Offroad Trailblazers and Envoys

Yet another solid axle swap plan?

Dumping ground for offroad Trailblazer or Envoy general discussion.

by skotti » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:58 am

Ive been following along with you here and searching as well. Our goals very slightly, i want it to remain low and the small(er) tire, but mine will see a lot more off road from the sounds of it. I was shying away from a 60, cuz a small tire on a 60, very minimal ground clearance as well.

Right now looking into what itll take to build a toyota axle to handle the task and weight.

Im still a little to new to this platform, i havent even had the opportunity to get underneath mine yet. My other rig is hogging the garage and just hasnt been dry enough to get under it.
skotti
Cruiser
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Altoona PA
Name: Scotty
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: GMC Envoy
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by rScherzer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:24 am

skotti wrote:Ive been following along with you here and searching as well. Our goals very slightly, i want it to remain low and the small(er) tire, but mine will see a lot more off road from the sounds of it. I was shying away from a 60, cuz a small tire on a 60, very minimal ground clearance as well.

Right now looking into what itll take to build a toyota axle to handle the task and weight.

Im still a little to new to this platform, i havent even had the opportunity to get underneath mine yet. My other rig is hogging the garage and just hasnt been dry enough to get under it.


I love to go off in the dirt, mainly two track trails and such. I'm just not a big fan of dragging body up a rock cliff like the big boys! A few step ups or a steep climb Im good with. I figured 33-35" tires would be where I want to be.
User avatar
rScherzer
Off-Roader
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:01 pm
Location: Boise Idaho
Name: Robert
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by Chris68chevy » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:53 am

Based off the information you've given from several post in this thread, why not just do 3" suspension lift, a body lift, regear and go 33s or 35s that way? You'd be better off for reliably of towing, daily driving, it would still be plenty offroad capable, and you'd be out less money vs fabbing everything for solid axle swap and trying to keep it as low as you can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
User avatar
Chris68chevy
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:12 pm
Location: IN, Evansville
Name: Chris
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by rScherzer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:04 pm

Chris68chevy wrote:Based off the information you've given from several post in this thread, why not just do 3" suspension lift, a body lift, regear and go 33s or 35s that way? You'd be better off for reliably of towing, daily driving, it would still be plenty offroad capable, and you'd be out less money vs fabbing everything for solid axle swap and trying to keep it as low as you can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I though about that route but 3" body lift wouldn't bring the frame up to gain ground clearance. I'm thinking about if it would be worth it. I curantly have the 3" suspension lift taller tires.
User avatar
rScherzer
Off-Roader
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:01 pm
Location: Boise Idaho
Name: Robert
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by Diacom » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:36 pm

You're looking at it in the wrong way. Yes, with a 3" body lift and bigger tires, your frame will gain ground clearance. It's the Tires that provide the lift to your lowest point, i.e. the axles. The frame it self also gains ground clearance based on tire. The suspension and body lift are just the vehicle to gain larger tire, not the actual direct result of frame ground clearance per say.

You can do a SAS conversion, but if you run 32" tires, it doesn't help much for gaining ground clearance at your lowest point. Not to mention it will also bring your frame lower vs running a 35" tall tire. You need to think of it as, what is most effective to run the largest tire possible to increase both frame and lowest point ground clearance while being the most cost effective. SAS is not the most cost effective unless you want to run larger than 35" tire.
Diacom
Addict
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:08 pm
Location: Mt, Great Falls
Name: Noel
Vehicle Year: 2003
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker

by v7guy » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:03 pm

As mentioned above, stock, the lowest point on the truck is the subframe, so going with a solid axle actually reduces clearance because you've got this big gay stick axle going between the centerline of each wheel where with the ifs the lowest point is generally going to end up higher cause of the suspension all sloping away from the subframe.
Now you do increase durability with the stick axle, assuming you size it appropriately, and you gain the ability to run whatever size tire you're willing to build the axle for. But the stock IFS system has proven to be very durable at a 33" tire, you really don't start to see problems till 35s and even then not until you start having some real fun.
In either case, you're gonna have the same frame height with 35s ifs or stick axle, same with 33s, with the ifs you'll have more clearance under the front end.

I skipped all this cause it sounded like the OP had been down the SAS road before.

Does any of this make a lick of sense? I'm tired and posting quick. LOL
build thread

All things in moderation, including moderation.
Some people never go crazy... what truly horrible lives they must lead
User avatar
v7guy
Moderator
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:17 pm
Location: NY, long island
Name: Jason
Vehicle Year: 2004
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD
Rank: Offroad Rated

by rScherzer » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:09 pm

LOL big gay stick? I totally under stand both previous post. I'm thinking this plan is gona be put in file 13. I'll finish my current projects pick up a set of bigger tires ans see where I end up.
User avatar
rScherzer
Off-Roader
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:01 pm
Location: Boise Idaho
Name: Robert
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by HawkeyeC25 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:41 pm

skotti wrote:The talk about the lifting of the motor and stuff was, making room for a bigger dif chunk with sas, and still maintain it being relatively low.


