout. The major exception
is Porsche, who has developed the 911 for over 40 years and has taken
advantage of the benefits of RR while mitigating its drawbacks to
acceptable levels, lately with the help of electronic aids.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/10/2017 6:07:45 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
This is an old post re-posted that is still relevant to the design,
planning, and building of Bat Vehicles.
TOP FIVE STRONGEST AND MOST RELIABLE AXLES
A listing I found in an article on off-road vehicle building
1. Full-floating Dana 135
The Dana 135 is found in some Ford F-550 medium-duty trucks and
motorhomes. It features a removable third member like a Toyota or Ford
9-inch. However, its size is more on par with an 18-wheeler rear axle.
The massive size and heavy-duty design make it undesirable for all but
the biggest-tired Jeep swaps.
2. Full-floating Dana 80
This is the step into medium-duty truck axles. The Dana 80 is more
axle than most people will ever need. There are plenty of ratios
available that range from 3.31:1 to 5.38:1 and a good number of
aftermarket differentials.
3. Full-floating Dana 70
The Dana 70 is another member of the cheap beef squad. However, there
are several versions making them more difficult to identify. Look for
the Dana 70U or 70HD. These feature desirable 1 1/2-inch, 35-spline
shafts. There are also plenty of ratios and a good number of
aftermarket differentials available for these versions of the 70 as
well. They are often found in 1-ton Dodge, Ford, and GM trucks, vans,
and even some tractors and heavy equipment.
4. Full-Floating GM 14-bolt
The 14-bolt is the king of cheap beef when running tires up to and
more than 44 inches tall. You can't deny the strength of the 10
1/2-inch ring gear, huge 30-spline pinion, and 1 1/2-inch, 30-spline
axleshafts. It also enjoys a decent number of aftermarket gear ratios
and differentials. The fact that it has a removable pinion support and
spanner adjustable backlash makes 14-bolt gear and differential swaps
relatively easy. It can be found in GM 3/4- and 1-ton trucks and vans
in a few different widths. It's often found in wrecking yards for less
than $200 because it's so common. Perhaps it’s only real weakness is
the thin tinfoil-like diff cover.
5. Full-floating 35-spline Dana 60
They enjoy plenty of aftermarket support because they use common Dana
60 gears and carriers. However, they're very uncommon, and you're not
likely to find one in a wrecking yard. Many 35-spline 60 rear axles
have been converted from 30-spline housings.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/10/2017 6:19:18 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
This is an old post re-posted that is still relevant to the design,
planning, and building of Bat Vehicles.
Here is the original complete listing.
WEAKEST TO STRONGEST AXLES
A listing I found in an article on off-road vehicle building
23. Chevy 10-bolt
Much like the Dana 35, it has a very weak and flexible housing that
can lead to other problems. An abused Gov-loc is a death warrant for the 10-bolt rearend. It's not a swap-worthy, full-width axle for
Jeeps.
22. '06-and-earlier Wrangler Dana 44
The smallish axletubes (same as Dana 35) can flex and cause carrier
bearing and other failures if abused. It has lots of aftermarket
support but limited available ratios if you are using the stock
Rubicon differential.
21. GM 12-bolt
Similar to the GM 10-bolt. It has a flexible housing and weak tubes
for a full-width axle. It's not really a good 4x4 axle worth swapping
into a Jeep.
20. Toyota 8-inch
Overall, it's a stout axle for its compact size. It actually makes an
OK Jeep swap, but is often frowned upon for being an import part. The
Toyota 8-inch has lots of aftermarket support.
19. Alum Dana 44 (ZJ)
It's a decent, relatively durable axle, but there isn't much
aftermarket support because it's fairly uncommon.
18. Chrysler 8.25
It's a decent axle when mated with moderate-sized tires, however, few
gear ratios are available. It doesn't have much aftermarket support.
17. Ford 8.8 (Ranger and Explorer)
Some versions have weaker 28-spline shafts. The '91-'01 Explorer
31-spline version is preferred ('95-and-later have disc brakes).
There's a lot of aftermarket support for the 8.8, but the C-clip
shafts are a notable weakness. Commonly swapped into Wranglers in
place of the Dana 35, although the marginal gain in strength hardly
seems worth the effort.
16. Toyota Land Cruiser
They're getting harder to find, but they're still usable for a Jeep in
need of an offset rearend, albeit an expensive oddball possibility
with C-clips. An offset Dana 44 from a Quadra-Trac FSJ would be a
better option.
15. Ford 8.8 (fullsize version)
All have 31-spline shafts and undesirable C-clips retaining the axles.
Not a particularly good full-width axle for a Jeep swap.
14. Dana 44 (non-Wrangler)
Much like the Dana 44 front axle, the 44 rearend enjoys a lot of
aftermarket support in the form of optional ratios, floater kits, and
aftermarket differentials for more traction. Some early models are
plagued with small bend-prone axletubes, weak coarse-spline shafts (as
well as two-piece shafts), and coarse-spline pinions. Early
'70-and-later Dana 44 rears are much more desirable. Look for 2
3/4-inch axletubes and 30-spline, one-piece shafts.
13. AMC 20 (FSJ)
The FSJ AMC 20 is stronger than the CJ version and perhaps about equal
to the strength of a newer Dana 44. However, it doesn't enjoy as much
aftermarket support as the Dana. Fewer gear ratios and lockers are
available.
12. '07-and-later Wrangler (Rubicon only) Dana 44
It features stronger tubes than the axles in the previous model
Wrangler and 32-spline shafts. It's sure to see plenty of aftermarket
support, including complete assemblies available from Mopar.
