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.
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.

coily rear shock mount

Tech Talk for Suzuki owners.

Moderators: lay80n, sierrajim

Post Reply
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: central coast

coily rear shock mount

Post by saffrett »

any one come up with rear shock mounts for a coily so u can fit some longer shocks in there.
was thinking cutting hole in floor and bringing them up to a new point on the roll cage when it goes in. wat do people think about that idea
1990 lwb vit
4 in lift
winch,lockers,gears, 31's
Posts: 7345
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Gwagensteve »

The issue is how you are going to run long enough springs to use a shock that much longer. To achieve, say, 10" of spring travel will require a spring almost twice as long as the one you have now - where is it all going to go?

Coilers already have poor roll stiffness and antisquat characteristics. They'll only get worse if you let the springs unload. f your going to go through the floor, go to a coilover so you get rid of the springs unloading etc.

Personally, I think I'd ditch the factory location altogether and try and run shocks in a similar position to where they are on a vitara, land rover, or 80 series - with the bottom right out near the wheel and roughly level with the bottom of the rim and the top mounted to the chassis. This will help to tame the nasty floppy motion these cars have stock due to inboarded shocks and very low rear roll stiffness.

As for adding rear wheel travel - it's about eleventy million times more important to try and free the front end up. Whilst having lots of rear travel looks cool, I now set up cars with very little thought given to rear travel, all the real work goes into getting the front to work. This makes for a far more predicatalbe car on climbs, where coilers are traditionally spooky.

Just my 2c.

PS you'll be running rear bumpstop spacers to clear bigger tyres anyway, so a longer rear shock will be a bolt in, up to the useful limit of the spring design.

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]
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: central coast

Post by saffrett »

thanks for that ur always full of good info
just ramped the car today and worked out its the stupid radius arm design thats limiting the front and back not the shocks
1990 lwb vit
4 in lift
winch,lockers,gears, 31's
Posts: 7345
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:29 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Gwagensteve »

Correct - the radius arm design is the problem - it binds badly - and the rear springs are too close together. These, along with very short front shocks and heavy limitations on shock diameter are the principle problems with the coil design.

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]
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Maroochydore, sunshine coast

Post by spamwell »

yeah silly suzuki.

jimny front suspention mounts where my favourite idea to be able to use a bigger shock and for the rear i found mine to be alot more stable by using a better shock aswell but yeah the springs are to inboard but hey can't be more unstable then some of the crazy suspention you see on here.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest