Chicken Drumstick

Don’t know if this is of any help to you ?

I know over the years there has been much written and said about improving the suspension of a Land Rover. And lots of different products and setups. I thought it might be interesting to revisit this and explore what I'm currently looking at doing and accomplishing. As well as what others have done. Because some older products & kits are no longer available and there are new shocks available these days and maybe new ideas also. I'll be upfront and honest and say, I am no expert and no engineer. I'm just an enthusiastic home mechanic, who doesn't always want to follow the masses or conform to the norm. My past build (and sadly now missed) was a leaf sprung 88 Series III, which some of you may recall due to my build thread on here. Whereby I altered the suspension and added 14" travel shocks. I don't think I ever got the full travel out of the shocks and there was certainly more left in the suspension. But I got it to a stage were it was lovely balanced front to rear and certainly flexed well enough to embarrass far newer machinery. However, this thread is much more centred on coil sprung, Defender style suspension. And while I'm not unhappy with my current 88 coilers setup, I don't believe I have yet managed to get it to equal my old leaf sprung setup. Some of the principles I have tried to adhere to with suspension: Keep it low or as near to standard ride height Maintain suspension compression as well as droop Supple and comfortable off road Stability Safe on road handling Balanced front to rear suspension My current setup is somewhat simple and basic. Just slightly longer shocks (ProComp +2's sourced from Paddocks). And the longest springs I could find. I'm not really a fan or advocate of dislocating suspension. Although I accept it may become the only real option. All mounting points are currently stock. I used to run Range Rover Red/White springs all round, as according this this very helpful list from another member: http://www.red90.ca/rovers/springinfo.html These springs are 170lbs/in and 16.95" long. I found them to be too stiff on the rear, so I have since replaced them with some Flatdog 133lbs/in +2" Range Rover front springs. In practice they seem to have the same uncompressed length as the red/white springs, although being a little softer offer a slightly lower ride height. My plan will be to put the same springs on the front too, as with the red/whites the front is riding about 3/4" higher than the back. Question: Is it possible to buy a spring longer than 17" that is soft enough? Looking online I've not seen anything. I know Tomcat motorsport do some grey springs which are popular with trials vehicles. But I do not know the specs of them. With the long springs and only +2 shocks, I'm not yet hitting issue with the rear springs dislocating. I believe I am maxing out the rear shock currently. *ignore the fact the bump stop is missing... 🤣 As a datum point, from the stop outside edge of the upper spring seat to the top of the axle tube, measuring along the outside of the spring. I'm getting about 20", which is giving me about 5 1/4" down travel from sitting on level ground. I'm sure this can be much improved. At the front, I believe I am also maxing the front shock out also. And using the same datum points I'm getting just over 19 1/2". Giving in the region of 4.5-4.75" down travel from sitting level (remember the front sits higher than the rear currently). Which makes for quite a nicely balanced vehicle off road. We also tried the same on my brothers 200Tdi Ninety. He is running +2" Flatdog standard rate springs all round (standard for a 90). So they are longer, but not heavier. He is also running stock mounts and +2 Terrafirma shocks all round. Sitting level his 90 sits slightly lower than my 88 coiler does. Therefore the suspension should be slightly more compressed. At the rear, using the same datum points he easily gets 20" when extended. And this is using jubilee clips to retain the spring in the upper seat, without them he gets an easy extra 2". Giving nearly 8" of down travel compared to my setup making only just over 5 inches. The 90 has a 'wide' angle A-frame ball joint and somewhat worn upper shock bushes (you could see over 1/4" of travel was from here). I'm running a 20 year old factory A-frame ball joint that has never been off the vehicle and poly bushes. I also wonder if the Terrafirma shocks are actually slightly longer than the ProComps. However the front is a different story. I have made a mod on mine to allow my front radius arms to give more downward travel. The 90 is 100% bone stock in this regard. Down travel was recorded at only 2.8", so no where near maxing the shock out and nearly half the down travel of my 88. And while the 90 performs well, you can see it has a lot more rear axle travel than front axle. Here is a little comparison of how the vehicles currently perform off road: So where too next? Well I know I have a few issues to solve. Such as, under compression the rear wheels hit the seat boxes and despite having heavily trimmed arches, are also hitting what is left of them. Trimming the last inch of wheel arch and cutting the seat boxes is a must. And then to look at new longer shocks and revised upper mounts. Question: With so many shocks on the market these days. It is hard to know what to go for. Gwyn Lewis sells several, the OME sound interesting, but are almost £500 for 4. Claimed to be +5" over standard. There are also ProComp +5", although in other places advertised as +4". So I don't know if they are the same or not. Britpart do some remote reservoir shocks these days with a claimed 10" of travel and Terrfirma also offer remote reservoir shocks with 8 adjustable valve positions, with a 10.8" claimed travel. Or do I simply spec my own shocks as I did with the Rough Country shocks I fitted to my leafer? I think this post is way long enough for now. So I'll leave it here. But I'd love to know your thoughts on the topic. What would be your ideal long travel suspension setup front & rear? Does it exist? What are you views on dislocating setups? And with long springs and stock front radius arms, can you even get the front spring to unseat?

Thought it would be interesting to gauge what type of Grenadier body config appeals the most. Personally I think the Station Wagon looks brilliant. But I think I'd actually be temped by the practicality of a double cab pickup.

Not sure you'll find any cast iron output figures. Car makers rate engines on an engine dyno under strict testing conditions. But these vary from country to country and standard to standard. There are even things like imperial and metric units to consider too. Most owners will only likely have access to a chassis dyno (aka rolling road). Which also have all the same variables as above, but usually much wider margins. Plus operator error (or tampering) and even different types of dynos that produce different figures in different ways. And all of these will be at the wheels, not the flywheel. Getting a flywheel figure from a rolling road is always going to be a guess, sometimes a semi educated one. But it is always a guess. Therefore I would not take any rolling road figure seriously. The best you could hope for would be someone testing at a rolling road with before and after turbo runs on the same day, run to the same correction factors and standards.

Yet this is the crux of it Snagger. It simply does not in anyway shape or form say this on the .gov pages. I know you want it too (really want it too). But it does not. It just says original. But as it uses the word 'original' 11 other times in the same context. Which can be clearly demonstrated to not mean the physical instance of the item it left the factory with. Just the same type, be it new or used. So long as it is the same specification and unmodified. Else half the Land Rover's in the UK and most classic cars would all be rolling about on Q plates. Which clearly they are not. It is also worth noting that a vehicles ID is not solely based on the chassis number stamping. Most modern'ish vehicles will have multiple stampings in different places. Indeed in the case of most Land Rovers with a ladder chassis. They will have a separate VIN plate affixed to the bodywork that forms the basis of the vehicle ID. e.g.

That 2nd bullet is referring very clearly to a 'new' chassis or bodyshell. In saying it must be of the same specification, aka you can't replace a 109" chassis with an 88" one. Or a box section chassis with a tubular one. Or a convertible unibody instead of a saloon. And logically it is saying this, as it doesn't want you cutting up the existing chassis from say 109" to 88" either. So this is to close the loop hole of people buying a new replacement to altered the spec of the vehicle. As for ringing, I have already provided you with a DVLA definition on this term. Which is clearly something completely different to what is being discussed here. As we are not talking about stolen cars and trying to pass them off as something else. Please try to be reasonable, rather than throwing out unfounded allocations.

Yes I have used it also. They are helpful to an extent, but it is not legal advice they offer. Just an opinion of their interpretation. Which can vary depending on who you speak to or who replies to your query. And in most cases they will often just site the info as represented on the .gov site. Here are some replies from them in the past:

