Springs

[numpty]

I need some softer springs in the rear of Leon (S1) and someone suggested that S2 road springs should do the job.

Does anyone have a set of rear SWB springs that I could purchase, preferably in the Brisbane/Sunshine Coast area.

[Xtreme]

Have you tried greasing between the leaves?
I did this on a Series III once and it made a world of difference.
No need to remove them, just take the weight off the springs, drive a thin wedge between the leaves to open them up a little and then spread some grease around with something like a hacksaw blade.

[JDNSW]

It is highly likely that the rear (and front) springs would benefit from an overhaul - remove from the vehicle, disassemble, clean all leaves of rust, repaint, coat rubbing surfaces with graphite grease or similar, and reassemble. If still considered necessary after the reconditioning, one or two leaves could be omitted when reassembling, probably the third and fifth from the top.

John

[101RRS]

I thought later series 1 swb springs were the same as series 2 and series 3 88 springs.

Am I mistaken ?

Garry

[numpty]

Thanks for the suggestions, but I do know all about overhauling the springs, but as they are a heavy duty set I wish to change them for a softer set. And yes, I believe all later S1's are similar to S2 and 3 88".

[isuzurover]

Thanks for the suggestions, but I do know all about overhauling the springs, but as they are a heavy duty set I wish to change them for a softer set. And yes, I believe all later S1's are similar to S2 and 3 88".

How many leaves and what thickness are your set. Good Genuine SWB springs can be hard to find. It may be easier to pull a couple of leaves out of yours and get them reset.

[JDNSW]

How many leaves and what thickness are your set. Good Genuine SWB springs can be hard to find. It may be easier to pull a couple of leaves out of yours and get them reset.

Good genuine Landrover (SWB or LWB) springs are hard to find - mainly because it seems the right thickness leaf material is not available in this country (and apparently has never been).

John

[isuzurover]

Good genuine Landrover (SWB or LWB) springs are hard to find - mainly because it seems the right thickness leaf material is not available in this country (and apparently has never been).

John

I think it was available many years ago (pre metric system!). Most manufacturers prefer to use thicker leaves, so 5 mm seems to be the minimum thickness that is commonly available these days.

Aftermarket springs use 5mm leaves and the same number of leaves as OE, so the spring rate is dramatically increased.

[JDNSW]

I think it was available many years ago (pre metric system!). Most manufacturers prefer to use thicker leaves, so 5 mm seems to be the minimum thickness that is commonly available these days.

Aftermarket springs use 5mm leaves and the same number of leaves as OE, so the spring rate is dramatically increased.

Yes, I think you are right. The thicker leaves (for the same spring length and number of leaves) obviously increase the rate pretty dramatically - in proportion to thickness everything else being equal, I think - but have two other effects; the one the other manufacturers are looking for, that for the same rate the spring will be lighter and cheaper, and the one that they don't worry about, but Rover apparently did; for the same rate, the spring with thinner leaves can deflect further and/or more often with with less sagging or likelihood of breaking.

John

[Xtreme]

Yes, I think you are right. The thicker leaves (for the same spring length and number of leaves) obviously increase the rate pretty dramatically - in proportion to thickness everything else being equal, I think - but have two other effects; the one the other manufacturers are looking for, that for the same rate the spring will be lighter and cheaper, and the one that they don't worry about, but Rover apparently did; for the same rate, the spring with thinner leaves can deflect further and/or more often with with less sagging or likelihood of breaking.

John

Interesting points John.

Maybe that is why Series III rear springs have workrd so well on my camper trailer - it handles the load, rides quite well and doesn't bounce arount like those fitted with short, stiff 'trailer' springs.

[JDNSW]

Interesting points John.

Maybe that is why Series III rear springs have workrd so well on my camper trailer - it handles the load, rides quite well and doesn't bounce arount like those fitted with short, stiff 'trailer' springs.

This is probably mainly the effect of the long springs rather than the number of leaves, although the other point I did not mention is that the more leaves the more friction - an important factor if you have no shock absorbers.
The reason most trailers have short springs is to reduce the unsprung weight and reduce the need for damping and sway bars - i.e. overall simplicity and low cost, on the basis that it does not matter if the trailer rides rough - nobody to complain!

