lifted springs for 2a 109?

[army2a]

hey guys, does anyone know if anyone makes lifted springs for a series 2a 109 ute? After installing my new parabolics, the back looks good (3 leaf), but the front looks average (2 leaf). they are around 2 inches lower than the rear, and one side sits lower than the other? pretty average. so i was thinking about a raised set of front leafs to match the back height. has anyone had a similar problem?

[pop058]

still have the Army (extended) shackles ??

[army2a]

yea i still have the army shackles on it, the springs seemed to have sagged a fair bit and they never raised the vehicle at all if anything they were slightly lower???? the rears were 4 leaf parabolic but they were way to high compared the front. after having one of the rear leafs removed from each rear pack on the rear, the front is still sticking down. i was contemplating getting the front springs reset but after seeing how they have sagged i think it will be a waste of time.

[pop058]

sorry mate cannot help with a solution, but I do recall this subject (saggy parabolics) being discussed before. A search may find it.

[korg20000bc]

I believe that the springs are sided and the right hand side of the vehicle should sit higher when "at rest."

This is to make the vehicle level when the driver sits his fat arse down.

[army2a]

thanks for the replies, i was aware about the sided springs, but the sagged side is about an inch lower than standard:( theres around a 2.5 inch difference between the front and rear though which looks sh#t!:mad: i was told today that king springs make lifted springs for landrover series so hopefully they make a 2-3 inch lift for the front.what are the chances the parabolics would sag back down if i got them reset 50mm? i would rather keep them as they flex a lot better and ride awesome.

[Warb]

I believe that the springs are sided and the right hand side of the vehicle should sit higher when "at rest."

This is to make the vehicle level when the driver sits his fat arse down.

This is true for the original LR springs, but not always so with parabolics. To quote the installation guide for the Rocky Mountain parabolics;

"Do not expect your truck to sit perfectly level, parabolic springs are more load sensitive than cart type springs which is what gives the improved ride and articulation . There may be very slight differences between pairs of springs that you can use to tune your trucks side to side static position. You may wish to position some weight in the truck before doing this to simulate your most common loading of driver, fuel, etc."
If you have one higher spring, put it on the driver side so it's more level when you're in it!!

RM parabolics seem to have mostly reasonable feed back from customers, though some have complained of sag after a time. Some (cheaper?) brands of parabolics have more negative feedback.

Also note from the RM installation guide:

"Check that upper axle buffer is in place and serviceable. NOTE* Warranty is void if axle buffers are not in place. Parabolic’s will lose arc if overextended. Any increase in ride height/shackle length must be accompanied by an equivalent downward adjustment to the axel buffer position. Ensure that the rear check straps are in place and serviceable."
and later

"On the rear, the check straps should be adjusted so that they stop the downward progress of the axle approximately ½” before the shock bottoms."
And I remember reading somewhere that they are specifically not to be used with military (long) shackles, presumably because unless the buffers are extended the problem outlined above (over extension or compression) will occur.

It seems decent parabolics are a quick way to a better ride, but are not without their own complications!

[I have a set of RM's but have not yet fitted them as the vehicle is in pieces!]

[army2a]

thanks for your help guys, ill see how i go. cheers

[wagoo]

I think Rocky Mountains disclaimer about Parabolics settling if bump stop spacers aren't fitted to military chassis is a fair indicator that paras can be easily flexed beyond their elastic limit compared to normal semi elliptic leaf springs. The leaves on Paras being generally thicker than the individual leaves of a standard spring will be subjected to more surface tension when flexed, which obviously leads to permanent stretching of the upper surface,so the spring flattens out.
I have been a bit underwhelmed by the true offroad performance of customers vehicles after fitting paras.Sure, some claim better ride and articulation, but articulation isn't much use if the axles, particularly the front just flap around due to reduced tramp control.That horrible front axle hop and bounce when the vehicle is asked to climb steep banks or ledges is what I'm on about. It's bad enough with standard springs, but even worse on the parabolic equipped vehicles I've tested.
Bill.

[isuzurover]

...
I have been a bit underwhelmed by the true offroad performance of ... vehicles after fitting paras....

x2.

