Suspension/exhaust

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistair

Hi Colin

I would need to dig out the specifications, and am not by any means making a pronouncement on this - someone with authoritative knowledge please correct me - but I am relatively sure that this only applies to Lightweights which were only produced in modified 88" (with the exception of a very few demonstrator 109s), not to the stock SWB and LWB in service. In the Lightweight the position of the shock mounts was higher on the chassis getting over the problem in my long post below and allowing (as you say) for somewhat longer shocks and check straps. I am pretty certain that this was a couple of cm though not a couple of inches -that is a lot of lift by just sticking in longer spring hangers and not touching anything else; Just sticking on a set of longer lightweight spring hangers and shocks would still lead to the situation below with the shocks being inapproprate for the axle when in compression.

Not to say that all the lightweight parts couldn't potentially be used as a starting point, but to be honest I would be amazed if they went on perfectly and just worked, particularly in respect of the upper shock mounts - I think if someone is going down this route then the off the shelf Rocky Mountain kit is the way ahead and if serious time and outlay is OK then an accurate selection of really good quality shocks with length calculated from overall articulation is required - relocation of the upper mounts is actually relatively trivial.

---

Australian military Series II's & III's had extended shackles
I know the check straps were extended (different part number) and I assume that the shock absorbers had a longer travel. I'd have to measure my FFR, but I don't have a standard one to compare with.

As I mentioned, not sure what other changes there are on the military versions.


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alistair

Two drawbacks with this.

1) The overall gearing becomes markedly taller which may or may not suit the purpose. If you are talking touring perhaps, but this will bugger off road ratios. In any event the engine may not pull the taller ratio. In a V8 it wouldn't be a problem but a 2.6... pretty athsmatic really. Not entirey sure of my facts because we don't really have them in the UK but I heard that they were not much more powerful than a 2.25 which typically struggles when you do this.
78HP seems to ring a bell, so no rocket ship and yes, they start to struggle with taller gearing without work. They are easy to get an extra 30% out of with just bolt on changes but it isn't cheap if your budget is tight. You'll soon find I'm a big supporter of these mostly misunderstood engines, but there are only a few of us left flying the flag. Having driven a series with a very healthy 2.6 in it, I can tell you they are a sweet engine and makes for a totally different driving experience in a series LR

2) This isn't something I have looked into, but in passing (whilst looking at my other problems) I have noticed in the Aus regulations there is something about the maximum tire size increase which is allowed over stock. And it isn't much. Not sure how much you could increase without falling foul of regulations. A couple of cm perhaps. Anyone?
50mm increase in diameter from maximum factory fitted tyre size in most states.

Anyway, if you are just talking under diff clearance, try these:

TIBUS Offroad Engineering

$20K or thereabouts last time I asked...

Cool though.

---

I'd agree with your comments here - without improving the engines performance, taller gearing will make life harder in general. With the one we are building, we are going for 750/16 tyres and high speed transfer case but also spending some decent dollars getting the engine to around 110HP with some luck (I've heard of more than 140HP from these engines but that would be stretching the friendship I think):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromit

Australian military Series II's & III's had extended shackles
I know the check straps were extended (different part number) and I assume that the shock absorbers had a longer travel. I'd have to measure my FFR, but I don't have a standard one to compare with.

As I mentioned, not sure what other changes there are on the military versions.


Colin

---

The military vehicles also had extended, or if you like, lowered bump stops, 2 inches lower same amount as the shackles are raised.

Cheers Rod

Sent from my GT-I9507 using AULRO mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bacicat

I'd agree with your comments here - without improving the engines performance, taller gearing will make life harder in general. With the one we are building, we are going for 750/16 tyres and high speed transfer case but also spending some decent dollars getting the engine to around 110HP with some luck (I've heard of more than 140HP from these engines but that would be stretching the friendship I think):D

---

And larger diameter tires/wheels also effect braking efficiency. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick88

And larger diameter tires/wheels also effect braking efficiency. :(

---

Yep, although the 3" x 11" drums on the front of the 6 cylinders are really quite good (as far as series brakes go) when working properly. Still, I've ditched these in favour of disks...