John

[isuzurover]

Yes, I think you are right. The thicker leaves (for the same spring length and number of leaves) obviously increase the rate pretty dramatically - in proportion to thickness everything else being equal, I think - but have two other effects; the one the other manufacturers are looking for, that for the same rate the spring will be lighter and cheaper, and the one that they don't worry about, but Rover apparently did; for the same rate, the spring with thinner leaves can deflect further and/or more often with with less sagging or likelihood of breaking.

John

I think you are right - weight and cost are what the manufacturers are worried about.

Bayside springs had some hoarded thin leaves, a mate got a broken leaf or 2 replaced there with the correct thickness steel.

On the issue of deflection and likelihood of sagging breaking. As you would know, when you deflect a spring leaf, one side is in compression, one side is in tension. The thicker the leaf, the greater the difference between those 2 forces and the greater stress across the leaf. This means that a thicker spring leaf should have fewer cycles to failure, all things being equal. HOWEVER - IME - this is not the case. I have seen heaps of broken leaves in front spring packs (both genuine and aftermarket 5mm), but never any broken rears (e.g. the 7.1 mm leaves used on most LWB rears). Now this may be due to the short front springs on landies and the greater stresses, but parabolics seem to be holding up fine.

[Xtreme]

This is probably mainly the effect of the long springs rather than the number of leaves, although the other point I did not mention is that the more leaves the more friction - an important factor if you have no shock absorbers.
The reason most trailers have short springs is to reduce the unsprung weight and reduce the need for damping and sway bars - i.e. overall simplicity and low cost, on the basis that it does not matter if the trailer rides rough - nobody to complain!

John

What about the broken eggs though! :o

PS - I do have shocks on the trailer also.

[isuzurover]

Shortening a spring (and keeping all other things equal) increases the rate significantly - just like increasing the leaf thickness does.

Case in point:
LWB front 11-leaf springs are about 270 lb/in
SWB rear 11-leaf springs are about 160 lb/in

Leaf thicknesses are pretty similar.

Some trucks with many-layered leaf packs don't need shock absorbers, because the interleaf friction provides all the damping needed.

This is the main reason parabolics give a smooth ride - no interleaf friction, meaning they respond to bumps rapidly like coils.

[JDNSW]

........This means that a thicker spring leaf should have fewer cycles to failure, all things being equal. HOWEVER - IME - this is not the case. I have seen heaps of broken leaves in front spring packs (both genuine and aftermarket 5mm), but never any broken rears (e.g. the 7.1 mm leaves used on most LWB rears). Now this may be due to the short front springs on landies and the greater stresses, but parabolics seem to be holding up fine.

All things are not equal, however! Most broken leaves almost certainly originate from surface defects, and more leaves means more surfaces, hence, you could say, more leaves mean more broken leaves, although the steel quality and surface finish probably varies a lot more than the number of leaves does. But they should sag less, as this does not depend on defects, although it does depend on the steel quality and heat treatment. (and it is noticeable that Rover made sure all their springs had a wrap around second leaf!)

The success of parabolic springs depended on developing techniques for shaping the leaves economically, but also on being able to produce the springs with confidence of being free from both surface and internal defects. And it is noticeable that while some brands of parabolics seem to stand up well, some have had reports of broken springs.


John

[numpty]

Interesting stuff. And as has been alluded to, the springs on Leon are thicker leaf material and less leaves. Standard they should be 10 leaves of 3/16 (just under 5mm) and they are actually 6 leaves of what looks like 5/16 (8mm). So the overall thickness of the spring set is the same, but of course its deflection rate would be vastly different.

I will keep looking.

[isuzurover]

Interesting stuff. And as has been alluded to, the springs on Leon are thicker leaf material and less leaves. Standard they should be 10 leaves of 3/16 (just under 5mm) and they are actually 6 leaves of what looks like 5/16 (8mm). So the overall thickness of the spring set is the same, but of course its deflection rate would be vastly different.

I will keep looking.

If they are about 9/32 then they are LWB springs (albeit with a leaf or 2 removed). In that case, 3 leaves will give you about the same rate as some std SWB springs (160lb/in). I would choose the top 2 and the 4th.

i.e. - like these without the 2nd stage (please ignore the ridiculously long inner clamps):
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[100I]

Sacrilegious it may be but have you measured up a Sierra spring?

[numpty]

They are not LWB springs as they would be too long.

[isuzurover]

They are not LWB springs as they would be too long.