Also, the more arch/free camber you have on your springs, the worse offroad ability you will have as the springs won't flex as well, especially in up-travel.

So while more height may look cool, it will give you less stability and less wheel travel.

But in short - you can get them reset and they will hold the new camber as long as the springs are tempered after resetting.

[Warb]

I think Rocky Mountains disclaimer about Parabolics settling if bump stop spacers aren't fitted to military chassis is a fair indicator that paras can be easily flexed beyond their elastic limit compared to normal semi elliptic leaf springs. The leaves on Paras being generally thicker than the individual leaves of a standard spring will be subjected to more surface tension when flexed, which obviously leads to permanent stretching of the upper surface,so the spring flattens out.

Pure logic suggests that if you make a leaf spring more flexible then you run the risk of over extending it. A normal leaf pack can be over extended, and will change its "set" if this happens. However a normal leaf pack is often so inflexible that in practice it cannot be over extended. A parabolic spring, on the other hand, is soft enough that over extending becomes a real possibility. To prevent damage it requires limits on it's movement. I do not see that as a failing. If a part is designed to work within given conditions, then using it outside those conditions always risks adverse results. If a parabolic spring (or leaf pack, coil spring etc.) is designed to provide (say) 10inches of vertical travel, removing the limits and expecting it to survive 18inches of movement is unrealistic.

If a normal leaf pack could be slimmed down to give the same degree of flexibility as a parabolic, it too would require limits - though of course by design it already has them, and RM are asking for no different limits than those designed by LR.

As far as axle tramp goes, surely that is a shock absorber issue? Parabolic springs have very little self damping, compared to rather large amounts in a leaf spring pack (especially an old and rusty one!). As a result the shocks have to do much more work. If the shocks can't control the movement of the axle, that's not the springs fault.

[isuzurover]

Pure logic suggests that if you make a leaf spring more flexible then you run the risk of over extending it. A normal leaf pack can be over extended, and will change its "set" if this happens. However a normal leaf pack is often so inflexible that in practice it cannot be over extended. A parabolic spring, on the other hand, is soft enough that over extending becomes a real possibility. To prevent damage it requires limits on it's movement. I do not see that as a failing. If a part is designed to work within given conditions, then using it outside those conditions always risks adverse results. If a parabolic spring (or leaf pack, coil spring etc.) is designed to provide (say) 10inches of vertical travel, removing the limits and expecting it to survive 18inches of movement is unrealistic.

If a normal leaf pack could be slimmed down to give the same degree of flexibility as a parabolic, it too would require limits - though of course by design it already has them, and RM are asking for no different limits than those designed by LR.



Spring travel is limited by the shock absorbers and bump stops. Springs should be able to flex within the limits of both without failing. Springs are in fact usually "scragged" (fully inverted) when manufactured, to make sure they return to their original set.

Parabolics are not softer than OEM springs, they are in fact (in the case of RM anyway) stiffer. So in terms of overall wheel travel, they are often quite poor. However they do have little/no interleaf friction, which gives them a smooth ride, and means that over small bumps they flex more like coils.

Because of the thick leaves, the stresses between the leaf faces on a parabolic are much higher, which means they could be expected to have a shorter life for the same deflection.




As far as axle tramp goes, surely that is a shock absorber issue? ....

No - it is largely a suspension design issue.

[Warb]

I wasn't specifically talking about "stiffer" from a spring rate perspective, I was talking "softer" from a usage viewpoint. The original spring rate of an old leaf pack has little to do with the movement of the axle under real world conditions, with the leaves rusted together most old leaf spring packs hardly move at all.

A well set up, lubricated leaf spring pack still has far more damping than a parabolic. Whilst a static load might cause less deflection on the higher rated parabolic, a shock load like hitting a bump will cause more deflection of the parabolic than of the lower rated leaf pack because there is less friction. This is why the ride is smoother, as you said.

So a well lubricated leaf pack may have a lower rate, but may still fail to reach its movement limiters whilst the same sudden load may bottom out the parabolic.

Equally the lower rated leaf spring may exhibit more flex under rock crawling conditions, the lower spring rate allows more compression/extension under the same (almost) static load.

