Prop-Crossmember clearance when lifting a 109"

[Soren Frimodt]

A bit of info for you o_teunico.

if you watch the start of this video you will see an 88" with SOA conversion trying to climb a hill. And you will see the front end getting way light. Now sadly it is not in the film, but I climbed this exact hill just afterwards in my 88" with all the same specs: 2,5TD, one airlocker in the rear and on Para's. The only difference on these two cars was the SOA conversion, and really it was no good to him at all! When talking to him later he regretted having done it.

[bill van snorkle]

Soren, my computer is in low range already this month so I dare not click on any more videos for a week or so. Did the SOA landrover have lowered springs and an anti wrap bar fitted ? The for/aft COG of an 88" is already high on gradients, so raising one a further 6" or so would cause weight transfer to the rear significantly. Rough calculations indicate that a 109" however, would need to be lifted around 12" before the for/aft COG equalled that of an 88". I still don't recommend that O'teunico lift his 109 more than 2 or 3" though, for all the reasons we have all stated.

[Soren Frimodt]

Hi Bill, yeah well you're not missing much, not that interesting a video anyways, just clearly shows the disadvantages. They did do something to lower it, AFAIK countersunk the springs in the axlehousing and mod the chassis mounting points. But this is only what I have been told, have never been close enough to study it, we where competing at this very point, and the next competition I saw him at he had a 90" instead. I am however, quite sure there was no wrap bars fitted.

Sure a 109" would cope much better, but I still don't see the advantage unless you're a redneck who loves to go 'wheelin' in da swamps'. Much better off with a sensible lift and a bobtailed 109" No matter how you cook it, a 109" is a heavy, big piece of metal to move around offroad. With poor steering lock and heavy manual steering, everything else than a Sunday drive is a challenge.

[o_teunico]

Just to add, 101 flat spring suffer horrifically with wrap if abused, a lot of them came out the army with them s-shape

Quite scary!

In a LR it could be done with a Disco II radius arm at the centre of the axle and a shacle.

[o_teunico]

unless you're a redneck who loves to go 'wheelin' in da swamps'

I`m half redneck and I love swamps!

[bill van snorkle]

Quite scary!

In a LR it could be done with a Disco II radius arm at the centre of the axle and a shacle.

Never been impressed with standard 101's offroad.There really needed to be a MK2 version with propshaft angles sorted, difflocks and anti wrap bars.

With flattish springs like a 101 where the centrebolt to eye distance doesn't vary much as the spring flexes from full bump to full droop, a swinging shackle probably would not be required because there is about 25mm of compliance in the radius arm chassis bushing of RRC/Disco1/Defender .

[Jon White]

Anti wrap can be made to work ok on the rear of a landrover, but I've never seen a solution to it on the front, that actually works properly and doesn't eat bushes, or reduces articulation.

Fridgefreezers solution works ok ish, but he'll be the first to admit that it eats bushes......

Jon

[bill van snorkle]

Anti wrap can be made to work ok on the rear of a landrover, but I've never seen a solution to it on the front, that actually works properly and doesn't eat bushes, or reduces articulation.

Fridgefreezers solution works ok ish, but he'll be the first to admit that it eats bushes......

Jon

Series LandRover spring bushings have always been undersized for the job. I don't know why aftermarket spring manufactures don't roll the spring eyes for the swinging shackle end to accept larger bushings like on the 101's. I understand this can't be done at the fixed hanger end without losing the military wrap second leaf, but it's usually the shackle end bushings that flog out quickest anyway.

[FridgeFreezer]

Mine was eating bushes in the bar, not the spring, but the bar was far from optimal geometry (and still is, I'm sure). However, although I'm convinced it's not right, it certainly does stop wrap.

[Soren Frimodt]

Anti wrap can be made to work ok on the rear of a landrover, but I've never seen a solution to it on the front, that actually works properly and doesn't eat bushes, or reduces articulation.

Fridgefreezers solution works ok ish, but he'll be the first to admit that it eats bushes......

Jon

The way I have done mine does neither if those things! And I bet you it works perfectly fine, with 35" tyres aired way down I would sure know if it didn't

[Jon White]

Never seen any pics of yours Soren.....

[bill van snorkle]

Mine was eating bushes in the bar, not the spring, but the bar was far from optimal geometry (and still is, I'm sure). However, although I'm convinced it's not right, it certainly does stop wrap.

The bar itself only requires compliant bushings on the swinging shackle. A long shackle will torsionally flex shackle bushings less than a shorter one will. Due to the more or less horizontal placement of the axle end bushings, a shortened radius arm could be easier to package than the traditional Y shaped anti wrap bar with the axle end bushings vertically displaced.

[ToyRoverlander]

Ought to upload that photo to the scary steering website! Drag link like that is flipping lethal!

Yet i'm still alive and kicking. It didhave a fair bit of bumpsteer. When i went to pas it got a high steer setup with insanely beef steering rods. No more bumpsteer. Thats a really old pic btw, quite different now .

Now going back to read the rest of this topic

[ToyRoverlander]

Dont let others put you off going soa on your 109. Its fantastic! When done right that is. Mine handles great on road with little body roll and is nearly unstoppable offroad.

Wide axles, good shocks and low cog make it surprisingly stable. Turn it into a softtop to reduce weight up high. Get rid of that crossmember thats in the way, cut it out and if you'r keen you can replace it with something smaller.

Use some 63" chevy pickup rear springs and 3leaf rear parabolics up front, nice and flexy. Good quality long travel shocks are a must.

Wide axles! Double cardan rear driveshaft and depending on axle choice either a normal driveshaft up front or a dc one with a cut&turn of the swivels. Get some big rubber as it looks retarded on skinny 7.50s..

For pics of mine check my photobucket account, username is toyroverlander. On the most recent pics its a desert tan softtop.

The very first post i made on this forum was about a soa conversion, might be of help: http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=58420&p=520208

Not that tall now is it...

[FridgeFreezer]

When done right that is.

And there is the key. Your vehicle is a complete package of modifications, SOA among them, that works nicely together. Just taking a normal Series and putting the axles under the springs is not going to give the same result.

[o_teunico]

Koos, very nice 109" the one you have!

I want to make it stage by stage, and be able to drive it meanwile, so no Toy axles. As you did before SOA, I want to fit LR coiler axles. That way I could fit lockers to the series axle (along with 24 spline shafts from ROAM O/R). That lockers will later fit the wider coiler axles and, beeing 100% Rover, will make it easier to service.

If for maintaining roll over stability I need 1.5 times the extra lift in wider axles, coiler axles with offset wheels plus spacers are 300mm wider than series, perfect for 8" lift.

I have some spare rear axle leafs (both eliptic and parabolic) and fitting longer front leafs was already in the agenda.

One of the first crazy ideas I want to make is fitting an extra divorced 1.22 LT230 along with the series transfer plus 3.54 diffs. That will give me nearly 10% higher gearing with the addition of double low box.

[bill van snorkle]

The "extra divorced transfer case with an LT230 behind the Series case" I think we discussed that before on the 6x6 thread. Too difficult to package and would result in both front and rear diffs being offset to the left hand side instead of the right. The so called 'doublers' that the Americans use, are made from cut down transfercases,designed with the rear output shaft concentric with the gearbox mainshaft, and need to be fitted between the main gearbox and original transfercase. It would probably be easier and less expensive to adapt a Hi Lux reduction box to the LandRover gearbox, and then run the output from the Toy reduction box to the divorced or adapted LT 230.

.

[o_teunico]

That was difficult to package in a 100" Disco, but in the 109" I have some extra space, and with a minimum engine/box relocation (slihtly higher and forward) and an angled propshaft joining the two t-boxes, the second one slightly lower for helping with prop angles/SOA, could work. Just an idea at the back burner at the moment.

[FridgeFreezer]

One of the first crazy ideas I want to make is fitting an extra divorced 1.22 LT230 along with the series transfer plus 3.54 diffs. That will give me nearly 10% higher gearing with the addition of double low box.

If you stick with Series ratios (or 4.75 / 4.11 diffs in the coiler axles) and just fit a 1:1 LT230 you get a relatively high high range and a relatively low low range, no need for extra transfer cases.

[Jamie_grieve]

My observations so far are that the biggest reason that SOA is not so attractive is that contrary to one post the largest amount of wheel travel is gained by having springs of a large free camber. My springs are about 120lb/in with a free camber of 10" on the front and 12" on the back and when sitting on level ground the spring eyes are more or less level with the axle centre line. For a SOA conversion you would want the spring to be flat on level ground or slightly bent backwards. Flat springs have no advantage at all other than optimum sideways stability. you will loose wheel travel with a flat spring. Wheel travel is more important IMO than breakover as you can normally find a line through. It's not hard to get decent breakover from a 109.

Whatever geometry that allows the largest change in spring length or shackle movement is what will result in the greatest wheel travel.

Parabolics are great on a road motor but given how ridiculously short the front springs are on a Land Rover then you really need to bend them a lot to get any movement then they break. I find I get more travel from thin leaves than parabolics. As soon as they get some rust between the leaves they stop working as well. I used to run my spring bush bolts just loose enough to move in the bush all greased up or the bushes would tear after a few cross axles or jumps. I moved onto Polybushes which was a great mod.

I'd suggest that a 109 built with larger wheels on stronger axles with optimised standard suspension to give the belly height you want would be better than the SOA. The leafs don't hang any lower than the radius arms on a coiler and give a handy ramp to drag or push it over obstacles. Spring wrap is a part of leaf springs and despite it looking scary takes the shock load out of the drive train. As long as the prop doesn't bind it's not as big a drama as folks make out. I keep a very stiff but short bottom leaf on mine to counter it at extremes.

I'd say that 88" didn't climb the hill due to having his tyres at 500psi!! Is it not normal in Denmark to lower tyre pressures when driving off road like that? It makes a huge difference not only in footprint and grip but also in how the suspension reacts to the terrain.

