Coils on series.

[Fordrover]

I know this has been done to death, but I have a slightly different idea. I also know that many would tell me to leave a series as is and buy a defender, but that ship has sailed. I luckily do not have to conform to British legislation either.

So far my plans are as follows:

Range Rover Classic (RRC) front radius arms (hockey sticks +/- 840mm long to axle center) for the front but inverted.(installed upside down)

The chassis brackets for the RRC Radius arms istalled underneath the series chassis longitudenal members.

The RRC front coil spring perches welded flush with the top of the chassis (+/- 40mm lift)

P38 front or rear panhard rod installed ( still have to see which one - the longer the better obviously and how close I can fit them to horizontal)

Range Rover P38 front radius arms at the back (+/- 1000mm long to axle center) also inverted (upside down)

The P38 front radius arm to chassis bushing bracket cut and welded to the RRC trailing arm bushing bracket and then welded to the series chassis.

P38 rear panhard rod.

By inverting the radius arms the radius arm angle should end up at the standard position when the suspension is fully extended. Thus more vertical movement of the suspension and less forward/aft movement.

What do you think?

[Snagger]

I don't think you could invert the radius arms because of the angle between them and the stud at their back end, which goes through the chassis bushing, unless you attach the chassis bracket at an angle rather than vertical.

[Gareth Dickens]

Are you talking front or back Nick? The end of the radius arm seems to form a straight line down the length and on the bit of mock up I've done so far looks good. I'm planning on using the hockey stick type radius arms front and rear. Just RRC front and P38 at the back. The rounded part of the radius arm will be on top to become the bumpstop of the axle.

My axles are bare Series Salisburies at the moment and I'l be transferring the bracketry from Rover axles to these. So I can weld them on at any angle.

I want to fit the radius arms over the top of the axle instead of attaching from the bottom.

[bill van snorkle]

Are you talking front or back Nick? The end of the radius arm seems to form a straight line down the length and on the bit of mock up I've done so far looks good. I'm planning on using the hockey stick type radius arms front and rear. Just RRC front and P38 at the back. The rounded part of the radius arm will be on top to become the bumpstop of the axle.

My axles are bare Series Salisburies at the moment and I'l be transferring the bracketry from Rover axles to these. So I can weld them on at any angle.

I want to fit the radius arms over the top of the axle instead of attaching from the bottom.

Radius arms whilst acceptable up front, unless they significantly longer than standard, do restrict axle articulation if used front and rear. Whatever you do, don't do what a friend of mine did and weld the radius arm brackets too close to the axle tube, with insufficient clearance to allow the bushings to work. The result was sweet naff all articulation and a cracked axle housing.

[ToyRoverlander]

Why radius arms in the first place? You scared of articulation?

[Gareth Dickens]

Why radius arms in the first place? You scared of articulation?

Too many hassles with leafs:

You either get axle wrap or a very hard ride. Anti wrap bars are a faf to manufacture, ensure correct geometry and then attach the hanger end to the chassis.

I'll be fitting the front radius arms directly below the chassis rails (so slightly narrower than on a RRC) allowing for more flex. The rear radius arms will attach in the same position as on the RRC (relative width, not distance from front to rear) and the P38 radius arms are 16cm longer than the RRC fronts with bigger rubber bushings. I'm not too concerned with tons of articulation and if I can match a RRC I'm happy. I want comfort, no axle wrap, reasonable articulation, anti dive qualities, anti squat qualities and a reasonbly simple design.

I'll be fitting anti-roll/anti-sway bars too.

[FridgeFreezer]

Seems a lot of effort to avoid the "faff" of making anti-wrap bars...

[ToyRoverlander]

Too many hassles with leafs:

You either get axle wrap or a very hard ride. Anti wrap bars are a faf to manufacture, ensure correct geometry and then attach the hanger end to the chassis.

I'll be fitting the front radius arms directly below the chassis rails (so slightly narrower than on a RRC) allowing for more flex. The rear radius arms will attach in the same position as on the RRC (relative width, not distance from front to rear) and the P38 radius arms are 16cm longer than the RRC fronts with bigger rubber bushings. I'm not too concerned with tons of articulation and if I can match a RRC I'm happy. I want comfort, no axle wrap, reasonable articulation, anti dive qualities, anti squat qualities and a reasonbly simple design.

I'll be fitting anti-roll/anti-sway bars too.

My question was actually for the OP.. but anyways. No axle wrap on mine and no hard ride either. A matter of doing it right .

Fitting radius arms underneath the chassis creates an anchor. If it is going on top of the axle anyway why mount it underneath the chassis? What tiresize are you going to run?

