Basic buggy/rig dimensions- belly height vs seat position vs drivetrain

I'm wondering about some basic dimensions of belly height vs seat placement vs drivetrain (crank centerline)

It looks like there is a wide variation in these dimensions in different styles of chassis ( "normal" 2/4 seat front engine layout)

Really interested in comparing a WOD style chassis (looks to have a fairly deep belly pan/subframe, cab centered, sit above & behind drivetrain )
vs say a Jimmy smith style chassis (looks to have a shallow subframe, low overall height, cab rearward, sit low behind drivetrain)
vs something like a bomber or bent fab chassis that is more cab forward with the drivetrain below and beside the driver, and a small foot box


I was thinking about full body rigs, and how much floor chopping, drivetrain raising, compromised link geometry, frame hacking, etc goes into one when you are looking for a flat belly pan and an extra inch of uptravel.

I know most all tube buggies have the front axle well in front of the engine, plus the radiator is mounted out of the way. Just wondering how hanging a subframe under a stock frame would compare numbers wise.

Good ???? Interesting

My last rig was full tube chassis, 54" wide at the shoulders. We set the engine back as far as possible, my feet were in line with the last header tube. Being as the chassis was narrower, it made for a narrow foot well and hard to keep the heat down because I couldn't get much extra room for heat shields. The belly was right at about 10 1/2"-11" deep and every thing seemed to work good, but it was tight getting it to fit and making the #'s work decent. My current rig has about 6' of factory frame and most of the tub, with the ends modified for up travel. I put a drop bracket on the bottom of the frame for the link/skid mounts. I have a flat belly, I did not need to hack up the floor very much and I even removed the body mounts and set the tub flat on the frame. The engine is slightly more forward in this rig but I mounted the seats as low as I could also. I'm 19" to the belly, 7" up and down travel, the seat is probably 8" above the belly and the roof is 74"ish tall. I think its a blend of personal preference, packaging and compromises between the 2.

Look at the 90's throwback manche build of Mcutler. Great way to look at your question from a practical standpoint with lots of thought. I always hated cabs to build around because the dash is seldom where it needs to be unless you ditch the firewall and floorboard.

Drivetrain pushed back as far as possible. Seats sit behind transfercase.

Seats (kirkey) sit 7" above skidplate.

65.5" is highest point of buggy on 39" bfgs, 6" uptravel in front, 7" in rear. 18.5" belly height.

38" from top of roof rail to bottom of rocker.

B pillar is 54" outside width at shoulders.

The regulars probably know what mine looks like, but for the thread:

20170304_180432https://www.flickr.com/photos/146897672@N05/

nhl_bullitt said:

Drivetrain pushed back as far as possible. Seats sit behind transfercase.

Seats (kirkey) sit 7" above skidplate.

65.5" is highest point of buggy on 39" bfgs, 6" uptravel in front, 7" in rear. 18.5" belly height.

38" from top of roof rail to bottom of rocker.

B pillar is 54" outside width at shoulders.

Click to expand...

Wheelbase?

kmcminn said:

Wheelbase?

Click to expand...

About 118"

blacksheep10 said:

Look at the 90's throwback manche build of Mcutler. Great way to look at your question from a practical standpoint with lots of thought. I always hated cabs to build around because the dash is seldom where it needs to be unless you ditch the firewall and floorboard.

Click to expand...

I'm a build thread junkie, so I study and make notes on lots of builds. Also crawled all over many of these rigs over the years, but never with a tape measure.

