Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
What year what suspension set up?
Moderator: Micka
What year what suspension set up?
Been Reading a few threads via search about the rangie/disco rear suspension set up.
My question is, what years was the basic Rear set up before it went to a aframe and knuckle joint on top of the diff set up?
EG just the simple four arms
I would think the early rangies would have it and I would think it would be the strongest??
Anyone got any Pics??
Thanks!
My question is, what years was the basic Rear set up before it went to a aframe and knuckle joint on top of the diff set up?
EG just the simple four arms
I would think the early rangies would have it and I would think it would be the strongest??
Anyone got any Pics??
Thanks!
Mooney Yee Haa
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
The Defenders all have it, and the county
The Rangie classics all have it, the P38 facelift does not.
The Disco1 has it, but the Disco2 on does not have it.
Also they are not particularly strong in standard setup. You need to run stronger lower links. and possibly reinforce the A-frame ball joint mount on the tops of the Rover style axles. Then they're strong.
The Rangie classics all have it, the P38 facelift does not.
The Disco1 has it, but the Disco2 on does not have it.
Also they are not particularly strong in standard setup. You need to run stronger lower links. and possibly reinforce the A-frame ball joint mount on the tops of the Rover style axles. Then they're strong.
Cheers
Slunnie
Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Slunnie
Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
No. All rangies up to 95, all discoveries up to 99, and all defenders (unless the newest ones have changed!) have an A-frame with ball joint, and 2 trailing arms. There never was any 'four arm' rear end. 96 on rangies have two trailing arms and a panhard rod, series 2 discovery (late 99 on) have two trailing arms and a watts link.Remydog05 wrote:so the basic early rangies (78-84?) have the most basic four arm in a frame shape?
84 Rangie, 3 inch spring lift, 2 inch body, Megasquirted 4.6, R380, rear Maxi, 34x11.5 JT2s. Simex FM installed.
Ok so Im up the putt!
Slunnie, if you are happy too can you PM me your email and I will send you some pics as I want to identify what the set is that I have photos of.
I thought it was early rangie but Im not so sure now!
So whats all your opinon on the best articulating rear rover set up?
From what I understand a 2 inch lift is plenty for great flex?
Slunnie, if you are happy too can you PM me your email and I will send you some pics as I want to identify what the set is that I have photos of.
I thought it was early rangie but Im not so sure now!
So whats all your opinon on the best articulating rear rover set up?
From what I understand a 2 inch lift is plenty for great flex?
Mooney Yee Haa
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
My opinion is that the standard A ball setup is the best. Reason for that is you have the single pivoting centre locator, and only two trailing arms with a single bush at the diff end to bind up the movement, allowing each side plenty of freedom to move up and down. Even at standard height the A-ball rear end will comfortably stuff the whole tyre up inside the rear guard, and drop the other side much further down than pretty much any other 4wd. With a 2 inch lift, you don't really run into much issues with things binding on full droop, and gain a bit more downtravel (if using longer shocks). However, much more than that requires strengthening (also extending if going for a big lift) of the a-ball mount on top of the diff, and can also need either kickers to angle the trailing arm bush downwards where it meets the chassis, or cranked trailing arms, otherwise you run the risk of ripping the mounting bracket off the chassis.Remydog05 wrote:Ok so Im up the putt!
So whats all your opinon on the best articulating rear rover set up?
From what I understand a 2 inch lift is plenty for great flex?
Also the early trailing arms, although solid as compared to the hollow ones of later models, are prone to bending. Probably due to being smaller in diameter as well as being made out of lower grade steel. The later arms still will bend like a banana in the right circumstances, but seem to be a bit stronger.
84 Rangie, 3 inch spring lift, 2 inch body, Megasquirted 4.6, R380, rear Maxi, 34x11.5 JT2s. Simex FM installed.
Out of interest, I have noticed that a number of competition ("comp safari" rather than "challenge") rovers in the UK went to front radius arms in the rear with a panhard rod. I think roll stiffness and roll centre were touted as the reasons.
The very low roll stiffness and high roll centre of the a frame isn't necessarily the be all and end all.
I only mention this because I own a radius arm all round car (Gwagen) and I plan on building my sierra the same way, using Rover front radius arms all round. for me, balanced roll stiffness is preferable to gained travel.
If I'm wrong, the Vitara rear diff centres I'm using already have an A frame mount on them so I can add a 3rd link to adjust antisquat and remove bind once I've unbolted the back set of radius arm bolts.
I'd also like to play with roll centre a bit. I've seen all sorts of panhard heights used from level with the axle tube (stock) to about 12" above the axle tube (walker evans rock buggy) so I'd like to be able to play with it on the rear. (won't have any choice on the front)
Just some thoughts.
Travel can be chased like the holy grail, but once you've got it you might find out it's just a rusty cup.
Steve.