I personally wouldn't consider running without the turbo. You'll make about the same power as a 2.25 petrol or 2.5NAD, but with less refinement due to direct injection. I do really struggle to see the point in doing such a conversion. The intercooler is a different matter. It will run fine without one, but ultimately expect less performance and potentially higher EGT's. On a bone stock Tdi in a lighter vehicle I think you'll be fine (is there such a thing as stock untuned Tdi these days???). I ran a 200Tdi in my 88 leafer. Without an intercooler and it went really well. I also didn't smoke at all and I recorded a high of 43mpg when laning. However I did find it'd run a little bit hotter for prolonged high speed running. So in somewhere hot like Australia, I think this might be more of a concern. Of course you can always slow down and it won't be an issue. But something you may want to think about. Had I kept my 88 leafer, my plan was to fit an intercooler from a Tdci, as it would have been a lot easier than the stock Tdi intercooler. I had the intercooler ready to fit, but sold the vehicle before getting round to doing it. The 88 leafer is slightly lighter than a Ninety, but performance wise my 88 would happily keep pace with Tdi powered 90's (tweaked and running intercoolers). As for smoke. If an engine has been sitting a while, I'd say get it running first. And maybe run some injector cleaner through it and see how it goes. Unless you are happy spending the money up front. But it might just want running. And tbh all the Tdi's smoke a bit.

The debate is really around the definition of the word "original" On the radically altered regs page it uses the word "original" 7 times. On the Rebuilt vehicle regs page it uses the word "original" 5 times. In each of the 12 instances I would say the context and intent of the word is the same for each. Therefore what does original mean for these 12 times it is used? I declare that it is my opinion that in this context original means "type", not the actual physical instance of the item. If it does not mean this, then my 5 month old Suzuki Jimny, that has just had the transfer box replaced by the dealership, is now 2 points down and 2 points closer to needing an IVA -- which frankly would be ludicrous! However, what is happening with some posters above. They are wanting to use the word "original" in a completely different way only when referencing the chassis and ignoring how the word is used elsewhere on the proceeding lines. There is simply nothing to support this reasoning on the .gov pages that the definition of the word "original" changes across the page(s): https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/rebuilt-vehicles Therefore using logic and deductive reasoning, if the word "original" in this context means "type". Then it is perfectly acceptable to replace a ladder chassis with another or the same type, that isn't new and isn't modified. And while it does not mention it on these pages. It is clear from other legislation that the vehicle ID's should tally. I do not see how in any rational conversation that this can be considered as one person said "a cut & shut". Nothing has been cut or welded, and nobody is trying to pass off a stolen car as another. In regards to this thread, it means the the op is perfectly and legally entitled to sell the chassis they have and that someone is legally entitled to buy it and use it, so long as they aren't trying to duplicate a vehicles ID. The ID can only legally be associated with a single vehicle.

I've got a question or two. The quoted specs for the Defender (clearance, departure/approach/breakover angles). Does anyone know what suspension setting these are based on? I assume it has a 'normal' ride height. Then an extended/raised ride height and probably a non user selectable super extended mode for when beached. All the off road vids I've seen thus far seem to have the vehicle sitting very high. But in the above vid I think it is clear that when in this mode, the suspension just doesn't have much droop, thus lifting wheels easily, even the front wheel when going down hill. And due to riding high, which I assume is higher pressures in the air springs, the suspension also seems to resist compression, wanting to lift the entire vehicle more so? If you look at the front of the G-Wagen, or even the Bronco in the promo vids. You can see, even with independent suspension, the wheel will go up and down. The Defender just seems a lot less willing to do this. Which on this terrain means a lot more wheel scrabble and a lot reliance on the traction control? I wonder if it would go a lot better in a lower ride height, barring the fact all the angles and clearance would be worse. I just wonder if the suspension would work better (and remove the bobbing you see from the Defender when going along).

lol, clearly you have a reading problem in regard to this 😛 It most evidently does not say what you have in speech marks above.... as already posted, but posted again just for you To paraphrase, the devil is in the detail

I doubt you'd be able to get such a thing, unless you know anyone who has? I've never come across it. If you speak to the DVSA they will give you nothing more than that persons opinion. It is not a statement of fact. Nor proof. And when I've asked in the past, there is no way of having a vehicle inspected to see if it needs an IVA or not, nothing official at any rate. All you can do is decide yourself and submit it for an IVA. But even if it doesn't need it, they will still want to process it as if it does from this point onwards.