The throwback Manche, thewhiteshadow's Dirt Squirrel 2.0, and the xtra cab Toyota that Bentfab built/started are all cab-buggys with the engine sat WAY far back and look to have tiny foot wells to keep the front axle in a reasonable location in relation to the cab (front doesnt look push WAY forward)

I think Jeeps probably have an advantage when building a bodied rig retaining relatively stockish look because of the way the front of the vehicle is layed out compared to a pickup/suv type vehicle.

stano said:

My last rig was full tube chassis, 54" wide at the shoulders. We set the engine back as far as possible, my feet were in line with the last header tube. Being as the chassis was narrower, it made for a narrow foot well and hard to keep the heat down because I couldn't get much extra room for heat shields. The belly was right at about 10 1/2"-11" deep and every thing seemed to work good, but it was tight getting it to fit and making the #'s work decent. My current rig has about 6' of factory frame and most of the tub, with the ends modified for up travel. I put a drop bracket on the bottom of the frame for the link/skid mounts. I have a flat belly, I did not need to hack up the floor very much and I even removed the body mounts and set the tub flat on the frame. The engine is slightly more forward in this rig but I mounted the seats as low as I could also. I'm 19" to the belly, 7" up and down travel, the seat is probably 8" above the belly and the roof is 74"ish tall. I think its a blend of personal preference, packaging and compromises between the 2.

Click to expand...

Good info. The footwell heat control seems to be an issue with a lot of buggys. The ones Ive rode in with the engine set real far back (Jims Garage style, M&M) were pretty hot inside for normal trail riding. The weight distribution advantage is pretty hard to argue though!



Here's some pics of what I was referring to in the original post. I know I could "eyeball measure" from the pics, but I think if a few people compile some numbers it may help others make decisions on their rig layout and decisions on packaging and compromises.

All I know is building from scratch is a challenge. I measured my RZR, my truck, my wifes Jeep to get my seating position figured out. After a built the cage on the first design I spent several days with different ideas and just came to the conclusion that visabilty was not what I wanted and the roof was really to close to my head to be safe. I decided to grind all the tack welds and redo the whole center area.

I started with the Goatbuilt subframe which rally determines engine position, and with equal lower link lengths, determines axles location. All I had to do was build around it. Sounds simple but has been more difficult.

I am building just an all around recreational rig. Simple, light, low, good visabilty, storage behind seats for tools and straps.

here is a pic that gives a pretty good perspective of a factory Toyota drivetrain/seating location






This

vs
av91 by zach g, on Flickr

nhl_bullitt said:

Drivetrain pushed back as far as possible. Seats sit behind transfercase.

Seats (kirkey) sit 7" above skidplate.

65.5" is highest point of buggy on 39" bfgs, 6" uptravel in front, 7" in rear. 18.5" belly height.

38" from top of roof rail to bottom of rocker.

B pillar is 54" outside width at shoulders.

The regulars probably know what mine looks like, but for the thread:

note91buggyhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/146897672@N05/

Click to expand...

Yea, that blue buggy was a factory mounted 4.0 with 6" front axle stretch and only 3" uptravel for specific reference. That front axle was still nowhere near clearing the harmonic balancer, like by 8".

Re:

I would say it depends on what you want. Visibilty vs height vs length vs width. I personally don't like the subframe for the drivetrain, i would prefer a flat belly to get the seating and overall height down, but that either makes it wider, longer, or less interior room; and likely leads to less forward visibilty.

Rear engine makes all of these potentially better/easier, but has its downsides. And if you are looking to build a 3/4 seater that is a challenge. I haven't seen a nice 4 seat rear engine rig.

nhl_bullitt said:

Yea, that blue buggy was a factory mounted 4.0 with 6" front axle stretch and only 3" uptravel for specific reference. That front axle was still nowhere near clearing the harmonic balancer, like by 8".

Click to expand...

It's no joke getting an axle in front of a 4.0 harmonic balance. My axle is, but I'm around 11" of front stretch.



I'm glad this thread got started though. This is something I've been thinking about as I plan what to do when I scrap the xj.

paradisepwoffrd said:

I would say it depends on what you want. Visibilty vs height vs length vs width. I personally don't like the subframe for the drivetrain, i would prefer a flat belly to get the seating and overall height down, but that either makes it wider, longer, or less interior room; and likely leads to less forward visibilty.

Click to expand...

This could go for a lot of full on buggy builds, but having views of the front tires from inside the cab is pretty cool. I mean sure I could close it off, but the visibility is pretty nifty sometimes. I know that is not what you were talking about, but it made me think of it.

