Thread: Springs

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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).

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.


Diana

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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???

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



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

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

John

(not my day!)