Re: 2005 Dakota - More Info (cars.com)

From: Michael Maskalans (dml@tepidcola.com)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 18:45:54 EST


On Feb 5, 2004, at 16:08, Jason Bleazard wrote:

>> Good side to that is its now coil over
>
> Weird (I'm talking about the 4x4 model here). I wonder whether they
> moved
> the coil, axle shafts, or both.

it would be pretty simple and make a pretty decent amount of sense to
design a good set of swingarms around an axleshaft and CVs, and then
just run a different hub and no drive axles for a two wheeler. ought
save some coin versus two completely different frontend setups. now
the resulting ride height on the other hand: WTF!!
>
>> which would allow for more flexibility when
>> implementing a suspension lift. Much easier to work with coils vs
>> torsion bars.
>
> Except you still have the same control arm setup (I'm assuming). I
> don't
> see any real advantages. You can't just put a larger coil in there
> like
> you can with a solid axle.

depending on how they set it up you might be able to get 1-2" out of it
with a longer coilover and bumpstop mods. Unlike a "normal" IFS lift
it would definitely modify handling characteristics though.

> You'll still have to re-locate the entire axle
> as well as upper and lower control arms.

you'll still have to do that for a decent lift, but without killing
your breakover. it may also now be possible to increase your travel -
but I kinda doubt they would have engineered around that concept at
all.

The design is growing on my harder now that I've seen in the flesh
photos. as I expected that line in the front door isn't as harsh as in
the renderings - yay! - so I'm growing more insulted with the ride
height issue.

if I can make it swing 34's.... ;-D

--
Mike Maskalans            <http://mike.tepidcola.com/dodge/>
84 RamCharger 360 (parked)         98 Dakota CC 318 (Fixed!)
mobile.612.618.4652   campus.585.274.2246   fax.360.364.3930



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 00:34:02 EST