X-Springs, Love them or Hate them?

The originals that Ken made were they a 2 inch or standard height? Did you speak to Gwyn re the rear A frame ball joint. I noticed both he and X engineering do a higher misalignment joint where Maxi Drive do a 2 inch extended version. I figured with the anticipated flex some version will be looked at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brendanm

The originals that Ken made were they a 2 inch or standard height? Did you speak to Gwyn re the rear A frame ball joint. I noticed both he and X engineering do a higher misalignment joint where Maxi Drive do a 2 inch extended version. I figured with the anticipated flex some version will be looked at.

---

The original springs were a +2" - +3" (or possibly more) height however with the portals and all of the changes we never really knew….. nothing like a surprise :eek:

No I dint talk to Gwyn about the A Frame joint as I already have the Maxi Drive 2" Extension…..

I think the new rear trailing arms in their current position on the chassis will really help that rear end especially without the triangle bushes tearing apart….

Sounds like Gwyns thoughts match my own ideas.I see not much benefit and a lot of detriment.The rear on a Land Rover is easy to get to work,it is the front that takes some work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR LR

I personally don't see the point of them, I have bottom cones on the back of my Range Rover which I fabricated, (it has +5" terrafirma shocks), under full flex the cone drops right out of the bottom of the spring, however as it is retained at the top it naturally lines back up to re-seat, personally I'd prefer longer springs that were retained, this is a temporary set up for me. X-springs seem clunky and over complicated in the videos I've watched, my cones don't even make a noise.

If you're at Mulgo any time and Mitch is there, he has the first set I made on the back of his 110, the later version is different and uses 10mm round bar. Neither set has ever given an issue at all.

Here's a pic showing mine at near full extension.

Cheers
Will

---

You've missed the point completely.
Unlike dislocation cones, which are pointless, X springs are a two stage concentric spring which actually keeps pushing the wheel into the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

didnt RRC with EAS have outboard front shocks...maybe look at there shock mount?

---

Yes they do. Not easy to explain, I will crank out a cad model of them one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

You've missed the point completely.
Unlike dislocation cones, which are pointless, X springs are a two stage concentric spring which actually keeps pushing the wheel into the ground.

---

What would you know? Your cars are stock.

My car works 10 times better with cones as it can use the full shock travel. With standard perches, unless I spaced the bump stops out about 80mm I couldn't get long enough springs in there. A lot of people ask me if I have a rear locker as the back wheels drive very evenly as they stay on the ground even when dislocated, didn't do half that with retained springs.

I agree that cones aren't very good, but as I said they are a stop-gap, and I'd prefer them to x-springs after reading reviews and watching them work, long coils will do a better job than x-springs at keeping pressure on the inboard wheel anyway. Plus there is a limit to how much you should make the rear flex IMO, I think even flex is better than stupid rear flex with bugger all in the front, the car goes much further with holey bushes.

Cheers
Will

Yawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

Yawn.

---

Ditto

Oh, and yes I do know how x-springs work, principle is good but I'm not a fan of the execution, I'd rather have long soft coils and a dis-connectible sway bar to make it work on-road.