Correct skotti! I think everyone missed that. I thought this was talking about a SAS??? I was thinking of ways to get the engine oil pan up and out of the way for a straight axle or other setup to have room across the frame rails.
2005 Trailblazer EXT LT V8 Lifted
Build Thread
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
User avatar
HawkeyeC25
Trail-Blazer
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:24 pm
Location: MI, Howell
Name: Craig
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker
Rank: Offroad Rated

by skotti » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:45 am

rScherzer wrote:I'm thinking this plan is gona be put in file 13.


Ill keep looking into it, lol. I was digging into sas, before i even found the trailblazer/envoy i wanted. When my friends and even my wife don't believe me that i can leave it alone, and just do something simple, theyre probably right. So if and when that day comes i wanna know.


So in curiosity. Has anyone looked into how much travel ifs has? up and down?

v7guy wrote:going with a solid axle actually reduces clearance because you've got this big gay stick axle going between the centerline of each wheel where with the ifs the lowest point is generally going to end up higher cause of the suspension all sloping away from the subframe


I have to disagree with this one.

Ground clearance is bout 8" ifs stock? Ground clearance with ifs, can actually decrease because of tire travel. Especially if you disconnect sway bar. My envoy is stock with a 29.5" tire. So now i squeeze a 33 under there. Only gaining 1.75" of ground clearance.

So even with the "stick" under there, and limiting it to 2" up travel, and the center chunk guesstimate 5"-6" and rest of axle being 10" clearance, and that moves with the tire.
skotti
Cruiser
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Altoona PA
Name: Scotty
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: GMC Envoy
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by Trail X » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:11 pm

If you only got an additional 1.75" of ground clearance, It sounds like you did it wrong - unless you're only talking about under-pumpkin clearance.

I'd love to see a low-lift SAS. There was a SAS w/ a 4BT on a red S10 that I saw years ago on Expo and now I can't find it. That was the epitome of what I always wanted to do. Alas, I'm happy where my truck is right now. I'm sure the bug will bite again someday.

I've still got intact fenders with 33" tires, which makes me think I can go 34 or 35s, even if its a little trimming. The problem is that I'm not sure I'd enjoy even the 4.56 gearing with 35s. 4.56s seem to work well with my 33s. I think these tires rolling resistance might be high, which might be contributing to lower gas mileage than I was originally expecting with this setup.

ETA: I think this was it:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/project-vehi ... ns-diesel/
Image
8-) Build Thread | ExPo Build | YouTube Videos
Not all who wander are lost. -Tolkien
User avatar
Trail X
Founder
 
Posts: 9876
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: VA, Roanoke
Name: James Downing
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker
Rank: Expedition Guide

by NC_IslandRunner » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:13 pm

Make sure you find a good Dana 44 or 60, the 30 is too light. TB's are at least 25% heavier than Cherokee's, I've wheeled next to them and they are way smaller. If you are not planning on hard core offloading then I wouldn't bother with the SAS, it's a lot of money just to do what the rest of us already do with IFS.
IF THE FISH STOP BITING... HUNT FOR SHELLS!!!
User avatar
NC_IslandRunner
Moderator
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: NC, Sanford
Name: Rory
Vehicle Year: 2004
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80
Rank: Offroad Rated

by Diacom » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:17 pm

skotti wrote:
rScherzer wrote:I'm thinking this plan is gona be put in file 13.


Ill keep looking into it, lol. I was digging into sas, before i even found the trailblazer/envoy i wanted. When my friends and even my wife don't believe me that i can leave it alone, and just do something simple, theyre probably right. So if and when that day comes i wanna know.


So in curiosity. Has anyone looked into how much travel ifs has? up and down?

v7guy wrote:going with a solid axle actually reduces clearance because you've got this big gay stick axle going between the centerline of each wheel where with the ifs the lowest point is generally going to end up higher cause of the suspension all sloping away from the subframe


I have to disagree with this one.

Ground clearance is bout 8" ifs stock? Ground clearance with ifs, can actually decrease because of tire travel. Especially if you disconnect sway bar. My envoy is stock with a 29.5" tire. So now i squeeze a 33 under there. Only gaining 1.75" of ground clearance.

So even with the "stick" under there, and limiting it to 2" up travel, and the center chunk guesstimate 5"-6" and rest of axle being 10" clearance, and that moves with the tire.


The pumpkin will still sit lower than any part of our current IFS not near the slope v7guy talks about. Just take a look under the vehicle now. The lowest part is the rear diff center section and shock/trail arm mounts. If you add this to the front, even offset, you still have a location lower than most of the current IFS will sit with the same size tires in place.
Diacom
Addict
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:08 pm
Location: Mt, Great Falls
Name: Noel
Vehicle Year: 2003
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker

by skotti » Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:29 am

Trail X wrote:If you only got an additional 1.75" of ground clearance, It sounds like you did it wrong


My math isn't great, but I'm pretty sure I'm right, this time haha. 29.5" stock tire, 33" tire, overall difference of 3.5 ÷ 2. 1.75" additional clearance , or if it's 8" before, it be 9.75".