The very low roll stiffness and high roll centre of the a frame isn't necessarily the be all and end all.
I only mention this because I own a radius arm all round car (Gwagen) and I plan on building my sierra the same way, using Rover front radius arms all round. for me, balanced roll stiffness is preferable to gained travel.
If I'm wrong, the Vitara rear diff centres I'm using already have an A frame mount on them so I can add a 3rd link to adjust antisquat and remove bind once I've unbolted the back set of radius arm bolts.
I'd also like to play with roll centre a bit. I've seen all sorts of panhard heights used from level with the axle tube (stock) to about 12" above the axle tube (walker evans rock buggy) so I'd like to be able to play with it on the rear. (won't have any choice on the front)
Just some thoughts.
Travel can be chased like the holy grail, but once you've got it you might find out it's just a rusty cup.
Steve.
[quote="greg"] some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.[/quote]
thanks for the help slunnie
Yeah its a zuk ute I had 3 years ago and had to sell due to $$$$ at the time.
I didnt build it, I bought it already done, the rear setup was great, I was told it was an Isuzu rear diff from a Jackaroo/Rodeo, etc and you can only just see but it had rear disk brakes!!
it also ran a Bundy frontend with radius arm & panhard so it got some stability from the front.
Id love to build something like this again myself as I have the $$ now and the parts are not that expensive in respect to the 4wd world of costs!
Can anyone see any reason why this would have some down falls in geometry etc, I know its a hard call via a few pics and no measurements or angles, but you get the idea. If I built it again I would use 80's Bumpstops inside the coils
OR is anyone knows where this Green ute has gone I would buy it back!
Thanks again for the help Slunnie
Rob
Yeah its a zuk ute I had 3 years ago and had to sell due to $$$$ at the time.
I didnt build it, I bought it already done, the rear setup was great, I was told it was an Isuzu rear diff from a Jackaroo/Rodeo, etc and you can only just see but it had rear disk brakes!!
it also ran a Bundy frontend with radius arm & panhard so it got some stability from the front.
Id love to build something like this again myself as I have the $$ now and the parts are not that expensive in respect to the 4wd world of costs!
Can anyone see any reason why this would have some down falls in geometry etc, I know its a hard call via a few pics and no measurements or angles, but you get the idea. If I built it again I would use 80's Bumpstops inside the coils
OR is anyone knows where this Green ute has gone I would buy it back!
Thanks again for the help Slunnie
Rob
Mooney Yee Haa
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
I would guess they are all custom links...probably just 32mm nominal bore heavy wall pipe...the lowers probably have 25mm NB pipe up the centre. The links all have early range rover front radius arm chassis end bushes on one end (rover mushroom bushes) and early range rover rear lower arm to diff end bushes on the other. I would also guess its running early range rover springs...say 130lb/in.
We didnt build this setup but we built lots like it...the mog rover, tonys budgie buggie, the homeless buggy, the lockless buggy, the lockless defender etc etc.
Very simple and cheap setup. Probably the only issue with it is the flexability on the mushroom bushes allows a bit of axle wrap and movement of the diff side to side (cause the bushes are used in the upper trianglated links with not much triangluation)....basically lets the rear axle wobble around more than using a traditional range rover rear suspension bush setup.
But for a trail rig works perfectly well...and for a trail rig heim joints work better but a lots more expensive.
Sam
We didnt build this setup but we built lots like it...the mog rover, tonys budgie buggie, the homeless buggy, the lockless buggy, the lockless defender etc etc.
Very simple and cheap setup. Probably the only issue with it is the flexability on the mushroom bushes allows a bit of axle wrap and movement of the diff side to side (cause the bushes are used in the upper trianglated links with not much triangluation)....basically lets the rear axle wobble around more than using a traditional range rover rear suspension bush setup.
But for a trail rig works perfectly well...and for a trail rig heim joints work better but a lots more expensive.
Sam
Thanks Sam
So do I read your coments right that for a non competing play Buggy that rarley does over 30klm hr this would be fine and great articulation etc.
but for a road going car to be engineered it would be smarter to loose some flex and go for a more stable set up (it has to do 100klm hour on highways) with close to stock Aframe/Balljoint and lower trailing arms, and follow as close stock rangie/disco geometry.
Can you see any problem with having the springs inboard? Or just use bumpstops to limit up travel and the shock for down travel?
So do I read your coments right that for a non competing play Buggy that rarley does over 30klm hr this would be fine and great articulation etc.
but for a road going car to be engineered it would be smarter to loose some flex and go for a more stable set up (it has to do 100klm hour on highways) with close to stock Aframe/Balljoint and lower trailing arms, and follow as close stock rangie/disco geometry.
Can you see any problem with having the springs inboard? Or just use bumpstops to limit up travel and the shock for down travel?
Mooney Yee Haa
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
Go Off like a Frog in a SOCK!
I didnt do it! - Bart
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests