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.

Disco II better off road?

Tech Talk for Rover owners.

Moderator: Micka

Post Reply
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: NZ

Disco II better off road?

Post by lowbox »

I had a look underneath a Disco II the other day and was surprised to see new radius arm mountings that look much improved. The end of the radius arm has a tube running across the vehicle that would allow it to articulate freely up or down (no angular movement though).
The trailing arms were the same type of joint, which explains why they are not swappable to earlier Discos - you'd have to put new mounts on the chassis!
From the look of them, a Disco II should have the advantage in articulation becuase the bushing bind would seem to be a lot less.
Could be a good bet to build up a wrecked Disco II? Waddya reckon?
ct
Posts: 3288
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Central West NSW

Re: Disco II better off road?

Post by Slunnie »

The chassis end of the trailing/radius arms are good IMHO. At the front the radius arm bushes onto the axle are also larger than the D1/RR units so they should offer more flex again with the right setup. On the rear though the entire back end has been done differently to the D1/RR. It is setup with a watts linkage and this setup allows about 10" shocks before you have to hit the watts linkage with the die grinder or start bending stuff. It also has the same bushings in the trailing arms to the axles as what the front has. This means that as you start flexing the bushes start making the roll stiffness progressively tighter. I still think Sam's slotted bushes will allow the D2 to see ramp figures of 1000 (front and rear), though I only know of 1 fellow in the US who has gone and drilled everything.

These pics are of a D2 owner in Melb with 3" lift, about 180lb-Front and 280Lb-Rear, 9" rear shocks, standard front shocks, no drilled bushes. and ACE sway bars.
RTI 846 Front
RTI 869 Rear on a 20 degree ramp
Cheers
Slunnie

Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:12 pm
Location: Gold Coast QLD

Post by the naked Duck »

Thats a bucket load more flex than my D2 :shock: :shock:

Have you ramped your D2 Slunnie
Posts: 3288
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Central West NSW

Post by Slunnie »

No, I've never ramped it. :? I've never had access to a ramp unfortunately. I would expect it to be somewhere around 750 though. Bryans setup is a bit softer than what I run.
Cheers
Slunnie

Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:12 pm
Location: Gold Coast QLD

Post by the naked Duck »

Must give the Rangie a go and see what it does
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Sydney,Australia

Post by Red Disco »

Hi everybody new user here with my 2c worth,
just read on another site that a stock DSII w/ACE can ramp 731 while a DSII with an OME setup can only manage 560...
Just a little confused right now as I am about to put some sort of a lift in my own DSII w/ACE.
If these figures are true my goal would be to improve or at least retain the RTI of 731, wouldn't you think?
George :?
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Sydney,Australia

Post by Red Disco »

I should also mention the web site I guess... :cool:
www.okoffroad.com/okrovers/events-rti-02.htm
Posts: 3288
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Central West NSW

Post by Slunnie »

Some interesting data there and it is pretty similar to what some of the lads in Melbourne (LROCV) have tested on the ramp also. The OME springs are stiffer than the factory setup to gain a bit of lift and are only slightly longer in the free length, but ultimately the stiffness will reduce the RTI. It doesn't reduce the RTI to that extent though. The reason for the big difference on that website is due to the ACE. The one that ramps 730 has ACE, and when the thing is put into low range the swaybars have virtually no effect, its like removing them altogether and so it frees the axle up to move. The other Disco that ramped 590 has the stiffer springs but it also has the sway bars connected which reduces the RTI by a fair bit. If he disconnects the swaybar or runs "Disconnects" he wont be all that far off the Disco that ramped 730. Interestingly that RTI730 Disco has the 18" rims, and with the 16" rims and some tyre deflation it will ramp higher again.

A mate in Vic has setup with a 3" softly sprung lift. About 180lb front and 260lb rear, running factory front shocks and 9" rears 32" MTR's and ramped about 850 with ACE. I would think that with drilled bushes and fitted shocks he wont be far off RTI1000

Anyway, ACE is the key to those stats
Cheers
Slunnie

Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 8:45 am
Location: Over there

Post by Bodge »

So Disco II has great legs - shame about the fat arse...
The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."
Posts: 3288
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Central West NSW

Post by Slunnie »

yeah it smacks around a bit.
Cheers
Slunnie

Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests