More flex for the front of the Series

[FridgeFreezer]

You could make some Gon2Far style twisting spring mounts, they're dead simple and would save the bushes:

[ToyRoverlander]

True. But I like the torsional resistance as it gives some more springrate and helps stability.

[bill van snorkle]

I don't understand why the aftermarket spring manufacturers don't wind the spring eyes on one end to accept a larger diameter bushing similar to the front chassis bush on series 3 109's and all 101 FC spring bushings. It's not really possible to have larger bushings on the fixed, hanger end on civilian chassis without deleting the wrap around 2nd leaf, but the bushings on the swinging shackle ends are the fastest wearing ones anyway.

[o_teunico]

I have been measuring everything again today. If I weld it as it´s in pictures and maintain SUA with standard lenght shackles, I will end with a 4" lift, assuming that the leaf itself is not giving any lift.

Four pack parabolics from 109" at the rear of an 88" + 1 Ton shackles gave us 3" lift over sagged non parabolics in our previous 88".

Since the rear is usually 2" higher than front, 3" rear + 4" front will be a balanced setup and more than adecuate for me.

[ToyRoverlander]

So you're staying spring under. Will a 4leaf pack on the rear of an 88 not be a bit too stiff?

[o_teunico]

Nope. We had that setup in our previous 88 and side slope stability and road behaviour were greatly improved. Was OK for me, but maybe others find it too stiff.

Someday, with wider axles fitted, will go SOA, but not now.

[o_teunico]

I must say that leafs used were seconhand and 20 years old.

[Snagger]

You could make some Gon2Far style twisting spring mounts, they're dead simple and would save the bushes:

Exactly what I was going to suggest - it's a far easier setup, and with the locking pins fitted for road use, returns everything back to standard behaviour when the articulation is not needed.

Incidentally, do you know the reason that revolving shackles were deemed suitable for the rear but not for the front, needing these pivoting hangers for the front springs? Revolving shackles would obviously have been easier to fit, but there must be a problem with it for Gon"Far to have developed these.

[ToyRoverlander]

I remember it had something to do with the extended length being so long that it caused driveshaft issues, in particular u-joint angle problems and interference with the chassis crossmember.

[Snagger]

That makes sense. Thanks, Koos.

[bill van snorkle]

I remember it had something to do with the extended length being so long that it caused driveshaft issues, in particular u-joint angle problems and interference with the chassis crossmember.

Yet another disadvantage of placing the shackles behind the front axle instead of in front of it . The 'leading arm' effect of forward shackles or radius arms for that matter, keeps the diff pinion pointing towards the transfercase when the suspension cycles, whereas rearward shackles force the pinion to point away from the transfercase output .

[ToyRoverlander]

Yes indeed, that's a nice advantage. With my previous front suspension setup, which was terrible by the way, I needed a huge slip joint in the front driveshaft. The springs were sort of mounted on an angle, sloping down towards the rear. That results in the axle swinging not just downwards but also forwards on droop. It needed a 150mm slipjoint to be able to cope, 100mm was not enough. Totally rediculous. The springs are better setup now when I went to the LC80 axles 4years ago. Still using the same driveshaft though.

I'm really curious how O'teunico's front end is going to handle with the front mounted shackles. Mine is quite capable with climbing steep rocky terrain, I never noticed any bouncing or whatever. Or maybe I'm just not noticing it. It does unload a lot, I like to fit a strap to reduce this.

[o_teunico]

I´m still waiting for engineer´s response. No more development yet.