:confused: You are talking rear springs aren't you??? LWB and SWB are the same length AFAIK. I know people with LWB springs fitted to SWBs - they bolt straight up.

[JDNSW]

:confused: You are talking rear springs aren't you??? LWB and SWB are the same length AFAIK. I know people with LWB springs fitted to SWBs - they bolt straight up.

Correct! Chassis dimensions 34 5/8" front, 35 1/4" rear between eyes, same for lwb and swb. (which means you could probably even get away with interchanging front and rear, although the shackles would not set very well.

These figures are for the 2a, but dimensions were unchanged from 86/107 up to the end of S3 production.

JD

[numpty]

:( Eating humble pie again.

[JohnE]

just read the pm from the missus.
will give you a call, i know where there are some,



john

[dandlandyman]

I have a nearly new pair, but obviously too far away. I had them on my 2a SWB but they proved to soft for the hardtop and tools, and the trailers/caravans I tow. They'd probably work really well on a soft-top.
I might use them when I build my Land-Rover camper trailer. Another pipe-dream...

[isuzurover]

Correct! Chassis dimensions 34 5/8" front, 35 1/4" rear between eyes, same for lwb and swb. (which means you could probably even get away with interchanging front and rear, although the shackles would not set very well.

These figures are for the 2a, but dimensions were unchanged from 86/107 up to the end of S3 production.

JD

You 100% sure of those measurements. I am sure that rear springs are about 6" longer than fronts.

People in the US have fitted rear springs on the front, but it means significantly lengthening the dumb irons and moving the front axle forward.

[numpty]

FWIW Measurements for S1 springs in the manual are 36 1/4" Front and 48" Rear. These are the sizes with the spring flat. Interestingly rears on Fire Engine variants both SWB and LWB are 42".

[dandlandyman]

I've got the "two-stage" springs from a LWB 3 trayback under my SWB 2a. Simple bolt-in fit, shackles stand about 30 degrees past vertical under normal load. Ride well, though they still bottomed out when I had to tow 3000L airblast sprayer half-full!
Long story...

[JDNSW]

You 100% sure of those measurements. I am sure that rear springs are about 6" longer than fronts.

People in the US have fitted rear springs on the front, but it means significantly lengthening the dumb irons and moving the front axle forward.


The figures quoted are from the chassis dimensions page 4-J and 5-J in Series 2 & 2a Workshop manual P/N 606408 - and I just checked again to make sure I had the figures right.

John

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks :)

The "Two Stage" springs are/were originally used for Station Wagons, as they were softer when lightly loaded and stiffened when loaded, from memory they were called 6 by 2's they were also fitted to traybacked utes on request.

Numpty, if you want to recondition your own springs I could help you, as I did all mine when I got 172-484,"Aggie" they were spred by rust and I stripped them cleaned, chamfered, radiused, and painted with tar, been on 16 years now no problems,all done at home with angle grinder, and patience,:) they might also have been fitted and tightened without the bushes being allowed to settle that would stiffen the suspension and wear the bush rubber quickly.

cheers

[isuzurover]

The figures quoted are from the chassis dimensions page 4-J and 5-J in Series 2 & 2a Workshop manual P/N 606408 - and I just checked again to make sure I had the figures right.

John

Must be a misprint then.


FWIW Measurements for S1 springs in the manual are 36 1/4" Front and 48" Rear. These are the sizes with the spring flat. Interestingly rears on Fire Engine variants both SWB and LWB are 42".

My father kept my IIA manuals, but my SIII manual (PN AKM3648) agrees 100% with Numpty's S1 manual. ALL front springs are 36.25", ALL rears are 48".

Btw - if anyone is interested, spring rates are:

SWB rear (11 leaf) - 166 lb/in
LWB Station wagon - 270 lb/in (Uncle Ho - must have been 8 plus 2 - because that is what they are)
LWB Heavy Duty (8-leaf) - 368 lb/in
LWB Extra Heavy Duty (9-leaf) - 415 lb/in

[JDNSW]

Must be a misprint then.


,,,,,,,,,


No, the figures I quoted are not spring length - they are the chassis eye measurements (my 2a manual does not seem to have spring dimensions, or if it does I could not find them). The figures you quote are along the curve of the spring, so they give different numbers. The rear springs have more curve than the front ones, so the difference (front/rear) is greater. But the numbers all confirm that the rear springs are the same on the 88 and 109, which was the original point.