If I was you, I'd lose the series transmission and stick in a coil sprung one. Shame the discovery bellhousing is so long, try and find a short one out an early 90 / 110. Don't worry about CV joints in the front axle like the purists would have you believe, they work fine with UJ's despite the fact they ought to make vibrations going round corners.

If you do go ahead with the SOA on economic grounds then I'd say to just cut out that crossmember as already said and put one in where you can. The crossmember behind with the hole in it was different on the stage one and went over the prop allowing for easier suspension mods. There is a huge space between the front and middle crossmembers on them which was why I had to change mine as you could see the chassis flex if you were being silly. The 'bolt on' crossmember from one of your Discoveries would be easy to reinstall wherever you want. Put crush tubes in if you bolt it or plates top and bottom if you weld it to tie into the other side of the chassis. Don't have the crossmember just hanging off the inner chassis skin.

The upside down U bolts earlier posted were a good idea and common practice. You could straighten out and strengthen the front dumb irons to lift the front of the spring up if you did a shackle reversal although modifying the chassis might be a no no? The best allround solution would be to stick the series body on the Discovery chassis!!!

[o_teunico]

If you stick with Series ratios (or 4.75 / 4.11 diffs in the coiler axles) and just fit a 1:1 LT230 you get a relatively high high range and a relatively low low range, no need for extra transfer cases.

That was my intention with the Disco. I even contacted Dave Ashcroft to see if his diff pegging kit will fit a series diff, but he said that series cw/p are of much lesser material than coiler ones. I will have to pay for a pair of HD 4.75 cw/p and 1:1 pinions, copare that to the zero cost 3.54 diffs and LT230 I can source from my bro´s rotten Disco!

The best allround solution would be to stick the series body on the Discovery chassis!!!

The idea is to end with a wide axle, 5sp and Tdi 109".

[FridgeFreezer]

A full-length 5-speed & LT230 will fit in a 109, but you want the Defender shifter to stop the gearstick being behind the driver! Mine is exactly that (V8 + R380 + LT230).

For diffs, talk to Nige (Hybrid From Hell), I'm sure he'd do whatever you want even if it may not be very sensible.

[bill van snorkle]

It's not so much the lack of constant velocity that is the problem with universally jointed front axles Jamie,it's their lack of strength. The 2 15/16" U joints are smaller than the 1310 3 3/16" u joints in most LandRover propshafts, but have to cope with a 4.7:1 torque multiplication of the diffs. Take a look at a Dana 44 front axle uni for example. much larger journals and caps.

Front axle tramp on leafers, aside from reducing traction,can be severe enough to bust propshafts, springs, and smash the body of shock absorbers against the swivel ball flange, so don't agree that spring wrap cushions the blows. Shackle reversal with front of spring angled up, in combination with an anti wrap bar would IMO give the best front axle performance. This basically converts the spring into a short, albeit flexible radius arm, which negates the lifting effect on steep climbs that the standard rear displaced front shackles on LR's display. Toyota Landcruisers, as an example generally have lighter front springs than the equivalent LandRover, but tramp far less and generally climb better. The problem with fitting longer springs to gain more travel,is that it screws up approach angle.I've seen a few occasions where a LandRover will easily cross an innocent looking gulley that brings LandCruisers to an abrupt halt as the front of the spring dig into the ground.

To achieve lots of articulation with cambered springs will require that the axle no longer stays perpendicular to the chassis. Because the axle is firmly clamped to the springs via the U bolts,The axle cant pivot around the centre bolt. so this angular displacement of the axle must be due to laterally twisting the springs which they were not really designed to do. Starting off with flat springs on a SOA set up allows far more easier articulation with less lateral spring distortion and less rear axle steer IMO.

I don't understand the comment you attribute to Ashcrofts, O'teunico. If pegging works with 3.54 diffs then it will work with 4.7's, but that doesn't mean a pegged 4.7 will be as strong as an unpegged or pegged 3.54.

[o_teunico]

I don't understand the comment you attribute to Ashcrofts, O'teunico If pegging works with 3.54 diffs then it will work with 4.7's, but that doesn't mean a pegged 4.7 will be as strong as an unpegged or pegged 3.54.

That was what he said, that it was so lesser material that even pegged it was going to be weak, so he never actually tried to pegg a series diff.

[Soren Frimodt]

I tried pegging a Series diff once, and so has 'oddball' on here (another Dane) I didn't have great success it broke just as easy as they always seem to do. The 3.54 diff seems much stronger and would survive quite well in a light SWB leafer I think, however the low box is just way too high for that.

And yes Jamie, it is perfectly normal to air down tyres in Denmark as well, and even though I'm sure he didn't air down quite as much as me on the day, the light front end and bouncing on the hill had absolutely nothing to do with tyre pressure, to the contrary actually, because airing down often produces even more bounce as the big air spring that the tyre is, has no dampening and grip gets better allowing a 'pendulum' effect once it starts bouncing.