11. Chrysler 9.25
It's only found in Dodge trucks and vans. Even though it's relatively
strong, it's not all that great of a swap for a full-width axle. Very
few ratios and aftermarket differentials are available for the 9.25.
It's also a C-clip axle.
10. Ford 9-inch
It's the king of aftermarket components. The 9-inch came in Ford cars
and trucks and can be found in many configurations, lug patterns, and
widths; junkyard versions are becoming more difficult to find. Look
for the stronger 31-spline versions over the weaker 28-spline. Most
axles can be converted to stronger 31-, 33-, 35-, and even 40-spline
shafts with bolt-on parts. Plenty of differentials are available and
gear ratios ranging from 2.80:1 to 6.50:1 are easy to find. Complete
aftermarket housings and entire assemblies are available.
9. Full-floating, 30-spline Dana 60
These are extremely common and can be easily found in junkyards under
Dodges, Fords, GMs, and Jeeps alike. They are most often found under
3/4-ton vans and pickups, but a few came under Mopar musclecars. There
is a lot of aftermarket support for the Dana 60.
8. Semifloating Dana 60
It's a little rare, but it can be found under early F-150s and
early-'70s FSJ pickups. It features desirable 35-spline shafts and
uses common Dana 60 gears and carriers, so a lot of aftermarket ratios
and differentials are available.
7. Full-floating Ford 10.25
The ring gear is huge, but aftermarket support is not. The gear ratios
and differential selection is limited. Heavy use will also cause the
axletubes to break free and rotate inside the centersection. Not a
great full-width swap.
6. Full-floating 35-spline Dana 60
They enjoy plenty of aftermarket support because they use common Dana
60 gears and carriers. However, they're very uncommon, and you're not
likely to find one in a wrecking yard. Many 35-spline 60 rear axles
have been converted from 30-spline housings.
5. Rockwell 2 1/2-ton
Rockwell rear axles are often two to three times less expensive than
their frontend counterparts. The housing, gears, carrier, and bearings
are extremely durable. The 16-spline axleshafts are not. Aftermarket
shafts are available to bring it above Dana 80 strength. Only one gear
ratio and few lockers are available. Due to size, 6.72:1 gearing, and
weight, it's not a good axle for tires less than 44 inches tall.
4. Full-Floating GM 14-bolt
The 14-bolt is the king of cheap beef when running tires up to and
more than 44 inches tall. You can't deny the strength of the 10
1/2-inch ring gear, huge 30-spline pinion, and 1 1/2-inch, 30-spline
axleshafts. It also enjoys a decent number of aftermarket gear ratios
and differentials. The fact that it has a removable pinion support and
spanner adjustable backlash makes 14-bolt gear and differential swaps
relatively easy. It can be found in GM 3/4- and 1-ton trucks and vans
in a few different widths. It's often found in wrecking yards for less
than $200 because it's so common. Perhaps its only real weakness is
the thin tinfoil-like diff cover.
3. Full-floating Dana 70
The Dana 70 is another member of the cheap beef squad. However, there
are several versions making them more difficult to identify. Look for
the Dana 70U or 70HD. These feature desirable 1 1/2-inch, 35-spline
shafts. There are also plenty of ratios and a good number of
aftermarket differentials available for these versions of the 70 as
well. They are often found in 1-ton Dodge, Ford, and GM trucks, vans,
and even some tractors and heavy equipment.
2. Full-floating Dana 80
This is the step into medium-duty truck axles. The Dana 80 is more
axle than most people will ever need. There are plenty of ratios
available that range from 3.31:1 to 5.38:1 and a good number of
aftermarket differentials.
1. Full-floating Dana 135
The Dana 135 is found in some Ford F-550 medium-duty trucks and
motorhomes. It features a removable third member like a Toyota or Ford
9-inch. However, its size is more on par with an 18-wheeler rear axle.
The massive size and heavy-duty design make it undesirable for all but
the biggest-tired Jeep swaps.
The Dana 60 front axle may be the most coveted piece of off-road
hardware in the industry. It earned its reputation because of its
strength, the number of aftermarket parts available for it, and the
fact that it has remained relatively unchanged over the last 30 years.
Of course, even the mighty Dana 60 can benefit from an update every
few decades-so in 2004 Ford and Dana released the new Dana Super 60
for use in F-450 and F-550 Super Duty trucks.
Referred to internally as the "Fat Boy", the Dana Super 60 evolved
from the '78-'79 Dana 60 front axle first found under Ford F-250 and
F-350 trucks. Keep in mind the original Dana 60 was designed for a
1-ton pickup with a 4,500-pound front gross axle weight rating (GAWR),
29 1/2-inch-tall tires, 4.10 axle gears, and engines that made less
than 170 hp. The Dana Super 60 on the other hand was designed for Ford
F-550 trucks with nearly twice the weight capacity, 33-inch tires,
5.38 axle gears, and more than 600 lb-ft of engine torque.
So why should you care? Well, the new Super 60 eliminates the
weaknesses (if you can call them that) of the standard Dana 60 and
gives axle swappers a beefier front axle option to handle the largest
tires and most powerful engines. It also improves a vehicle's turning
radius thanks to its larger U-joints and steering knuckles, which
allow for a better steering angle.
When we first learned of the Super 60 we thought it would make a great
upgrade for our '02 F-250 Super Duty, which had a habit of busting
axleshafts and U-joints. Swapping in the Super 60 meant ditching the
leaf springs and converting the 10-lug axle back to eight lugs with
wheel bearings from an '05 F-350 and brake rotors from an '04 F-450.
|
|
|
|