Daan
-
Posts
4,949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Daan
-
-
I would get an old rangy one that has wide angle u/js and shorten that.
I use standard 88" at the rear and rear 90 at the front. The radius arm setup means the angle is minimal. Also a reason to get max bump travel, rather than droop.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:
Thanks for the insights and info.
I think I'm reasonably set on which mounts I'd like to go for, as well as springs. I have found some that have an uncompressed length of 20.07", so a fair chunk longer than I what I'm running now.
Are the 20" springs the tomcat ones? I did consider them, but they won't tell you the rate, which made it a bit risky to buy. Would be good if someone on here had a go with them.
I reckon that polybush on your suspension arms ain't helping flex.
The front prop should be much better, as diff nose rotates pointing upwards when the axle droops.
Looking forward to see the results!
Daan
-
1
-
-
I reckon it's 10 " you have to play with. I run police rangy springs at the back (rated at 170), and OME2764 at the front (rated at 220). Both are about 17" long. On the car, they compress to 12" at ride height, with about 5" untill the axle hits the bumpstop. So 5" bump, and 5" rebound untill the spring relaxes. You need a bit more, as the shock in articulation moves up further than the bumpstop. So an 11" shock should do it. The 17" length of spring I think is the result of its max compression being limited by the spring going coilbound.
I am not a fan of dislocation. This picture is quite telling:
The front does almost nothing basically. It is quite understandable why they did it this way, because with bigger wheels, the wheels rub the wheel boxes on bump. So unless you start hacking the rear tub, you have no other option than go down wards. The problem is when it starts dislocating there is no load on the wheel that is dislocated. It is easier to have a wheel hanging loose than to compress a spring, so the front axle does not do much. What people not seem to realize if that if you have 14" of travel at the rear via dislocation, the front probably does only half of its available travel, say 5 inch. So that would result in 19" of total articulation. So why not just for 10" articulation front and rear and have 20" total articulation?
So in my mind, you need to utilize every MM of upward travel before considering dislocation.
Modified rear wheel boxes:
Also, most people (as does landrover originally) run stiffer springs in the rear than the front. But the front is heavier. So if you don't carry heavy loads, the 60:40 weight distribution of your car should be reflected in the springs relating 60:40 in stiffness. Having realised the 10" limit, I opted for radius arms at the back. The radius arms are limiting the travel to about 11", and if you don't run dislocation, it is enough of flex. Due to the radius arm effectively being an anti roll bar, you can also run a softer spring as it does not lean over as much in corners/sideslopes.
This the other important consideration: you can create a lot of articulation when the car is in horizontal position, but what is this going to do at a 45 degree slope, or decline/incline? This is were the dislocation bit can get dangerous. It basically starts dislocating at times you don't want it to.
You can improve the radius arm flex by fitting narrow bushes instead of wide bushes. Some people also drill holes in the bushes to make the flex more, but I never bothered; It also makes the axle rotate more under braking and acceleration. With regards to shock absorber choice, OME is the best choice from the ones you mention IMO. It was certainly day and night from the Procomps they replaced. And they are 11".
The result:
-
2
-
-
Did you buy 2 identical batteries new? In which case, just parallel them up.
-
1 hour ago, Bigj66 said:
The sarcasm really isn’t helpful.
Indeed, Landrover 17H (don't know your real name), please, we play nice on this forum.
Daan
-
The zeus kit looks to me like a total non starter for the reasons stated;
No series wheels on a series?
And non standard consumables. It means you are stuck with them for consumables for ever. Apart from the fact that Zeus could dissapear .
It just does not make sense to me. When the Heystee kit has an option that uses standard landrover consumables and allows you to fit standard wheels.
-
1
-
-
Not so much new, but you can still get this:
https://uaz.global/cars/suv/hunter
Maybe not that exiting, but you can also get this:
https://uaz.global/cars/commercial/classic
thing of beauty!
Daan
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, smallfry said:
Up in our top field I have an old series on a coil sprung Designa chassis. It has not been used for 12 years because I stupidly took it for an MOT test at my local VOSA depot at Gillingham in Kent, as my usual tester was on holiday, and it was only a mile from where I lived. I was told then that it needed to be Q plated, and as I would not pay for IVA test, was easier to take it off the road. Its a 79 model, so was NOT tax exempt at the time.
Last year I went in again to have a chat in person about tyres, and the age of them, and as an aside asked about the Series again, and was told that it IS a modified chassis, so would still have to have an IVA and a Q plate.
As the coil converted chassis involves "adding" spring perches and an extra crossmember and holes for a Defender type steering box, it should be OK by your reasoning (and mine), but apparently not. So therefore, under the same rules, adding P38 steering box mounts also constitutes a modified chassis, does it not ?
t IMO
Yes adding coil spring seats should be ok by that rationale, however that is not what a designa chassis is:
Does that look like a series chassis? I can't see any leaf spring mounts.
But adding a p38 steering mount to a series chassis should be ok.
Daan
-
3 hours ago, Gazzar said:
I note that Richards chassis now offer the option to have P38A steering box mounts fitted to series chassis.
Is this an unmodified chassis?
Yes, I think it is. You have just added something, rather than changed, if that makes sense.