Axle tramp may be a suspension design issue, but in this context the design is fixed in all but the type of spring (leaf or parabolic) so any increase in tramp is probably a result of a reduction in damping.

[wagoo]

Even with the extra damping from interleaf friction that std springs give, plus good shocks the front axle still tramps badly.Tramp is when the axle housing rocks back and forth on the springs, twisting the springs length into a shallow S shape. The thicker section of the semi elliptic springs plus interleaf friction, plus shockers resists this force better than the long relatively slim profiled parabolics. Even so, take a look at the front shocker body of a landrover that gets a bit of real offroad work and you should notice it bashed up and dented from making contact with the swivel housing flange during axle tramp.
Bill.

[isuzurover]

Even with the extra damping from interleaf friction that std springs give, plus good shocks the front axle still tramps badly.Tramp is when the axle housing rocks back and forth on the springs, twisting the springs length into a shallow S shape. The thicker section of the semi elliptic springs plus interleaf friction, plus shockers resists this force better than the long relatively slim profiled parabolics. Even so, take a look at the front shocker body of a landrover that gets a bit of real offroad work and you should notice it bashed up and dented from making contact with the swivel housing flange during axle tramp.
Bill.

Exactly. My IIA ex-mil with reconditioned OEM shocks has bashed the hell out of the shocks from axle tramp.

[Warb]

Even with the extra damping from interleaf friction that std springs give, plus good shocks the front axle still tramps badly.Tramp is when the axle housing rocks back and forth on the springs, twisting the springs length into a shallow S shape. The thicker section of the semi elliptic springs plus interleaf friction, plus shockers resists this force better than the long relatively slim profiled parabolics. Even so, take a look at the front shocker body of a landrover that gets a bit of real offroad work and you should notice it bashed up and dented from making contact with the swivel housing flange during axle tramp.
Bill.

It does make some sense that the lack of internal damping in the parabolics results in more tramp, probably more so on the compression side (rear) of the springs, than the extension side because on extension I would imagine the leaf pack opens up anyway (at least as far as the pack clamps allow). But way back when I was young one of the standards in rally prep for the Escort was to fit anti-tramp bars. Given the nice hefty chassis to mount to in the Series Land Rover, is there not a similar solution available?

[isuzurover]

It does make some sense that the lack of internal damping in the parabolics results in more tramp, probably more so on the compression side (rear) of the springs, than the extension side because on extension I would imagine the leaf pack opens up anyway (at least as far as the pack clamps allow). But way back when I was young one of the standards in rally prep for the Escort was to fit anti-tramp bars. Given the nice hefty chassis to mount to in the Series Land Rover, is there not a similar solution available?


Yes, that is a good option, and I have seen it done. Some non-LR vehicles come from the factory with control arms.

[wagoo]

Yes, that is a good option, and I have seen it done. Some non-LR vehicles come from the factory with control arms.
An old full leaf sprung 1964 LWB Austin Gipsey 4x4 I once owned and loved, which had a similar suspension to LandRovers was fitted standard with a tramp bar each side that ran from mounts on the axle tube above the springs, forward to mounts on the front spring hangers.The front end of that vehicle always felt better hooked up and more capable than the 109 Landy I owned concurrently.A similar modification to LandRovers was quite common among competitors in the UKs All Wheel Drive Club trials back in the day.
I once centrally mounted a single torque rod, made from a RangeRover rear trailing arm on a Stage One V8, mounted above centre of the axle tube, running forward and pivoting from just below the front bumper. This simple mod transformed what was a fairly hopeless vehicle even with difflocks, in steep, broken and rocky terrain ,into one of, if not the most capable leaf sprung 4wds I've ever seen, that even embarrased a few tricked up coil sprung 4wds.
Bill.

[army2a]

thanks for your help guys, im not trying to lift the vehicle to look cool, just trying to make the car even. im thinking the parabolic 2 leaf front springs cant take heat of having a winch on the front. im thinking of going a modified king spring front leaf set. the parabolics ride a bit better but im glad i didnt pay retail for them! the rear has more flex and rides better but the front didnt really change. thanks for your help guys