Lower shock mounts

[Ben Jordan]

I am considering a set of lower shock mounts to improve my droop travel. When i put +2" springs on my Rangie i also fitted +2" Pro-comp shocks. So in theory i had the same droop travel with possibly a bit more upward travel. I was thinking about fitting -2" shock mounts to get extra droop. Then i thought again and in theory if i brought +4" shocks i would get the same droop as having -2" shock mounts and i would probably cost less for 4 shocks than it would for 4 -2" shock mounts.

Does anybody know what i am talking about and what do you think about my theory?

[LandyManLuke]

Look at Hybrid_From_Hell's posts on his suspension.

What you really want is higher shock mounts, and longer shocks. this allows for greater articulation, up AND down. The increased travel comes from having more extension from a longer shock, the higher shock mounts are required to fit the longer shock in.

HTH

Luke

[SteveG]

Look at Hybrid_From_Hell's posts on his suspension.

What you really want is higher shock mounts, and longer shocks.

Not if you don't want start cutting all of your arches and inner arches you don't.

Ben your theory is correct in principle. 4" shocks will give roughly the same articulation as dropping the shock mounts all round by 2". New turrets and lower rear mounts willcost you between 110-160 depending on where you get them from.

Either you'll have to pay attentionto your shock compression and adjust bump stops accordingly.

Cheers

Steve

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Ben,

If only life was this simple :

I am considering a set of lower shock mounts to improve my droop travel.

Ok, and yes fine a la Scrapion and many other kits, you gain droop, but not upwards,

When i put +2" springs on my Rangie i also fitted +2" Pro-comp shocks. So in theory i had the same droop travel with possibly a bit more upward travel. [/Quote]

Sort of, not quite as simple as this, but to a degree ok, often std LR / RR don't even get the max travel that the shocks allow, and this may still be the case, depends on loads of things, springs , length, poundgae, lift, bushes etc etc

I was thinking about fitting -2" shock mounts to get extra droop. [/Quote]

Now you enter the world of grief, -2 inch mounts may give you more droop, but also may find the shock cylinder is now not able to compress without imploding / splitting shock, so you now extend the bump stops lower, and now you have reduced axle twist and upward height - you are now most probably in the world of grief that I thought through for approx 4 months.....

[/Quote] Then i thought again and in theory if i brought +4" shocks i would get the same droop as having -2" shock mounts and i would probably cost less for 4 shocks than it would for 4 -2" shock mounts. [/Quote]

yes and no, as above, also now bodywork problems and more thought needed, still dependant on a whole load of factors....

Does anybody know what i am talking about and what do you think about my theory?

Yes, and it is not taht simple, have a look at various posts I have done, these although LR90 based are true for RR too, and as mentioned I have hacked the body around a load as I have +6 inch shocks and had all sorts of problems......and on the front still nowhere near a 3 link....

Yer pays yer money and takes yer choices.....

HTH

Nige

and why don't the

quote

work ?

Edited December 6, 2005 by Hybrid_From_Hell

[Steve Hiatt]

I modified my Range Rover so that the front and rear axles travel right up to the chassis and fitted hydraulic bump stops. It is a lot of work but does give you aproaching 12" of travel whilst retaining a virtually standard ride height and standard radius and trailing arms.

Another factor on the compression is that you need springs that are capable of compressing that far, you don't want to be using them as your bump stops.

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

Spot on, coil "Bind" is anotehr thought, often lifted 4x4 have this if the spring ever gets to that point, often lift encompasses stiffer spring which you don't want cos they don't flex like you wnat them to, when you then go lift and soft the coils are more and bind is more lilly plus COG higher and soft springs means handling like a Pig on Roller skates.........

Oh the sheer fun of suspension tweaks !

basically the more you do the more you HAVE to compromise......

Nige

[LR90]

I modified my Range Rover so that the front and rear axles travel right up to the chassis and fitted hydraulic bump stops. It is a lot of work but does give you aproaching 12" of travel whilst retaining a virtually standard ride height and standard radius and trailing arms.

Another factor on the compression is that you need springs that are capable of compressing that far, you don't want to be using them as your bump stops.

Steve,

sounds like a good setup. Got any pics of those hydraulic bump stops?

[Steve Hiatt]

I don't have any pictures of mine but there is some here

www.off-road.com/toyota/projects/tacoma/rear-bump-stops

[will_warne]

OK, I have very simerlar veiws to Nigel on this one; I really dissagree with the theory behind lowered bumpstops. They reduce upwards travel which is the very last thing you want from a system as it raises the centre of gravety at the time you REALLY don't want to (ie when cross axled) making the vehicle more unstable. The only reason extended bumpstops are on the market is because people fit big tyres and don't like the sound of rubbing and then to get travel back they extend the shockmounts. In the end you don't gain anything (as long as springs aren't binding and tyres hitting the arches), you just change the ratio of upwards to downwards travel.

Ideally you want a matched upwards and downwards, front and rear, travel. Its not easy but the results are superb. That's what I'm aiming for but my system will be pretty much done from scratch (long multi links, coil over shocks, forced articluation etc)

[SteveG]

Yes Will and Nigel, but you are missing the point of the intial post - the fact is this set-up is perfectly OK for the majority of people and as such is sound advice for the majority of people.

On most LR's with a 2" lift and 2" extended shocks it's the downward shock travel that is limiting axle articulation not the bump stop on the upward movement.

Also you'll have to explain to me how one half of an axle moving higher, while the other half moves lower (both roughly equal in weight) affects COG??

Cheers

Steve

[will_warne]

Yes Will and Nigel, but you are missing the point of the intial post - the fact is this set-up is perfectly OK for the majority of people and as such is sound advice for the majority of people.

On most LR's with a 2" lift and 2" extended shocks it's the downward shock travel that is limiting axle articulation not the bump stop on the upward movement.

Also you'll have to explain to me how one half of an axle moving higher, while the other half moves lower (both roughly equal in weight) affects COG??

Cheers

Steve

Fair point Steve but I still don't like the way they perform. Ok, here's how the CoG point goes (simplified a bit, though, as I'm not going to consider the differance in distance from the centre of the axle between the wheel and the bumpstop); when the axle starts to move the axle wants to move up at one side the same ammount as the other side wants to move down (given your using constant rate springs) as one corner loads up and the other unloads. Basicly you consider the centre of the axle to be pivoting. If the upwards moving side hits a bumpstop then it stops but if the downwards moving side is still unloaded and the shocks haven't bottomed then it will continue downwards with the bumpstop acting as a fulcrum. That now means the centre of the axle is moving downwards effectivly pushing the body upwards. If you look at lots of off the shelf systems on a pair of cross axled stands the vehicle is considerably higher than it would be sitting level, this is basicly why. What's the use of increasing stability by having wheels on the ground if you destabilise the vehicle by pushing up the CoG?

[white90]

I've fitted them and am very pleased with the set up.

I don't want massive travel just a nicer set up than standard.

lowered mounts extended bumpstops still has the Simex rubbing the Tub

so I'm content with that.without tub cutting which is a no go for me.

[Ben Jordan]

I've fitted them and am very pleased with the set up.

I don't want massive travel just a nicer set up than standard.

lowered mounts extended bumpstops still has the Simex rubbing the Tub

so I'm content with that.without tub cutting which is a no go for me.

What set up have you got?