With a good 3link front and 4link rear you can achieve everything you want, and also be able to built in room for adjustment.

[Gareth Dickens]

Radius arms whilst acceptable up front, unless they significantly longer than standard, do restrict axle articulation if used front and rear. Whatever you do, don't do what a friend of mine did and weld the radius arm brackets too close to the axle tube, with insufficient clearance to allow the bushings to work. The result was sweet naff all articulation and a cracked axle housing.

Thanks for the heads up Bill.

I'm quite happy with RRC levels of articulation as long as it comes with the comfort too. Hopefully setting the fronts narrower will improve articulation a bit and the longer rears should help too. The P38 runs carbon fibre rear radius arms with massive bushings but they are shorter than the fronts and even the RRC fronts. I'm building an overlander used for the occasional trail and will have front and rear difflocks, so not a full blooded trailer and shouldn't need massive articulation. It's a 109 and so it's biggest weakness is breakover angle.

[Gareth Dickens]

My question was actually for the OP.. but anyways. No axle wrap on mine and no hard ride either. A matter of doing it right .

Fitting radius arms underneath the chassis creates an anchor. If it is going on top of the axle anyway why mount it underneath the chassis? What tiresize are you going to run?

With a good 3link front and 4link rear you can achieve everything you want, and also be able to built in room for adjustment.

Sorry about the confusion, but I am the OP. Long story about passwords and unable to log on and had to create another account. I should actually delete the Fordrover account. I am running 33" tyres but might want to fit 35's later.

[ToyRoverlander]

No worries...

Sounds like the suspension you're thinking of would suit the needs fine. I'm still questioning the radius arms underneath the chassis though. Guess that will hang real low.

Are P38 rear radius arms really made from carbon fibre?? never knew that... I reckon I would be more comfortable with steel ones..

[Gareth Dickens]

Seems a lot of effort to avoid the "faff" of making anti-wrap bars...

Not only the faf but I'm struggling for space, with the ford V8, Salisburies with defender flanges and swivels, rear track rod and front and rear anti-sway bars it's getting a bit crowded in there.

I am looking to simplify a bit by sticking to one vehicles suspension setup.

[Gareth Dickens]

No worries...

Sounds like the suspension you're thinking of would suit the needs fine. I'm still questioning the radius arms underneath the chassis though. Guess that will hang real low.

Are P38 rear radius arms really made from carbon fibre?? never knew that... I reckon I would be more comfortable with steel ones..

The overall ground clearance doesn't change much because I'm lifting the vehicle with the lower placement of the coil spring perches, just the angle of the radius arm is much flatter. That way I can still fit aftermarket coils for further lift if required. Apparently the P38 rear radius arms are bulletproof and my friend who strips P38's down for spares reckons he's never seen anyone break them, even the nutters. He's convinced that the P38 is the best built Land Rover of all time, because of the British Aerospace involvement in the design and building and with Land Rover at the time.

They do look like some high tech kit though and very light.

[samc88]

Why not fit a good pair of parabolics if you want a better ride? They give it a lift too

[bill van snorkle]

Why not fit a good pair of parabolics if you want a better ride? They give it a lift too

They give lots of lovely axle wrap too! A suggestion I offer is to beef up, modify or remake the crossmember under the flywheel housing, and fit a wishbone type so called 'One Link'. Look up Dans (Dirty Diesel) Jeep Wrangler build the Modified vehicles forum.Dan being Dan has built his to survive a nuclear bomb blast though. There is a very long one link thread on General 4x4 discussion forum at Pirate4x4.com that show some simpler designs. One links are in essence what Unimogs employ fr/rear, give similar Antidive/antisquat geometry to radius arms, and better articulation without the requirement for consumable flexible bushings at the axle attachment points. an antiroll bar would probably be required, because just like a 3 link, there is no roll resistance . Of course you will still require a Panhard rod. The terms 'one link', '3 link' etc generally, but not always applies to the for/aft links.

Bill.

[Gareth Dickens]

Why not fit a good pair of parabolics if you want a better ride? They give it a lift too

They're almost impossible to get here in South Africa and imagine what shipping would cost.