I would say the same of you. You are changing the meaning of 'original' from line to line. And not reading how it is actually written. Nobody has suggested a cut and shut, so why even mention it, unless you are clinging at straws to try and justify your position?

The Share short URL seems to work better, past into the editor and hit enter and it should do the rest. But I've found the editor to be fickle on here and if you paste a body of text with links in (say from Notepad or another forum post), it doesn't always work.

This is my personal beef with the Terrain Response system. You need to be an expert on the terrain and how the system works to know which setting to use. It's way more complicated and difficult to use than a regular 4wd system. When my Uncle was at Eastnor on a Land Rover experience day. The instructor told him he'd have to use the sand/desert mode to allow more wheel slip and revs. If you used what looked to be the right mode (mud and ruts) it wouldn't make it up.

Many seem to have been shod with Goodyear Duratracs. Very good tyre and OEM fit for many off road trucks in the USA. Doubt you'll be able to option them in the UK however.

But that simply is not what it says on the .gov sites referenced above. It might be your personal view. But it is quite clearly written for a topic that is so vague in general. Ringing was more about cutting two monocoque chassis from different cars and badly welding them together. Using an entire ladder chassis that is unmodified and one piece, is somewhat different. Or as referenced here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203716/VIC_leaflet__English_.pdf Interestingly enough, no where in that document does it make any mention to selling and using a 2nd hand ladder chassis.

So your understanding of 'original' changes from line to line on that page then? Would you really say if you took an R380 to Ashcroft for an exchange unit that you'd expect to loose 2 points because it isn't the original item (easily verifiable as it has a serial number). Or are you going to suddenly do a U turn and say, well it's the same type... Or if you fit Pro Comp shocks instead of OEM ones? Seriously you can't have it both ways, it is either one or the other. Treat the chassis and the phrasing of original the same as the other components listed. the only thing "extra" it says about the chassis, is you can have a new one. Only if it is new, it can't be modified (i.e. altered) from the original design. It does not mention used parts at all. So clearly isn't prohibiting them.

Illegal. Give it a rest ffs.... 🤣 Look at the image I posted above, it is from the .gov site for radically altered vehicles: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/radically-altered-vehicles The word 'original' is used against every item. Not just the chassis. So a common definition of the word must exist and be applied for each use. Else you are just being obtuse for the sake of it. What you are suggesting is this: Which frankly would be nuts!

What average do Mazda/Subaru have to meet?

It's very simple. And as I posted earlier. How are you interpreting the word "original"? I see you are also referring to the rebuilt regs, not radically altered. But by what process do these or the radically altered ones apply? for radically altered it says "original" for every item. If this was to mean the physical item from the factory, then a recon engine/gearbox or replacement axle would loose you points. I think clearly this is not the case. So it is logical to assume that in this context "original" means the original type. Therefore as long as you retain an unmodified original type chassis, you are fine. It doesn't mention anything at all about allowing or disallowing used items. And for some cars there will be no such thing as a new replacement anyhow. The vehicle being presented needs to have the correct IDs in place for its age. Therefore presenting a chassis with a different ID on would clearly not work. But none of these pages say you have to have the ID on the chassis. Nor do they say the ID cannot be applied to the chassis. If you buy a brand new chassis you will be faced with pretty much the same thing. Either no chassis number or you'll have to have it added. Not too mention, if the word 'used' is not allowed. Then chassis companies would not be able to sell display stock or returned items. As they will not be brand new. And again, clearly I'm sure this isn't the case.

I think there is a lot of scope here. Nothing on the .gov supports this view as ironclad. It would depend on a great many other things.

Thanks. I still struggle to visualise how the maths would work. I still think it is more an excuse than reason. Total UK Jimny sales are not that high and probably a smaller part of total Suzuki UK sales. I assume fleet average is based on volume. Not number of models in the lineup? How do Mazda, Subaru and others manage? Let alone the likes of Morgan, Aston Martin etc.

Surely that would still give you a lower average though??? How is the maths worked out on it?

I think the Defender is being aimed at being “Mall Rover” for soccer Mom’s. Whereas the Bronco is probably more aimed at spending the weekends at the beach or Moab