Suspension oddness but may have a simple solution

[western]

21 minutes ago, Jocklandjohn said:

Thanks Ralph - you've confirmed what I've just this minute figured out from searching. I'm *guessing* from comments I've read on forums that they behave similarly to standard 110 rears until you get a heavier load, and where the standards start to run out of steam the progressives can support an additional bit of loading.

Yes pretty much. 

[Peaklander]

38 minutes ago, Jocklandjohn said:

are those front springs the Bearmach equivalents of LR parts?

The rears you mention were more recent 110 fitments afaik, but progressives and going beyond the capacity of the ones I have.

What shocks are you using?

Yes I bought the fronts from Bearmach and the rears are genuine new take/offs. The rears were recommended in lots of sources because of their progressive action.

As for the shock absorbers, I think they are Monroe but I’m not sure I have a record as they were the first things to change when I bought the vehicle six years ago. There would have been nothing special about them in terms of price / performance.  

[Jocklandjohn]

1 hour ago, Badger110 said:

I can measure mine in the morning, it's a 2011 110 USW if that helps?

 Standard springs with OME shocks.

Thanks Badger - yes that would be useful.

The vendor of the new shocks I just fitted suggested from looking at pics I sent them that my front springs are sagging ("there should not be 4 coils touching" was his opinion) - so I just need to get some idea from other vehicles compressed length whether mines are around the normal compressed length or overly compressed, if its the the latter then that suggests they are indeed worn out or I need something slightly stiffer.

I didn't expect fitting new shocks to affect the apparent damping efficiency so badly, I've never ever in 25 years of ownership of the 110 hit the bumpstops, and now I do it every time I leave the house and go over the speed bump!

Edited November 14, 2021 by Jocklandjohn

[elbekko]

It does sound plausible that your previous shocks were stiffer and masking the spring problem a bit.

What you really need is sprung corner weights so you know which springs you need.

[Peaklander]

As my vehicle sits now, in the garage with little in the back, the front springs are both compressed and the top four coils are touching. The length on both sides is 260mm. 

[Jocklandjohn]

3 hours ago, elbekko said:

It does sound plausible that your previous shocks were stiffer and masking the spring problem a bit.

What you really need is sprung corner weights so you know which springs you need.

Aye that would help - unfortunately the local weighbridge can only do whole vehicles so that limits me somewhat.

[Jocklandjohn]

28 minutes ago, Peaklander said:

As my vehicle sits now, in the garage with little in the back, the front springs are both compressed and the top four coils are touching. The length on both sides is 260mm. 

Thanks Peaklander -  thats really useful, and greatly appreciated. I doubt that the rear weight absence will matter as I imagine the front should be comparable. So compared to mine you're sitting roughly an additional 15mm higher which might make a difference to the bump stop clearance issues. 

 

Vendor advice, having spoken to an expert about the correct orientation (tighter coils at top for correct progressive action) and loading, was:

"Here is a pic of one of the replacement standard height front springs for a 110" model where you can see the tighter coils at the top. They will compress under the weight to some extent but the top 4 coils should still not be touching, normally only 2 or maybe 3 for a heavier vehicle may touch at the most."

[Peaklander]

The Bearmach website shows this pic. I wish I could easily find my spring pics when I fitted them as I'm sure they are OK and that there's nothing wrong with the top coils virtually touching.

Edit - also i don't know how you make the front much heavier except with a winch / bumper.

[Jocklandjohn]

1 hour ago, Peaklander said:

The Bearmach website shows this pic. I wish I could easily find my spring pics when I fitted them as I'm sure they are OK and that there's nothing wrong with the top coils virtually touching.

Edit - also i don't know how you make the front much heavier except with a winch / bumper.

Aye thats the ones, apparently all fronts are 'progressive' should be fitted with closer coils to the top. But also yes whilst overall weight is important the specific nose weight is down to winches and winch bumpers (which I dont have) which would be on/ahead-of the axle.

Well it looks like I might as well give the front spring replacements a go and see what happens! If its still the same as before at least I have new springs and its the shocks that cant cope.

 

 

[TSD]

I just noticed the free lengths of the springs you quoted are exactly whats listed in the WSM. So I'm not clear - did you measure them, or quote the 'correct' numbers? If they have gone soft, I doubt they can do it and maintain the correct free length.

Potentially daft idea - you might get some idea of current spring rate by measuring the change in bump stop clearance after adding one or two lardy mates (exact number depends on your definition of lardy), roughly in line with the axle (scaffold board across the front wings?).

In the back, you could just keep loading scrap until you get to a convenient compression, but self loading cargo seems easier somehow It's much easier to weigh afterwards as well.

