Thread: 6X6 Rear suspension travel and how to improve it.

Originally Posted by TK_Co

Thanks for that. Looks similar to the ikea 6x6 being built. Coil sprung rear end. I found another suspension set up on a cruiser, similar to a camel back, but can't upload it. I like the idea of coil sprung rear end. Should give more independence between axles.


Just catching the perentie bug.

1990 Perentie 6x6 Air Defence GS ARM 51867
2013 Range Rover Sport
1996 6X6 Infantry Carrier Hard Top ARN 202238

The problem/downfall with that suspension is the lack of load sharing.

Replace the coils with air springs and couple together the pairs on the same side will go a long way toward fixing that.

Originally Posted by Dervish

Bill talked about his 6x6 in this thread, which is otherwise a little ridiculous but worth reading for Bill's input. I believe his 2a had a walking beam setup, which I think is the same as a camelback (I haven't heard that name before).

Anyway, that thread covers what is necessary to make a capable 6x6; Bill even mentions the 6x6 Perenties at one point.

Changing anything structural to gain articulation would be the beginning of a slippery slope, and probably have you wishing you just bought a Mog. The simplest fix is probably to somehow space the axles out so that you could fit 35s or 9.00r16s. That would get you the approach, departure and ramp over angles required for a capable offroad vehicle of that size (HUGE). Then fit lockers.

It won't have much in the way of articulation, but it will still go just about everywhere.

Thats what I did with mine.
Spaced the rear axles apart 25mm each. Run 900x16s.
Factory difflocks.
Lack of articulation does not matter much.

Originally Posted by 303gunner

The Camelback (or something along those lines) with torque rods is what the Studebaker 6x6 has and it performs superbly. However, the Studie has much longer driveshafts and the wheelbase between rear axles to allow clearance at full travel.

The rear end on a Studebaker is not the best travel wise and I find I

can pick up intermediate or and rear axle without to much trouble if driving a gully head on.
Driving a gully slightly side on is a different story as the Studebaker's good chassis flex and Three point mounting of cabin and engine/transmission comes in nto play.
The tail shafts of Studebaker will rub on stuff on full travel.
Walking beam is the best set up for good intermidate and rear axles for good ground following if set up for it.
Do a you tube search for Scammell explorer witch also has a equaliser pivot on the front axle too.
Diff locks are not needed with the set up on the Explorer as all tyres have full vehicle weight on them at all times so traction is rarely lost.
Other pommy militiary trucks used this set up too......militant, pioneer etc.
The best starting point to build a walking beam rear end is a 4x4 chassis and not a 6x6 chassis.
Walking beam off road conversions of 4x4 trucks to 6x6 was popular in the late 1930s in Europe.

Something a little different but seems to work well

Our achievements | Robert Lorenc

Another interesting concept I saw on "Britain's Greatest Machines With Chris Barrie"

Was the Scammell Lorry..with a very unique rear suspension set up..
Not 4x4..but still very very capable in the bush

That above is what I was talking about scamell pioneer/explorer and used on lots of other stuff ............long travel walking beam.

Ahh ok mate, it's incredible stuff!..and to think they invented it soo long ago!