Kj jeep engineering is good

[Auberon]

IN FAVOUR OF THE KJ.
THESE JEEPS ARE WELL DESIGNED (engineered) IN MANY REGARDS, that is my opinion unequivocallyas an engineer…..I know they are not perfect but they have some VERY ,VERY good points.
Here are some examples of why I feel my truck is such a good little beast.
I have come to this realisation as I came out of warranty and started doing my own work on the tough little truck.
GOOD ENGINEERING EXAMPLE 1:The design is such that when you do replace the LCA/Lower clevis arm bushing you only need select spanners.
Each bolt has a securely mounted lock-tab cold welded to its head such that on tightening and undoing, you do not need a spanner on the head of the bolt. The heads have, in fact, been made an odd size so you have trouble finding one that fits FOR A GOOD REASON…..even tho Jeep dealership did try!!!!!
This is a gem – you can torque up after jouncing when the suspension is at normal height….pretty important NO? Access is needed from the front only and it is REALLY EASY!
Special tools needed for this every-day type job:
The only points I would make is that a long series socket for the drop link between the LCA and the stabiliser bar (18mm AF) and a 21 mm AF long series socket for the clevis bracket to LCA nut help you use a torque wrench.
An alternative is to use “crows – foot spanners” with the torque wrench for setting torque.
GOOD ENGINEERING EXAMPLE 2:The turbo hoses:
Consider the clamp that goes rear-most towards the driver on the CA system.
Rather than install a ruddy awkward to get at hose clamp with a nut &/c at this hard to reach point the engineers opted for the spring – style hose clamp which can be grasped , loosened and pulled towards the front of the vehicle in one fell swoop…..done deal.
GOOD ENGINEERING EXAMPLE 3:If you learn how the computer calculates some things, it is possible to get around many difficulties.
GOOD ENGINEERING EXAMPLE 4:There is room to mount the Pro-vent on front of the standard air intake within its prescribed operating angles (when I put mine there I will probably publish) as oil will coalesce with filter when the Pro-vent is cooler.
GOOD ENGINEERING EXAMPLE 5:Did you know that there are capacitors in your truck that hold charge even when the battery terminal is disconnected? This is why, sometimes, you cannot cancel codes…..the necessary circuits remain energised…..like the automatic locking systems etc. Memories are retained. This explains why it won’t go into learning mode for driving techniques sometimes.
There is a way to get around this but the method is not for here.
GOOD ENGINEERING DESIGN EXAMPLE 6:Don’t forget the ease of air filter changes – undo the clips and slip the new one in without the need to completely remove the lid of the plenum chamber.

MY OPINION:These are just some examples of how they form a platform like no other for building the vehicle you want with capabilities beyond most with the same price-tag and in that class. I will only moot the grunt we have @ the whim of our right foot….let alone the fact that doors go “THOCK” quite solidly when they are closed, ease of access to liners etc….towing capacity in class etc
A TIN-CAN we DO NOT HAVE!
Cheers
Auberon

[Lancer]

Thanks for all of that Auberon. I'm no engineer, but I think it's a great vehicle! There are little niggles(internal storage for example), but nothing that can't be overcome. I plan on keeping mine until it falls to bits!

When are you planning on mounting your provent? I ask because my wife got me one (and the hoses) for my birthday), and I've yet to fit it; most people seem to mount it behind the battery box near the firewall. I look forward to seeing how you do yours, so I'll hold off for the time being

[cmohr]

I agree Aubs, lots of very good ideas in the beasts, I did hear one of the designers was very disappointed that the original front suspension design was not used tho. It was a cross between IFS and beam axle, best of both worlds, would have had 18inches of travel. Pity it was due to the bean counter that it was not used.

[glend]

Cmohr I recall reading somewhere that the difference in cost between the front independent suspension that the KJ's got and the original design concept suspension with the great articulation that you spoke of, was only $40 per vehicle spread over the expected production volumes. Really sad. I wonder where the engineering drawings are for that original design. Some enterprising young fellow like Marlin at JBA could turn that into a reality - probably cost more than $40 now....