330lb/in springs means that even two average mates in the back should get you nearly 15mm compression, so if it's much more than that then the spring must be soft? Some confusion is added by progressive springs, but it would give an idea, I would think?

[Jocklandjohn]

2 hours ago, TSD said:

I just noticed the free lengths of the springs you quoted are exactly whats listed in the WSM. So I'm not clear - did you measure them, or quote the 'correct' numbers? If they have gone soft, I doubt they can do it and maintain the correct free length.

Potentially daft idea - you might get some idea of current spring rate by measuring the change in bump stop clearance after adding one or two lardy mates (exact number depends on your definition of lardy), roughly in line with the axle (scaffold board across the front wings?).

In the back, you could just keep loading scrap until you get to a convenient compression, but self loading cargo seems easier somehow It's much easier to weigh afterwards as well.

330lb/in springs means that even two average mates in the back should get you nearly 15mm compression, so if it's much more than that then the spring must be soft? Some confusion is added by progressive springs, but it would give an idea, I would think?

No, I was quoting the free length as given for the original parts, I've not had them out to measure their current uncompressed length.

The compressed measurements were done on the cureently fitted (old) springs the other night. I was hoping to get some info from anyone with a similar weight vehicle to see what their compressed length is so I can compare w/mine. Peaklander has similar vehicle and riding higher which *might* mean something!

However having thought about it - not sure if a 'tired' spring will perform the same as a 'fresher' one under compression, so they may both be 'close' in compressed length but then perform vastly different when under their working dynamic load.

I've got several choices - get new front springs same as fitted and try them, get new (different) shocks and try them, or get stronger front springs and keep same shocks. I'm leaning towards the first option!

 

Rears seem ok, slightly softer ride than the Armstrongs that were fitted but no bump stop banging (have AirLift bags in back so that may be why).

 

What has slightly concrened me is that a quick Google search unearthed another 110 owner who'd fitted the same shocks all round and immediately noticed a much softer ride and considered the fronts so different from the rears as to possibly catch out the unwary, so its apparently not just me that has noticed their 'flexibility'.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Jocklandjohn

[TSD]

22 minutes ago, Jocklandjohn said:

However having thought about it - not sure if a 'tired' spring will perform the same as a 'fresher' one under compression, so they may both be 'close' in compressed length but then perform vastly different when under their working dynamic load.

I can see two ways a spring could change with age, it could get 'softer' (compresses further for the same weight) or it could sag (so the free length gets shorter). Either way, the installed length must get shorter. Of course, it's a bit of both, but no way does the does the installed height stay the same.

LR says the springs should be replaced if 20mm shorter than specified free length. The hardest part of getting the springs out to measure them is usually shifting the rusty front shocks without breaking them - and you've already sorted that problem

 

[Jocklandjohn]

8 minutes ago, TSD said:

I can see two ways a spring could change with age, it could get 'softer' (compresses further for the same weight) or it could sag (so the free length gets shorter). Either way, the installed length must get shorter. Of course, it's a bit of both, but no way does the does the installed height stay the same.

LR says the springs should be replaced if 20mm shorter than specified free length. The hardest part of getting the springs out to measure them is usually shifting the rusty front shocks without breaking them - and you've already sorted that problem

 

Its still a wrestling match! There's one precise spot that the spring compressors will fit on either side of the spring without hitting the turret or brake lines and thats not at 180deg apart! What I did notice when fitting the new shocks was how easy they were to compress. When I was fitting the Armstrongs that preceded them I was sweating getting them compressed inside the spring to fit the inner bushes. No such struggle with the current ones.

[elbekko]

https://www.pirate4x4.com/threads/the-coilover-bible-part-1-by-billavista-pirate4x4x-com.2702748/

Scroll down to "spring theory" (or read it all if you're bored, it's interesting stuff). Written for coilovers, but the first part is valid for all springs.

I still think your previous (probably gas-filled) shocks added enough spring rate to mask that your springs are too soft. If you haven't noticed the vehicle sagging, then I doubt the spring rate has changed. And as the linked article says, spring shouldn't just change their properties under normal conditions.

[Bowie69]

No need for compressors, Jack up and axle stands on the chassis, remove the shock, and push the axle down, if you need more shove a bottle jack between arm and chassis and pump.

Unless you have super-duper compressors there is no good use for them on a land rover, more danger than they are worth.

[TSD]

46 minutes ago, elbekko said:

as the linked article says, spring shouldn't just change their properties under normal conditions.

Also, OEM means Gen Parts in a different box, and the dashboard of my D3 says I'm averaging 32mpg.

