Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Look like rangie Rear is still winning!

As for Front??? Still Rangie?

Do Rangies run Swaybars etc?

Remydog05 wrote:Look like rangie Rear is still winning!

As for Front??? Still Rangie?

Do Rangies run Swaybars etc?

Only the later ones ran swaybars. The last of the classics with air suspension and swaybars was IMO the pinnacle.

Gwagensteve wrote:That was Bill Larman - used to be Daddylonglegs on here.

all live axle designs provide some amount of leverage.

With suzukis (my speciality) we inboard springs and bumpstops to increase this effect. Adding track width also adds articulation at the wheel for a fixed amount of vertical travel.

Steve.

how does this effect there onroad behaviour? stability?

also i imagine it would be putting more stress on the axle casing(bending)

cheers, Serg

It's a sierra mate, they don't handle.

All we're doing is running the springs under the chassis as per factory up until 1988, so any effect on roll stiffness etc is only puts the car back to the same as an earlier model.

We do signficantly inboard the bumpstops, but as the car doesn't really ride on the bumpstops during normal operation it's not a significant effect until the car is articulated, which doesn't really happen on road.

Steve.

5 link front end of a jeep destroys a rangie when the sway bar is removed. (i'm talking factory with no mods too)

rear of a patrol (gq-gu) best i've seen.


you guys talking up the pommy gear obviously dont understand how good a 5 link front is on a jeep.

now here is a pic of a patrol flexing (front) vs a jeep.

now i realize neither are standard, but both have a 3" lift with no sway bar on the font. the patrol has castor plates and the jeep no castor mods.



as you can see the jeep is far out flexing the patrol, and if you put a rangie/disco there it would still kill it.



best supension is 5 link front and 5 link rear, and the longer the arms the better.

Really? Surprises me that a 5-link has less bind than an A-frame.

Meh - Gimme a Rover with wheels still on the ground.

So it might be a case of Rangie Rear and Jeep Front???

without getting into a pissing match, does showing a pic of 2 rigs prove anything?

what about the spring rates? what about front to rear articulation balance? what about unsprung mass?

all that goes out the window when comparing modded stuff.

Serg

Check out this from
http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/rti.htm
I wonder where the patrol would fall compared to these. As you can see the RAngy is one of the best and the Land cruiser is no slouch either.



96 Acura SLX: 506
'93 AM General Hummer: 385
'92 Chevrolet S-10 w/Rugged Trail 3.5-inch lift: 351
'81 Chevrolet K-5 Blazer: 653
'81 Chevrolet K-5 Blazer w/Rugged Trail 2.5-inch lift: 695
'92 Chevrolet K-1500 Blazer: 453
'92 Chevrolet K-1500: 421
'92 Chevrolet K-2500HD turbo diesel: 365
'92 Chevrolet K-3500 Crew Cab dually: 303
'94 Chevy S-10 ZR2: 420
'94 Chevy K-2500 Suburban: 401
'95 Chevy ZR2 Extended Cab: 336
'95 Chevy Blazer 2-dr:. 405
'96 Chevy K-1500 extended-cab: 376
'96 Chevy Tahoe LS: 433
'92 Dodge Ramcharger: 613
'92 Dodge Dakota Club Cab: 393
'92 Dodge W150: 526
'92 Dodge W250 Cummins: 372
'92 Dodge W250 Cummins w/Natl. Spring 3-inch lift: 406
'94 Dodge Ram 1500: 556
'95 Dodge Ram BR2500 Club Cab: 431
'92 Ford Explorer 4-dr.: 460
'92 Ford Explorer 4-dr. w/Superlift 4-inch lift :492
'92 Ford Bronco: 516
'93 Ford Ranger SuperCab: 416
'92 Ford F-150 Flareside: 471
'92 Ford F-150: 484
'92 F-350 Crew Cab w/Mac's Spring Shop 2-inch lift: 405
'94 Ford Ranger SuperCab: 406
'94 Ford Explorer Limited 4-dr.: 443
'94 Ford F-250 SuperCab: 383
'95 Ford F-250 SuperCab: 406
'95 Ford Explorer 2-dr.: 391
'95 Ford Explorer 4-dr.: 352
'97 Ford F-150 SuperCab: 441
'92 GMC Sonoma: 354
'93 GMC Sonoma Club Coupe: 334
'92 GMC K-1500 Suburban: 342
'92 GMC K-3500 Crew Cab: 338
'95 GMC K-1500 Club Coupe: 387
'95 GMC Jimmy 4-dr.: 371
'93 Isuzu Rodeo LS: 435
'92 Isuzu Trooper LS 4-dr.: 497
'93 Isuzu Trooper LS 2-dr.: 508
'93 Isuzu Trooper RS 2-dr.: 529
'94 Isuzu Rodeo LS: 454
'96 Isuzu Rodeo: 464
'75 Jeep DJ-5D: 556
'92 Jeep Cherokee 4-dr.: 399
'92 Jeep Grand Cherokee: 458
'93 Jeep Grand Cherokee: 448
'93 Jeep Grand Cherokee: 439
'96 Jeep Grand Cherokee: 422
'96 Jeep Wrangler: 357
'96 Jeep Wrangler w/Pro-Comp 2.5-inch lift:532
'97 Jeep Wrangler:532
'96 Kia Sportage: 471
'94 Land Rover Defender 90: 580
'95 Land Rover DIscovery: 588
'94 Mazda B4000 Cab Plus: 409
'92 Mitsubishi Montero 4-dr.: 391
'92 Nissan Pathfinder: 511
'96 Nissan Pathfinder: 466
'92 Oldsmobile Bravada 4-dr.: 411
'92 Range Rover County: 670
'93 Range Rover County LWB: 588
'96 Range Rover 4.0SE: 600
'92 Suzuki Sidekick 4-dr.: 379
'96 Suzuki Sidekick Sport: 440
'96 Suzuki X-90: 441
'93 Toyota 4Runner:441
'93 Toyota Land Cruiser: 593
'93 Toyota T100: 407
'95 Toyota T100 XtraCab:369
'96 Toyota Tacoma: 435