[cmohr]

Yeah Glen, Heres that artical from here.. http://www.allpar.com/model/jeep/liberty.html .

What the Liberty could have been (Bob Sheaves)

I am one of those rabid Jeep fans that hates the KJ, for what it is. There was an opportunity to showcase a good independent front suspension (IFS) and the management blew it. If you remember back before it was introduced, I was a supporter of the car, because I knew what Chrysler had on the shelf (from the "King Of The Hill" prototype) and didn't think the management ignorant enough to NOT use it. Unfortunately, I was wrong and the "little girl's car" that debuted was a mess. All it would have cost was another $70 per vehicle (yes, that's a lot, but IMHO, the cost was justified-you don't see new HMMWV's running around under $100K today and the KJ could have had that much mobility).
The one bright spot for me is the Rescue show car-I know from my work on the Dodge Ram 4 link over constrained system, that this vehicle is (again, for me only-I am not telling anyone their ideas are wrong) a ray of hope and lust (amazing what yanks my crank, ain't it?) because of the air springs, long travel, AAM axles, and the possibility of an inexpensive (relatively speaking, of course-for home installation) of a CTIS system. All of this wrapped in a basic (meaning simple construction) body that is free of frilly plastic and junk (obviously, I am discounting the wannabe lamps built into the roof rack-another useless affectation from Design Office).
What many off roaders forget (or never knew) is that Jeep, in 1962, invented the first independent front suspension (IFS) for an off road vehicle in the US [Wagoneer] and offered it as an option.
The suspension Evan Boberg talks about in his book started out as the 1962 Wagoneer suspension-that was the genesis of the improvements...
My disgust with the KJ comes from the half-hearted job done on the IFS. Personally, I don't care what suspension is used, as long as it performs to the intended goals and parameters. In this respect, I have to admit the KJ does well-it was designed as a "girl's Jeep"...people may not like this characterization, but nontheless, it is quite accurate in describing the performance parameters. Jeep had, on the shelf, a design that would make the currect suspension seem as antiquated as the hotchkiss used on the CJ's, when looked from a technical standpoint. Unfortunately, there are only about 20 people in toto that have driven this kind of suspension, and 4 of them are NOT from Chrysler (I built a more advanced version of the KOTH Jeep suspension for a friend of mine under a Chevy full size Blazer (the GMT 400) that had 18" of wheel travel and a stock track width).
Unfortunately also, people that are not suspension engineers tend to be a bit ignorant about the pros and cons of variuous designs, hence the fear (justified in some cases) that the Jeeps will be "screwed up". by people (meaning the design and engineering staff of the controlling company) that have no idea what a Jeep is. These types of people generally cling to some perverse idea that change is bad-I agree with you on the statement, but not the reasoning there. What people need to understand is the the word Jeep, since it's inception, has ONLY meant one thing and one word....MOBILITY
The history of Jeep has never been centered aroung "change" but rather using the most defined parameters (it started with the military as "everyone knows"- but I would bet any amount of money that not 1 in 10 "experts" can list even 5 of the original military mobility requirements. Jeep has always been a purpose built vehicle-it has ALWAYS hit the intended target. That is not to infer that the targets were acceptable to the marketplace (the FC's and the KJ are 2 different examples of bad targets that were hit and while one failed, the other has been prosperous). Until a good independent suspension is manufactured in the general marketplace and people try it....change will always be viewed as bad.....
Actually, it predates the Kinetic system, which is marketed by Tenneco Automotive now.
The suspension I am describing is one that, in addition to allowing the left and right tire to move independently of each other, allows the axle to move vertically as a percentage of the total wheel travel, the point is to allow the CV joints to be used for turning and power transmission without exceeding the limits of travel. What Evan described in the book (meaning comparing the HMMWV IFS/IRS to a Jeep Link/coil) demonstrates the limits of Rzeppa and tripod joint construction. This all means that a conventional IFS is limited to 8" of vertical travel, in general with a fixed axle, as used on the KJ. With the "floating axle" design this can easilly increase to 12" and more, IF the length of the control arms is optimized.
You can search the US Patent office for "Evan Boberg" and call up the patent and drawings for this design to get an idea how it works.

[Auberon]

Guys,
I found the patent details and the gist of it reads as you can get 10 inches of wheel movement with only 12 mm of axle movement, each in the vertical plane (approximately) - hence reduction of potential weak spots in the drive system. It certainly is impressive but we lucked out so we have to work with what we have.

My thoughts are currently running out of left field in that we have what they gave us and it appears to me that this whole system could be dropped away from the monocoque in parallel maintaining driveshaft alignment etc. It is pretty much an "independent unit" like the old "K" member on Valiant chassis.

Just look at any reasonable illustration of it.

I need to look at this but I think it could be done. If I had the money I would do it but that doesn't mean I will leave it sit - I'm going to work on my ideas....the money will come one day.....lotto,,,,lottery, finding it in a garbage bag....you get the drift. Stupid me wud turn it in if I found it tho.

After all we still get 8 inches on either side - its just that we still have half shaft movement of the same magnitude.

The Jeep IFS is still probably the best out there (correct me if I'm wrong, please). I know a fellow who does thousands of kms caravaning each year(he wears out a set of tyres on the van every second year) and there are lots of Japanese brands sitting in caravan parks waiting for drive-shafts to arrive - he reckons not so much for Jeep. We just don't get to hear about these little sitters. He drives a 200 series cruiser V8....so he's not exactly a Jeep fan but nearly bought a Jeep when he did buy his truck....he just never goes off road and wanted to lug the van.

He thought parts would be a problem but unless it is old Jap you have to ship anyway....and getting someone to fit them.....just as hard but my mate has had just as many issues with his copy of the original 4WD. He can tell many yarns of the sitters who keep their cherished Jap stories of woe fairly quiet.

As an aside, if you go to remote areas, my advice is to get to know your vehicle cos changing these basic mechanical items is pretty straight forward....especially in a Jeep if you cultivate your skills. Just camp and drink beers until they arrive or whatever pleases you, carry a manual on CD...if you must use a mechanic they should be able to read unless he/she is one of the many bushies I have known who welds without a helmet.

I think we just put "it" out there. I know doctors who have Japanese 4wds with intermittent faults in the driveline - she described the symptoms & I could easily tell her which trouble light was on....and which wiggle test to get her mechanic to do...they all do it not just Jeeps.

I happen to think we are quite lucky in that the vehicle is that much tougher than most and with a few little tricks you can make a Jeep run - even now with computer issues.

So there you have it, guys, I'm a Mopar nut from the Harden & Johnson days (oops that tells of age) but they are good in their own right, just they aren't the copies that have been made in the millions and you won't convince me that the Japanese don't have mean little bean counters too. Despite what they have done to us in shortcutting.

Catch up later
Cheers
Auberon

[WAT4]

Auberon,
I am impressed with your love for your Jeep, I do however disigree with your comments on the front end of a Kj being a good design. Here are my reasons.

Lower control arms have way too much downward sweep, severely limiting ground clearance in ruts, especially since it's a struggle to even fit 31" tyres.

Upper control arms are way too short, limiting wheel travel and causing massive bump steer, which is where most of KJ's poor front tyre wear comes from. Also causes upper ball joint contact with spring.

Even in completely standard trim my front tyres contacted the sway bar on turns.

Nowhere near enough camber and castor adjustment available especially when lifted.

Full aluminium front diff housing in a 4X4, what were they thinking? I know they're not the only ones to do this.

This is a few good reasons why I beleive that the design is extremely flawed. I am foreman in a large multi franchise dealership, not Jeep, and therefore i get all the wheel alignments that are not stright forward toe adjustments. My KJ, even though I love the little bugger is one of the worst- Most issues, less available adjustment to fix, vehicles out there.

I also think that the reason you might see more Jap vehicles broken in remote areas is that they probably outnumber IFS Jeeps by about 50 to 1. I personally would much rather a Prado IFS setup in my KJ.

Other than all that, I love it.