Printable View
My understanding was that the axle check straps are to avoid pulling the ends off the shock absorbers, which would otherwise limit the travel. Whether this is a serious concern probably depends both on the type of shock absorbers you use and the way you drive, but over the years I have seen a few Series Landrovers with missing or broken check straps - and broken shock absorbers. But on the other hand I have seen quite a few with broken or missing check straps and no problems.
John
When I restored my GS I had the original monroe military shocks reconditioned by WW shock absorbers. Never had any issues with the rear, and later swapped to RRC rear shocks, which rarely get to full extension - if ever. So no check straps and I have never broken a rear shock. Despite running only 2 sets of shocks in 15 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
The front is a different story. The way I have it set up, the front shocks have a hard life. They reach full compression about the same time the bump stop does (with spacer removed), and I can get an extra couple of inches of wheel travel at the front if the shocks were removed. That said, in 15 years, I have snapped the top eye off one shock. When that happened, I got a spare shock rebuilt, and double-welded the top eyes on both front shocks (rear eyes are still standard). I have not broken a shock since.
sort the springs and if you have no plans to ever load it up drop an intermediate leaf out of each pack then have the ride height reset.
If I can do the cape in a Series III with the 1 ton leafs you'll be stunned by what you can do with an Ex-mil Series. The caveat being that you have to know how to make it all work, Its not like a lot of other vehicles.
I did a bit of 4wding in my series 3 before I 'retired' her from active 4wd use. The only time I struggled was the odd occasion where high flex was required to stop getting cross axled and stuck. everything else was simply driver inexperience.
Just a bit of perspective - over forty years ago I drove all over the Simpson in a Series 2 swb and a Series 2a lwb, mostly with standard 7.50x16 crossply mud tyres. Fifty years ago Len Beadell drove all over Central Australia, mostly in overloaded swb Series 1s. About the same time I was driving over a lot of the ranges in the ACT in Series 1s. The ex-army Series 3 has similar capability. I have got stuck in Series Landrovers - but generally because I did something stupid, not because of the vehicles' shortcomings.
Comparing my current 2a and 110, the 110 is superior to the 2a in two ways - the softer suspension allows you to go faster, and the Isuzu engine is superior to the petrol Rover engine. Ultimate capability - not much difference, just a bit easier in the 110. But if the ground is very soft, I prefer the 2a, because it is lighter!
John
I think there is an important distinction/definitional issue here regarding what constitutes 4x4 ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
e.g. IMHO, there is a large difference in the attributes you want for a touring/farm/remote area travel vehicle to the attributes you want for a weekend offroader.
Most people with a touring vehicle would probably consider durability, ruggedness, comfort, ease of parts replacement, and ease of repair above wheel travel, approach/departure angle and rampover angle.
When on a weekend offroading trip I will push my vehicle to the limits of its and my capability (where possible). I would never do the same when I was in the middle of a remote area, for fear of breaking something critical - unless it was absolutely essential.
Likewise, most of the tracks in remote areas of Australia are relatively flat, with the major obstacles being sand (dunes), river crossings, etc, etc... Extreme amounts of wheel travel and/or diff locks are rarely needed.
I agree that a newer 4x4 will win hands down as a touring vehicle - comfort, durability (stronger axles and newer parts), ease of parts replacement, etc... While that is 4x4ing, I would not consider that as testing the limits of 4x4 ability. After all - mitsubishi pajeros and the like regularly make it through the outback with ease but I could never take one through some of the tracks I have taken my IIA through as they don't have enough wheel travel or ground clearance.
Yes, I agree - but I don't think the original poster was very clear on what he meant by "4wd capability". I assumed he meant the ability to progress along a difficult track - although even assuming this leaves a lot of variables - for example, soft, deep sand will require different capabilities from deep water or rock climbing or mud - and there are all sorts of different varieties of mud!Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
But regardless of the definition of "4wd capability", I think that the 2a (and other Series Landrovers) would have to rate right up with any off the shelf current models, and ahead of most.
John
Blknight,Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
What does it mean to have the ride height reset, and how is it done?
Hi guys reading this has got me thinking. My series 2 did ok in the mud but the springs don't look that good, they are rusted to the point where they have swelled.
Do you think they are still effective or can I grease/oil them up to get better performance from them.
Sorry that I keep poping up with my own issues but here is a great place to learn.
thx for any help you can offer :)
Search spring resetting in google.Quote:
Originally Posted by korg20000bc
It is used to re-arch springs so the vehicle will sit at the correct ride height. I would have mentioned it in the threads on my spring setup.
Some basic info is here: http://www.westraliasprings.com.au/c..._facilities/14
You have the factory 9-leaf front and 11-leaf rear than came standard on 88" models. You cannot get spring steel that thin anymore, so cannot buy equivalents for love nor money, so they are worth looking after. They have started to rust between the leaves, causing them to spread. They need to be dismantled and attacked with a wire brush or sanding disc on a grinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by matpoli