But this is the King of axle articulation!

http://www.jeep.com/en/2009/wrangler/ca ... index.html

pootrol would fall somewhere between the disco and the cruiser.

thats what they all rate as over here.

Before you all bag the IFS on the rovers too much

http://www.rangerovers.net/rrsuspension.htm

Paul

Great info! I thought and 80 might be good.

The Vitara/Sidekick are struggling!!!!!!!

Remydog05 wrote:Great info! I thought and 80 might be good.

The Vitara/Sidekick are struggling!!!!!!!

I think it's a measure that discriminates against narrower vehicles isn't it? If you have a wide car your off-ramp wheel will stay on the ground much longer than if you have a narrower one? Or does it take that into account.

If it is just a measure of how far up the ramp you get one side before the opposite side comes off the ground, then wider offset rims would give you an instant increase. Or does it actually measure axle angle?

BTW '96 Range Rover 4.0SE: 600 and I've got my 3" more flexy Gen III air springs in the mail too woohoo!

Good point Chimpboy

I guess it all should be taken in considerartion

Yom wrote:pootrol would fall somewhere between the disco and the cruiser.

thats what they all rate as over here.

I saw a test years ago which I think was done by one of the mags. On that test the Disco TD5 with ACE topped it, the LC was very close (but remember it has a longer wheelbase so probably actually flexs more than a shorter disco), the Jackaroo came after and the Patrol followed.

I think 80s flex good for standed, when I got my 1st 80s, with standed suspension i out flexed my brothers GQ with 3'' lift my coil where pretty sagged & soft. Some of you mite no one of the tracks at Landcruiser park called camp road, at the end of it there's a hill with pretty big wombat holes all the way up it, i got up it with standed suspension but was ruing 33'' muds. But i reckon rangie's flex best for standed.

YankeeDave wrote:5 link front end of a jeep destroys a rangie when the sway bar is removed. (i'm talking factory with no mods too)

rear of a patrol (gq-gu) best i've seen.


you guys talking up the pommy gear obviously dont understand how good a 5 link front is on a jeep.

now here is a pic of a patrol flexing (front) vs a jeep.

now i realize neither are standard, but both have a 3" lift with no sway bar on the font. the patrol has castor plates and the jeep no castor mods.



as you can see the jeep is far out flexing the patrol, and if you put a rangie/disco there it would still kill it.



best supension is 5 link front and 5 link rear, and the longer the arms the better.

not sure that for a 5 link with a 3" lift it flex's massively yankee dave, when a poor little rover with a 2" lift (all standard arms, etc) can flex just as hard and almost identical wheelbase. the front and rear of the GQ isn't massive, and judging by your (estimated) rear axle angle it isn't any further then this....? i doubt it would still 'kill' a rover, rangies, discos and fenders round the same age are all relatively the same suspension just different wheelbases






rear springs are tied in now with no change in travel

You guys have got nothing....

Here is some stock range rover flex....all control arms are stock...only thing different are shocks and springs and softer radius arm bushings...

The blue Landrover is on a stock ranger rover chassis....this was all back in 2002.






Sam

ahaha look how tidy the dunga looks

the pre-mog mog-rover looks soooo much nicer in her orginal colours....

I know with identical vehicle weights, identical spring configs (coil front, leaf rear) and with a 2" OME lift + 3700kg GVM upgrade our LC79 utes outflex and outdrive the GU utes offroad every time.