BLGXJ said:

It's no joke getting an axle in front of a 4.0 harmonic balance. My axle is, but I'm around 11" of front stretch.



I'm glad this thread got started though. This is something I've been thinking about as I plan what to do when I scrap the xj.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised 11" was enough. That's cool though.

Whatever direction you decide to go, fire up a build thread.

Good insight.

I've built 3 Toyotas for myself that ended up truggy/firewall buggy. After I sold the gremlin I said "never again". If I build from a stock frame I'm keeping 100% creature comforts for trail riding and just dealing with the compromises, not building a "hard core wheeler"

First rig I built, I body lifted to raise entire drivetrain and chopped frame to clear high steer

On the 4Runner buggy I cut the floor out and raised the tcase up flush with the frame. This basically ended up with a buggy with a very wide flat belly.

On the gremlin I didn't cut the floor and just built a drop crossmember/skid. There was so much I didn't like about that rig that I got disgusted and sold it.



I'm thinking/measuring around about putting a ~4-6" deep \___/ subframe angled in from the stock framerails on a 3rd gen 4Runner.
Kinda like this but on stockish Super Duty tons



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nhl_bullitt said:

I'm surprised 11" was enough. That's cool though.

Whatever direction you decide to go, fire up a build thread.

Click to expand...

It may be more, it's been nearly four years since I set the front axle under it and measured. I'll probably re measure the next time I swap the rear springs.

Any buggy build from me is a while out, I've been putting together parts for a mild CJ build for the better half and I need to get it done before trying to build something for myself.

TBItoy said:

Good insight.

I've built 3 Toyotas for myself that ended up truggy/firewall buggy. After I sold the gremlin I said "never again". If I build from a stock frame I'm keeping 100% creature comforts for trail riding and just dealing with the compromises, not building a "hard core wheeler"

First rig I built, I body lifted to raise entire drivetrain and chopped frame to clear high steer

On the 4Runner buggy I cut the floor out and raised the tcase up flush with the frame. This basically ended up with a buggy with a very wide flat belly.

On the gremlin I didn't cut the floor and just built a drop crossmember/skid. There was so much I didn't like about that rig that I got disgusted and sold it.



I'm thinking/measuring around about putting a ~4-6" deep \___/ subframe angled in from the stock framerails on a 3rd gen 4Runner.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Man, I've got to say if I was to build a bodied rig again, I would absolutely do it like white shadow's yota. It just enables you to place everything right where you want it, with strength, cleanliness, function and fashion all taken care of.

Although in your first paragraph you say the build would not be a hardcore wheeler, is that the new build you are talking about? Then yea maybe the compromise is your subframe concept.

Btw, I just saw the pic of the 4runner. I missed that earlier. That on Super Duties is definitely cool.

if this will help....

sorry not too many numbers. roof height is around 71" and belly should be about 19" (fairly sure on both) on 43s. 116" wb

Mine is a bit different from the ones already posted, but here is a shot of it...
Mine was meant to be a trail buggy/rockcrawler, but I still had to be able to drive it on the street. After researching and talking to a few buddies who built theirs I went for as much clearance as I could get, and gave up a little bit on the height



113.5" wheelbase, 6 up 8 down, 21 under the belly, 74 to the top
54 inches outside to outside... as stated before the drivetrain setback is pretty extreme on this, to the point that my foot is beside the #3 spark plug. I had to ceramic coat the exhaust (which runs over top of the bellhousing), the firewall, and also run that adhesive foil heat shield (can't remember the name of the stuff) all of which control the heat pretty well. I wanted it as neutral as possible, and it turned out to be 200 pounds heavier in the front ( so 52/48 bias, or thereabouts) foot well aren't bad, but it ain't super roomy either. Harmonic balancer is about 6 inches behind the front axle, motor is a 5.3. So far me and m passengers find it comfortable, and it is very stable on the trail, and with good visibility