(none of these things is true, by the way)

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by TSD

[Jocklandjohn]

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

https://www.pirate4x4.com/threads/the-coilover-bible-part-1-by-billavista-pirate4x4x-com.2702748/

Scroll down to "spring theory" (or read it all if you're bored, it's interesting stuff). Written for coilovers, but the first part is valid for all springs.

I still think your previous (probably gas-filled) shocks added enough spring rate to mask that your springs are too soft. If you haven't noticed the vehicle sagging, then I doubt the spring rate has changed. And as the linked article says, spring shouldn't just change their properties under normal conditions.

Thanks for that - thats an epic amount of information!!  There's way more detail there about whats going on with suspension than I knew even existed!

The previous shocks were oil-filled (Armstrong cheap and cheerful) but the current ones that are (possibly) problematic are gas as well (Monroes). 

1 hour ago, Bowie69 said:

No need for compressors, Jack up and axle stands on the chassis, remove the shock, and push the axle down, if you need more shove a bottle jack between arm and chassis and pump.

Unless you have super-duper compressors there is no good use for them on a land rover, more danger than they are worth.

I must try that, I've been wary about over-lowering the axle but I guess I'm being too cautious! The compressors are good quality but I still treat them with considerable respect & suspicion, a lot of potential shrapnel involved there!

[Snagger]

Whatever else is going on with the dampers, if you have several coils of a spring closed up when parked on flat ground, the springs are too soft for the vehicle weight.  What you have, in essence, is a short spring with a corrugated spacer!  The closed section of spring is no longer able to perform its function and only the height weight part of the spring, the more open section, is working.  
 

The question is why is the spring insufficient - is it a specification mismatch or is it just worn out?  Measuring the spring once removed will tell you if it has sagged and deformed, but won’t tell you if it has micro fractures which make it soft but allow it to regain its uncompressed height.

It’d be worth having your vehicle weighed front and rear to determine the correct spec springs, since it’s a fair bit heavier than standard.

[Jocklandjohn]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

Whatever else is going on with the dampers, if you have several coils of a spring closed up when parked on flat ground, the springs are too soft for the vehicle weight.  What you have, in essence, is a short spring with a corrugated spacer!  The closed section of spring is no longer able to perform its function and only the height weight part of the spring, the more open section, is working.  
 

The question is why is the spring insufficient - is it a specification mismatch or is it just worn out?  Measuring the spring once removed will tell you if it has sagged and deformed, but won’t tell you if it has micro fractures which make it soft but allow it to regain its uncompressed height.

It’d be worth having your vehicle weighed front and rear to determine the correct spec springs, since it’s a fair bit heavier than standard.

Aye overall weight is above standard, but still within 110 design spec AFAIK

Local weighbridge has a slope onto it which made it difficult to do individual axles without one end of the van being downslope, which is why I could only get the overall weight.

Will need to pull one and see what the uncompressed length is I think. 

 

[elbekko]

9 hours ago, TSD said:

Also, OEM means Gen Parts in a different box, and the dashboard of my D3 says I'm averaging 32mpg.

(none of these things is true, by the way)

 

Sure, but 10 year old genuine springs shouldn't be sagging.

[Mo Murphy]

As Snagger points out, if 4 coils are touching, which they shouldn't be, that's 4 coils length of reduction in spring travel in compression, which is why you're so close to the bump stops.

New springs time methinks.

Mo

[Peaklander]

On 11/14/2021 at 9:43 PM, Jocklandjohn said:

What shocks are you using? I'm a bit suspicious that I should have no problems with Armstrongs controlling the suspension (even though well rusted and knackered) and then I change to Monroes and start hitting the bumpstops.

Mine are Monroe Adventurers that were bought in 2015. I have done about 40K miles on them. The springs that we talked about earlier, were changed at my chassis swap which was in 2018 and there is discussion about the front springs on pages 5 and then later on 14-15 of my thread.

 

[Jocklandjohn]

3 hours ago, Peaklander said:

Mine are Monroe Adventurers that were bought in 2015. I have done about 40K miles on them. The springs that we talked about earlier, were changed at my chassis swap which was in 2018 and there is discussion about the front springs on pages 5 and then later on 14-15 of my thread.

 

Thank you.

[Jocklandjohn]

4 hours ago, Mo Murphy said:

As Snagger points out, if 4 coils are touching, which they shouldn't be, that's 4 coils length of reduction in spring travel in compression, which is why you're so close to the bump stops.

New springs time methinks.

Mo

I think I'm inclined to believe you!!

[hurbie]

if it was my car , i would try a different set of shocks , (just use the standard armstrong shocks for a whooping 25 ish pounds ...)(https://www.terraintechparts.com/collections/land-rover-suspension-shock-absorbers ) 

  the vehicle was fine before the swop to new shocks ....

Edited November 16, 2021 by hurbie