Also, parabolic springs are legal, as it is a direct replacement for standard. Like changing a coil spring for one with a different rate. These are just details that you may worry about if you read the ruling in detail, but the spirit of the rules are less stringent.
On 7/25/2020 at 12:36 PM, smallfry said:As I see it, all this is purely academic. I dont see it really has much to do with chassis shortening, lengthening, altering the suspension, having an atomic reactor turbine powerplant etc. What its REALLY all about is tax exemption, or evasion if you like.
There are many "classic" cars running about which are basically just an old bodyshell on vastly different running gear, modified monocoque and all, which under the rules is illegal. I do not recall EVER seeing one on a Q plate, and I have never heard of anyone being pulled up over it. I cannot offhand think of any other vehicle than a Land Rover that can be so comprehensively altered. The trouble is, is that it is all on show. With other cars it is not so obvious other that maybe the paint job and wheels.
IMO what has caused all this, was/still is Land Rover owners blatantly running much newer (and obviously so) vehicles on tax exempt log books. There is one near me, which according to the reg, is a 1972 Series 3 LWB, but is actually a 2015 Puma with sawtooth? wheels and lots of accessories in shiny black paint, and its been like this for at least three years. I had a sneaky look at the chassis number when it was parked in a supermarket car park, and its proper number is still there.
This is indeed the problem. I went to great trouble to get the Q plate to make mine legal, but I have to say that with so many people completely ignoring the rules and getting away with it, why did I bother?
-
1
-
-
I really cannot see the point of downgrading an engine; turbo charge and intercooling is pure gain on any diesel engine with no disadvantages to speak of. If it is too much power to take for a series gearbox, just reduce the max fuel adjuster a bit to reduce fuel delivery. You will still have all the advantages of the turbo and intercooler, and you will never see full power. The best fuel consumption and therefore the best solution by a long way IMHO.
-
1
-
-
Gosh those shocks are big diameter. you can't have damper shaft protectors on there or they would clash.
-
2
-
-
If you winch on one side, 30 m will bunch enormously. The distance to the bars is very little so unless you winch completely straight, it turns messy. Go with 9mm thick if you need 30 m length.
-
1
-
-
Old man emu and fox. If it is that tight, you need these without relocators:
https://gwynlewis4x4.co.uk/product/front-challenge-turrets2-without-re-locators-gl1051/
They don't reduce the ID of the turret, like yours does.
Daan
-
+2 for Gwyn lewis turrets.
-
1
-
-
Definitely a good idea; is this on you series? remember, if the wheels stick out of the body, you need to cut the lip in the wheel arch as well.
Daan
-
6 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:
In a country where fuel is cheap and LS engines are ten-a-penny it must be quite hard to justify $5k on a 4-pot diesel conversion. Especially as these days it doesn't even avoid having one of them dang fangled ECU thingies
The VW TDI scene is very big over there, most posters on the TDI forum are american; They pay strong money for VW TDI engines to be shipped over to the US, which we consider 10 a penny over here. I suppose the grass is always greener with regards things that you cannot find locally.
In terms of weight, power and money, this engine is very close to a TGV 2.8, which would be my choice. Just for convenience and simplicity.
Daan
-
I could get used to that. Is there a short wheel base version planned?
-
1
-
-
It's more boxy than a landrover!
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Simon_CSK said:
In Scotland we were told by our esteemed leader (please don't even think about talking about that crazy b***h) that if our lives haven't changed because of lockdown then we are doing something wrong. My life has only changed in respect of not getting to Europe so far this year to see my wife!!!
I reckon she is an improvement, If recent press of Alex Salmond are anything to go by.
-
If your box is an lt77S, the difference in strength is negligible. I prefer the LT77S for offroading, as reverse is next to 1st and 2nd gear.
-
2 hours ago, reb78 said:
Slovakian if the numberplate is anything to go by.
Nice to see someone trying to get it stuck in the wet.
I like the trailer light check function. Offroad, with those tyres you cannot expect much more than he did there. Ground clearance is the main enemy though.
-
I'd say the fact they went shopping for things like engines, gearboxes and axles will have a large effect on the price. to develop an engine, you look at a 10 figure cost, which landrover has to absorb in every car, and even they don't make that many. And yes, depending on how much time it takes to assemble a grenadier, the price will be the biggy. Less than a defender I would have thought.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, miketomcat said:
Just saying....
Way ahead of its time!
-
2
-
-
I must say, the styling is probably as close as you can get to a defender without JLR taking you to court. I think the end result could be quite promising.
The wheel arches could probably house a 35" tyre without too much butchering, and thankfully none of this low profile tyre BS that stops us having any decent chance to go offroad properly.
The bottom could do with stuff moving upwards:
That suspension mount makes a defender elephant ear look small, and is that an exhaust or a fuel tank? Anyway, I just get the grinder out to cut it all of for the long arm suspension conversion when the time comes.
I think this car has potential and might be the next big thing in offroad circles.
Daan
-
2
-
The EBay Christ I fancy that 4x4 + its cheap thread
in International Forum
Posted
In their defence, they produce decent stuff:
looks a similar operation like the abingdon mgb or eagle e type. Totaly rebuild and improved. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.