Page 1 of 1

What year what suspension set up?

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:23 am
by Remydog05
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!

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:34 am
by 6.5 rangie
its always been a frame jobby

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:19 am
by Slunnie
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.

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:39 pm
by Remydog05
so the basic early rangies (78-84?) have the most basic four arm in a frame shape?

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:01 pm
by RangingRover
Remydog05 wrote:so the basic early rangies (78-84?) have the most basic four arm in a frame shape?
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.

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:14 pm
by Remydog05
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?

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:03 pm
by RangingRover
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?
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.

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.

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:54 pm
by Slunnie
A-frame setup x2.

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:19 pm
by Remydog05
Thanks All

Any Pics?

Slunnie Ive emailed you, thanks!

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:03 pm
by Gwagensteve
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.

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:42 am
by Remydog05
Anyone have some Pics of the Rangie set up, etc?

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:41 pm
by Slunnie
Remydog05 sorry this took so long!

Here are the pics of your suspension

Image

Image

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:18 pm
by stuee
Hey :? Is that Remydog05's setup?? Looks like the underside of a hilux or something?? (with modified suspension of course...)

Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:48 pm
by Slunnie
Yeah, its a Suzuki Sierra ute which has a 4 link rear setup with all links coming from Rover rear lower links and Early RRC coils by the looks of it. Thats not a Toy diff, he was saying its an Isuzu diff of some descript.

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:20 am
by Remydog05
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

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:41 pm
by Strange Rover
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

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:16 am
by Remydog05
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?