Front spring fouling on chassis

[POD]

Just got back from a short outback trip, whilst we were away I noticed the RH front coil slightly fouls the chassis when articulating, making a bit of a clunking noise and leaving a telltale rub mark on the chassis. I have not noticed this before even with fairly severe articulation on high-country tracks. Would this be caused by wear in any particular suspension bushes? Seems odd that it has just started happening.
2008 Puma 130.

[isuzutoo-eh]

I thought it was only 80s era One Tens that did that! And only on the driver's side front too.
There was some talk a few years ago, I think it was just before Rangier Rover airbagged his 120. Either in a build thread or in the Isuzu Landy section.

[Westie]

My 1990 tdi200 used to do it. On a trans-Africa trip I had a look at all the coil sprung Landies I could - most vehicles had rub marks on the drivers side of the vehicle (both RHD & LHD). I talked to the dealer in Nairobi about it - his initial reaction was that it must be worn panhard rod bushes, but it wasn't.

When you look at the manufacturing tolerances for the chassis (from memory +/- 50mm for the spring mount centres) it's not really surprising.

[schuy1]

Yes Mine rubs on heavy articulation. Its a '96 110 C/Chassis with an Ironman 1" lift H/D coils. I have just put it down to the drivers side coil is closer to the chassis. Over 12 yrs now and it hasnt hurt any thing.
Cheers Scott

[Bush65]

...

When you look at the manufacturing tolerances for the chassis (from memory +/- 50mm for the spring mount centres) it's not really surprising.

Nothing like what my manuals state.

For the transverse centres of the front spring perches, the dimension from the chassis centreline to the centre of the spring seat is given as 488 - 482mm (a tolerance of 6mm or 12mm between the centres. For the rear it is 500 - 495 mm (5mm or 10mm between centres.

Longitudinally the tolerance for the position of the rear spring perch is +/- 1mm and centre of rear perch to centre of front perch +/- 1mm.

[Westie]

Nothing like what my manuals state.

Confusingly (and of course if I'm reading it right which is highly unlikely) I have the same as you for the 90 chassis and 488-433mm for the 110 chassis. Which is +/- 55mm, which is probably what was lodged in my doddery memory.

[Bush65]

Confusingly (and of course if I'm reading it right which is highly unlikely) I have the same as you for the 90 chassis and 488-433mm for the 110 chassis. Which is +/- 55mm, which is probably what was lodged in my doddery memory.

I never bothered to look at the 90. They have smaller diameter rear springs (same size as front), and the perches are not offset as much as 110/130 rear perches.

In several different manuals I have looked at, it is not difficult to find errors in the section on chassis alignment. I would expect little variation in the manufacture of the perches, or the width across the chassis rails, so 55mm variation I would take as an error in the document.

[Ancient Mariner]

I never bothered to look at the 90. They have smaller diameter rear springs (same size as front), and the perches are not offset as much as 110/130 rear perches.

In several different manuals I have looked at, it is not difficult to find errors in the section on chassis alignment. I would expect little variation in the manufacture of the perches, or the width across the chassis rails, so 55mm variation I would take as an error in the document.

Probably missing a point

[Westie]

Just measured - the front spring centre on the drivers side of my 110 is around 15mm closer to the chassis that the spring on the passenger side.

The spring on the driver's side fouls the bump stop mount and chassis, the other spring doesn't.