[Gareth Dickens]

They give lots of lovely axle wrap too! A suggestion I offer is to beef up, modify or remake the crossmember under the flywheel housing, and fit a wishbone type so called 'One Link'. Look up Dans (Dirty Diesel) Jeep Wrangler build the Modified vehicles forum.Dan being Dan has built his to survive a nuclear bomb blast though. There is a very long one link thread on General 4x4 discussion forum at Pirate4x4.com that show some simpler designs. One links are in essence what Unimogs employ fr/rear, give similar Antidive/antisquat geometry to radius arms, and better articulation without the requirement for consumable flexible bushings at the axle attachment points. an antiroll bar would probably be required, because just like a 3 link, there is no roll resistance . Of course you will still require a Panhard rod. The terms 'one link', '3 link' etc generally, but not always applies to the for/aft links.

Bill.

The RRC setup is the cheapest option for me, since I've been able to source all the spares (front and back + coil perches) for about 30 pounds. I got it all at scrap metal price, This includes about 8 Panhard rods. I want a custom setup using standard parts for the sake of spares and replaceability. It should also look kinda standard for our extremely unknowledgeable traffic police and border officials. I've seen the one links and they look great but a bit beyond the limit of engineering I feel comfortable doing myself.

[Snagger]

You have two issues to look at regarding fitting the radius arms to Series axles:

1) Steering lock - if you fit the arms in the standard RRC/Defender positions, then the steering lock of the shorter Series axle will be vastly reduced (sounds like you have already worked that one out), and;

2) Articulation - if you sit the radius arm under the chassis rails to avoid the above, like LR did the leaf springs, then you will need to ensure the minimum interference between the chassis and radius arm. Having the sticks inverted means that the front end will hit the bump stops pretty quickly, limiting axle articulation.

I have a suspicion that the front chassis legs of the Series vehicles are lower to the chassis than on the coilers, so " above will really be an issue.

As for my previous post, I was thinking of the read stud and main arm alignment being kinked, but I was probably remembering images of cranked arms for suspension lifts.

[Bowie69]

If you have 8 panhard rods, it's just begging for twin 4-link or 4-link/3-link surely

[ToyRoverlander]

No way I would use panhard rods for suspension links

[Gareth Dickens]

I'm sure panhards are strong enough for a 3 or 4 link. If one panhard can control the sideways movement of the axle on a 2.5 ton P38, having 4 on a 4 link or an A-frame made from panhards should be plenty strong.

2) Articulation - if you sit the radius arm under the chassis rails to avoid the above, like LR did the leaf springs, then you will need to ensure the minimum interference between the chassis and radius arm. Having the sticks inverted means that the front end will hit the bump stops pretty quickly, limiting axle articulation.

I have a suspicion that the front chassis legs of the Series vehicles are lower to the chassis than on the coilers, so " above will really be an issue.

The RRC and series chassis are very similar and by moving the spring mounts down I should get a nice bit of lift with the radius arms being close to horizontal meaning the suspension should travel nicely up and down and less in an arc. The radius arms will become the axle bumpstop, like you said but it's not that much more than the standard bumpstop bracket on the axle. I've done a bit of a mockup and it seems to work fine. W.r.t the steering : My axles are 180mm wider than series axles and the radius arms are under the chassis, so no interference.

[bill van snorkle]

Whilst the panhard rods are strong enough to make links from, the bushings are really too small and have insufficient compliance to allow good articulation, and they will chop out quickly.

[Bowie69]

Yes, it was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment, just mis-typed the smiley!

They are surprisingly strong, not sure what they are made of, but cast something, if you compare them to the trailing arms then they are hugely strong. I agree though, than the bushes would be no good, and probably not big enough for a joint of some kind to be attached.

[Gareth Dickens]

The great confusion has struck again......... I've been speaking to a friend who has warned me against running a part time 4x4 on coils. He said that when cornering under power that one of the wheels wants to roll forward underneath the vehicle, jacking the one rear wheel of the vehicle and lifting a front wheel. (I must admit there were a few beers involved in the conversation, hence the vagueness of my discription.) He said this happened to someone he knew on a 110 Defender. (Running without a front prop, if I remember correctly.) He also said that this was the main reason that all coil sprung (front and rear) vehicles were permanent 4x4. Examples he mentioned were: Land Rovers Series vs All others; Toyota Hilux vs Fortuner and Land Cruisers.

His arguments seemed sound and it's more than just a bit strange that all vehicles with coils at the back seem to be permanent 4x4.

Can someone explain this phenomenon to me? Is it the outside wheel with more traction that lifts the vehicle or is it the inside wheel with less weight on it?

Will using longer radius arms at the back lessen the effect? ( Long spanner vs short spanner)

Should I keep leafs at the back and only fit coils up front?

Eagerly awaiting replies.

Thanks and regards

Gareth

[Bowie69]

Suzuki Grand Vitara, coils front and rear, part time 4x4.