John

[isuzurover]

No, the figures I quoted are not spring length - they are the chassis eye measurements (my 2a manual does not seem to have spring dimensions, or if it does I could not find them). The figures you quote are along the curve of the spring, so they give different numbers. The rear springs have more curve than the front ones, so the difference (front/rear) is greater. But the numbers all confirm that the rear springs are the same on the 88 and 109, which was the original point.

John

Fair enough - but I still don't see how thay can be right, will have to measure tonight. The numbers Numpty and I posted are eye-eye measurements, measured as if the spring was dead flat (no camber). Since the shackles are the same length front and rear, the spacing of the chassis eyes must be proportional. (otherwise I douldn't be able to compress my springs until they are completely flat when the axle is articulating).

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The basic truth is that all series Land Rover springs starting in late 1950 for the front springs and the 1954 model for the rear springs are interchangeable.

The differences all being the number of leaves and height / load specs.

If you put Series 3 Land Rover 1 ton springs on a 1954 86" it will feel like there is no suspension at all and if you reverse the process the 1 Ton will ride on its bump stops most of the time.

If you want a softer ride the way to go is thin leaves with a lubricant between each leaf (as Xtreme mentioned,) all with a static height/spring rate and load specifications suitable for the model. Ideally a the lubricant should be a graphite grease on de-scaled/linished leaves).

The big problem is that many replacement springs are now made with thicker material than was original specification. For example I purchased a set of replacements from a well known Melbourne parts supplier. When we fitted them up, the vehicle had an "angle of attack" just like it wanted to take off and sat so high that the shock absorbers were too short by about 2". When fitted to the vehicle would not deviate at all, even with a winch and two people jumping up and down on the front bumper. They have now been removed and good 2nd hand original spec, serviced and lubricated springs fitted intheir place.

Spring specs are in the Workshop Manuals usually at the end of the section.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/10/937.jpg

Diana

[isuzurover]

Correct! Chassis dimensions 34 5/8" front, 35 1/4" rear between eyes, same for lwb and swb. (which means you could probably even get away with interchanging front and rear, although the shackles would not set very well.

These figures are for the 2a, but dimensions were unchanged from 86/107 up to the end of S3 production.

JD

Hi John, sorry to keep being pedantic, and off the main topic, but I just went and measured. I come up with the same measurement as you quote for the front eye-eye measurement of the chassis mounts, but the rear I get 45.5".

Since you said you double checked, must be a misprint in the manual???

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Just if it may help I have uploaded the spring data from the SIII manual.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/01/984.jpg

The previous data would have been of little use as it was specific to the 80" - but was the only example I had when at work.

Diana

[JDNSW]

Hi John, sorry to keep being pedantic, and off the main topic, but I just went and measured. I come up with the same measurement as you quote for the front eye-eye measurement of the chassis mounts, but the rear I get 45.5".

Since you said you double checked, must be a misprint in the manual???

? So do I now! I checked the figures by looking at the metric version, and added the two half measurements with a calculator and divided by 24.5 to give your figure (or close enough) - so I rechecked the inch figures and came up with the 21.25" + 24" = 45.25" - close enough to your figure. While I suppose it is barely conceivable that the figures in the manual have changed since yesterday, I think my mental arithmetic is more likely to be the problem.

My apologies for the error, but the key fact is as I stated, that the 88 and 109 dimensions are the same. (same as 86 and 107).

John

[numpty]

Sorry John, another of us being pedantic. You should have divided by 25.4 not 24.5, as there are 25.4 mm to the inch.

Now that is what you probably did, but your fingers mis spelt on the keyboard.;)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Sorry John, another of us being pedantic. You should have divided by 25.4 not 24.5, as there are 25.4 mm to the inch.

Now that is what you probably did, but your fingers mis spelt on the keyboard.;)

Numpty

How can you say that, engineers don't make errors, they just used an alternate formula that accounted for hereto undeclared extraneous variables.

Diana :wasntme:

[JDNSW]

Sorry John, another of us being pedantic. You should have divided by 25.4 not 24.5, as there are 25.4 mm to the inch.

Now that is what you probably did, but your fingers mis spelt on the keyboard.;)

Yes, I did divide by 25.4, just mistyped it.

John

(not my day!)

[numpty]

It's a bugger when your own fingers wont tell the truth.:D