Thread: Making EAS Height calibration blocks

I used some perspex rod I got from the local bearing shop, but I am sure tassie Oak will be suitable

Steve

Thank you Gents.

4x2 is what i have available in the shed so I thought Id save myself a trip. But now converted to Nylon Rod if easy enough to source. Is this available at Bunning's or a specialist shop?

Interesting stats Hoges, that was my thoughts about the wood dowel, surely it would break under the weight. (myth busted).

Does the ground need to be perfectly level if setting the heights using this method as I would of thought the heights would be the same on level ground or not when sitting on calibration blocks.

Paul

Originally Posted by Hammer H

Thank you Gents.

4x2 is what i have available in the shed so I thought Id save myself a trip. But now converted to Nylon Rod if easy enough to source. Is this available at Bunning's or a specialist shop?

Interesting stats Hoges, that was my thoughts about the wood dowel, surely it would break under the weight. (myth busted).

Does the ground need to be perfectly level if setting the heights using this method as I would of thought the heights would be the same on level ground or not when sitting on calibration blocks.

Paul

Mate

I couldn't find it at Bunnings but my local bearing shop has it and so does a plastics shop.

Wood is incredibly strong under compression so I have no doubt it will do the job as long as it stays vertical

The official procedure says it has to be perfectly level ground but like you I can't quite see why !

Steve

Get some bright mild steel bar and face pieces to length. Usually obtainable in small pieces from the scrap bins at machine shops and engineering works.

Originally Posted by Hoges

Depends on how "accurate" you wish to be. The method for calibration of the EAS on the 1995-2001/2 models is different from the Classic. Specifically says in the LR SID for EAS not to use the "Classic" procedure for P38. The correct method for "post Classic" models is to calibrate the distance from the bump stop stub to the axle plate. The wheel arch to centre of wheel is a proxy measurement and assumes that the body is "true", that panels are correctly aligned and there is no shift in chassis alignment.

Do they give any explanation of why not to use the classic method?

As for accuracy, you must keep in mind this is a body on chassis car and due to tolerance stack-up no two will measure exactly the same. Measuring from hub (or ground) to the body gives the result that is true to eye. Which is what actually matters.

I would expect the bump stop method is a lot harder for a below average tech to screw up. Which might have been landrovers aim. Particularly for markets scared of things like EAS (USA).

Originally Posted by Hoges

On this basis, if you want to be absolutely sure that the wheel arch to wheel centre is a true reflection, then simply put a set of standard height wooden blocks between the stub and axle and measure the wheel arch to wheel centre for each wheel. Note the reading for each corner...that becomes the reference reading for standard height...they might or might not be the same for each corner....just saying

Presuming the distance from bump-stop pad to axle centre-line is the same on each axle! They certainly aren't on the classics. On those the wheel arch is the only reliable way.

The readings for each corner aren't the same. I run a 10mm lean to drivers side to compensate for road camber.

Originally Posted by Hammer H

Does the ground need to be perfectly level if setting the heights using this method as I would of thought the heights would be the same on level ground or not when sitting on calibration blocks.

Paul

Of course it does. You won't acheive anything useful with either method when parked on uneven ground.

Hey Dougal. The beauty about the blocks is its much faster. Well it seemed that when I did it. With the tape measure method and pumping each corner when you pump one corner up it effects the others somewhat. So I've found to get it right takes quite a few attempts on each corner.

But with the blocks, you just let the air out and it sits on the blocks. Record the readings and its done. Only challenge was the high setting as you need to lift it higher to get the blocks out.

But in saying that, since the airbag lift and height extension mods, I did it with the tape measure as I needed new blocks and as you said all corners visually measure the same with this method as the gaps between tyre and guards weren't exactly the same using the bump stop method.

Originally Posted by Pete38

Hey Dougal. The beauty about the blocks is its much faster. Well it seemed that when I did it. With the tape measure method and pumping each corner when you pump one corner up it effects the others somewhat. So I've found to get it right takes quite a few attempts on each corner.

But with the blocks, you just let the air out and it sits on the blocks. Record the readings and its done. Only challenge was the high setting as you need to lift it higher to get the blocks out.

But in saying that, since the airbag lift and height extension mods, I did it with the tape measure as I needed new blocks and as you said all corners visually measure the same with this method as the gaps between tyre and guards weren't exactly the same using the bump stop method.

Once you know how the EAS levels itself, the tape measure system is very quick. I can't imagine blocks being faster, even if they magically appeared cut to the right size.

The EAS levels off the rear axle. So you set the heights of the two rear corners first. Measure, tap, tap, measure and done for each rear corner.
Then the front measure one corner, adjust and then the other.

If the front starts cycling up and down it means a big mis-match (more than 2 bits different) between the front corner heights.

If you don't know how the vehicle levels you can waste a lot of time.

Ah hadn't realised that. I think I've always adjusted the corner that's the furthest out. That might make things easier next time then. Cheers.