Point I was making though, although ground clearance is important, ifs ground clearance changes, cuz tires move independent of subframe/crossmember, where as the ground clearance of a solid axle stays more consistent cuz lowest point moves with the tire. As long as you stick your tire to highest obstacle.

My s10 blazer, for being on leafs, is lowish and on 39.5" tires. The projects only get bigger when they become trailer queens. So I don't want that for the envoy. I want it capable, and I'm sure ifs just might be good enough. But my s10 got 1000 times better once it got sas'd.

I have yet to see the obstacles this platform offers, most likely won't until spring time. Although I'm not OP, I'm pretty curious to the topic, and so far, only obstacle I see is weight and possibly clearance to what's above Center chunk.
skotti
Cruiser
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Altoona PA
Name: Scotty
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: GMC Envoy
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by ca434sbc4 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:03 am

rScherzer wrote:Just got a price on the rear sump oil pan form EMTech Motorsports.
Robert

Would you be operating the vehicle in high angle condition?

Our pan has less nominal oil capacity than the stock pan (about 2 qts less). We have not tested it in a off road high angle condition as was intended mainly for engine swaps.

If you wish to buy a pan and use it in this high angle condition - you assume 100% of the risk involved.

Pan is US$635 and includes a used pick up tube.
If there is enough people that need a high capacity rear sump pan -we could make one - but we need a minimum order of 20 to cover the development and tooling costs. If you wanted to set up a group buy and distribute the pans we would work with you.

Marc



Hi

About 1-2 times a month I get people asking about the rear sump pan.

If ORTB can get a group buy together for 20 pans - we can work on the price - no its not going to be a $100.

Also we have some other items that are in the works: e.g. manual transmission flywheel.. want to put a NV4500 behind the 4200 - soon it'll be possible...
ca434sbc4
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:49 pm
Name: Mike
Vehicle Year: Other
Vehicle: Other Vehicle
DriveTrain: 2WD w/ Limited Slip

by rScherzer » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:46 pm

ca434sbc4 wrote:
rScherzer wrote:Just got a price on the rear sump oil pan form EMTech Motorsports.
Robert

Would you be operating the vehicle in high angle condition?

Our pan has less nominal oil capacity than the stock pan (about 2 qts less). We have not tested it in a off road high angle condition as was intended mainly for engine swaps.

If you wish to buy a pan and use it in this high angle condition - you assume 100% of the risk involved.

Pan is US$635 and includes a used pick up tube.
If there is enough people that need a high capacity rear sump pan -we could make one - but we need a minimum order of 20 to cover the development and tooling costs. If you wanted to set up a group buy and distribute the pans we would work with you.

Marc

Thanks for the additional information!


Hi

About 1-2 times a month I get people asking about the rear sump pan.

If ORTB can get a group buy together for 20 pans - we can work on the price - no its not going to be a $100.

Also we have some other items that are in the works: e.g. manual transmission flywheel.. want to put a NV4500 behind the 4200 - soon it'll be possible...
User avatar
rScherzer
Off-Roader
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:01 pm
Location: Boise Idaho
Name: Robert
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by Nakashige » Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:33 pm

Here's my opinion on the 44 it sucks with chrome shafts locker I wheeled it hard got it bound up and broke time after time. I got sick of fixing it haven't wheeled it in almost 3 years now. Sold the rear bumper off of it today. Starting to look in to chopping it up into a buggy. And start something new. Or scrap what's left of it and take my axles and put them into a different truck.
Nakashige
Vendor
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:00 pm
Location: MA, Worcester
Name: Ben Caesar
Vehicle Year: 2003
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD

by skotti » Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:33 pm

I really dont think running a d44 under these is any worse then running ifs. I ran a d44 for years blazer with 35s & 36s. Which isnt much lighter then this platform. Never broke anything but driveshafts, which wasnt much fault in the 44 other then it was a low pinion version. I get a 60 is always going to be better, but a neccessity to sas this platform, i dont think so.
skotti
Cruiser
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Altoona PA
Name: Scotty
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: GMC Envoy
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ G80

by HARDTRAILZ » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:32 pm

I would take a 44 over our IFS anyday.
I hate to advocate weird chemicals, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone...but
they've always worked for me.
User avatar
HARDTRAILZ
Lifer
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:49 am
Location: IN, Batesville
Name: Kyle
Vehicle Year: 2006
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker
Rank: Extreme Offroader

by mason10198 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:25 pm

HARDTRAILZ wrote:I would take a 44 over our IFS anyday.

I definitely second that.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
User avatar
mason10198
Moderator
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:49 pm
Location: AR, Bryant
Name: Mason
Vehicle Year: 2005
Vehicle: Chevrolet TrailBlazer
DriveTrain: 4WD w/ Aftermarket Locker
Rank: Offroad Rated

Previous

Return to Off Road Discussion