Thread: rear springs and road manors

ok fitted the PUMA springs

1 3/4 inch higher

ride is a weeee bit furmer but a lot less body roll, i will see how it goes at Melrose in the wombat holes

Originally Posted by 85 county

thanks Bilbo, quite correct.
my LL has given up so i was not intending to repair it, you are correct about ride height.

do not mention special ball joints for LL on this site it will be inferred that you lie ( not my me) I had the same problem. I could not get a replacement ball joint so used a defender one, quite a bit shorter was just one of the differences. This inturn lowered my ride height

I think you will find he is referring to after market ball joints that were sold for vehicles that had spring lift....as far as Lieing, I never said or "inferred" that. I was trying to dig deeper for correct info to find the parts (for you and me, I have a interest in LL and correct procedures)

Is there any chance you had a non-genuine ball joint or worse, just mistaken/wrong (heaven forbid!!!)

You just can not accept that you may not be correct. while those of us with black under our fingernails Know.

Since you are so stuck on the topic. try looking at an earlier RR parts list

look for one with a two peace brass saddle and spring under the ball, backed up with a threaded screw.

Originally Posted by BilboBoggles

I seem to recall that with a Boge Load leveller - if you put taller springs in then the load leveler will not work. It relies on a specific ride height to work correctly. In the old days there used to be special ball joints that gave you the required lift on the boge units, not seen them for years though.

See the bold, are you referring to stock LR ball joint being longer for LL 110s and or RRC, than non-LL vehicles

Or are you referring to using a longer ball joint when running longer springs?

Originally Posted by 85 county

You just can not accept that you may not be correct. while those of us with black under our fingernails Know.

Since you are so stuck on the topic. try looking at an earlier RR parts list

look for one with a two peace brass saddle and spring under the ball, backed up with a threaded screw.

WOW, I never said you were wrong, not in any of the 4 threads you have posted this info in. I have asked for info, I have asked other questions relating to this very subject and yet still have no evidence to support your statement. I have said that I can not find any info or anyone that agrees with you. Yet I AM STILL DIGGING (now why would that be???)

As far as "black under fingernails" goes for proof, well that has to be your weakest support for your statement so far! In all the threads I have asked you various questions and your repeated answer of "because I said so" is not helping. Your above statement of the early RRC parts list ball joint with 2 piece brass saddle and spring under the ball is the first bit of real info you have provided to support your claim. How much it supports it I do not know, and I'm not sure a early RRC ball joint is going to carry over to a 85 County.

Since I don't have enough crap under my fingernails to be worthy, I might add that I have asked 4 independent LR experts, who, I'm sure, any one of them would have more than enough to please you, all stated that there has been no difference in BJ length on any of the LR vehicles, that includes RRC, LR and Disco. They all agree there has been changes made to them, but not in length.

I have also asked on other LR forums, with no support of your statement.

If you could provide any of the following, it may help to find the answer:

Part#
Length difference between 110 LL and non-LL
Vin or age range that it came on


I also asked what else LR changed along with this supposed longer Ball joint, as by even your own info on how they work and a change in BJ length changes how they work, the LR themselves could not have changed only the length of the BJ when they supposedly went to a shorter BJ?????

I don't really care if Im wrong, which I am all the time. I do care about correct info and I have quite an interest in the LL as fitted to 110s. I will be the first to post any hard info that I find that supports your statement.

Originally Posted by uninformed

WOW, I never said you were wrong, not in any of the 4 threads you have posted this info in. I have asked for info, I have asked other questions relating to this very subject and yet still have no evidence to support your statement. I have said that I can not find any info or anyone that agrees with you. Yet I AM STILL DIGGING (now why would that be???)

As far as "black under fingernails" goes for proof, well that has to be your weakest support for your statement so far! In all the threads I have asked you various questions and your repeated answer of "because I said so" is not helping. Your above statement of the early RRC parts list ball joint with 2 piece brass saddle and spring under the ball is the first bit of real info you have provided to support your claim. How much it supports it I do not know, and I'm not sure a early RRC ball joint is going to carry over to a 85 County.

Since I don't have enough crap under my fingernails to be worthy, I might add that I have asked 4 independent LR experts, who, I'm sure, any one of them would have more than enough to please you, all stated that there has been no difference in BJ length on any of the LR vehicles, that includes RRC, LR and Disco. They all agree there has been changes made to them, but not in length.

I have also asked on other LR forums, with no support of your statement.

If you could provide any of the following, it may help to find the answer:

Part#
Length difference between 110 LL and non-LL
Vin or age range that it came on


I also asked what else LR changed along with this supposed longer Ball joint, as by even your own info on how they work and a change in BJ length changes how they work, the LR themselves could not have changed only the length of the BJ when they supposedly went to a shorter BJ?????

I don't really care if Im wrong, which I am all the time. I do care about correct info and I have quite an interest in the LL as fitted to 110s. I will be the first to post any hard info that I find that supports your statement.

well there is one othere poster who seems to agree.
but the point is mute since oll i see from you is trool like activity, following me from thread to thread on this topic
ill leave you to your 4 inderpendant experts
i beat you think a 85 110 is a defender