YarnMaster
I haven't had any experience with disco II, but:
Longer travel shockies have a longer closed length. Normally when longer shocks are fitted you either, raise the top mounts, or lower the bump stops. This is to prevent the shockie from bottoming out on full bump travel. The shockie will be destroyed if allowed to bottom out.
Lowered shockie mounts are usually used with a spring lift when stock travel shockies are used (in conjunction with lowered bump stops).
Looking at it some other scenarios:
If you fit springs that provide a 2" lift and leave the shockies and bump stops stock. The axle has 2" more bump travel, but 2" less droop.
If you fit the 2" lift springs, keep the stock shockies, but lower the upper mounts and bump stops 2". You will have the same bump and droop travel as standard.
With 2" spring lift, 2" longer travel shockies, and 2" lowered shockie mounts. You would lower the bump stop 4" to prevent the shockie bottoming out. Your bump travel would be reduced 2", but you would gain 4" droop and the springs would pop out if not retained or dislocation cones are fitted.
The better way IMHO, with 2" spring lift is, 2" longer shockie, raise shockie mounts 2" (difficult at rear unless you have a body lift) and leave the bump stop stock. Then you have 2" more bump travel and the same droop as stock.
Bilsteins are gas charged and those without a remote reservoir, have a floating piston inside the body to separate the gas from the oil. The space taken by the floating piston adds to the closed length.
By comparison, some emulsion shockies may gain more travel for the same closed length.
The gas charge and monotube construction have advantages, but they can be ruined if a rock dents the body (the bodies can be protected - the rears are at most risk).
The above are generalisation and there may be specific features with the Disco II that make some of it not applicable.
Swaggie
Gday John, I'd agree with most of that, even in relation to the D2 which is nothing out of the ordinary. The only thing is that a lot of this assumes springs that maintain the factory spring rates meaning a 2" lift spring is 2" longer, where most of the time a 2 spring is stiffer and so not 2" longer. Probably I'm just being a pedantic butt hole.
Cheers
Slunnie
~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~
Slunnie...
Lowering the towers isnt dodgy IF.... IF.... Your running extended bump stops...
Moving the shock travel is no more dodgy than extending the shaft on a bilstein to suit a 4" lift
But since extended bump stops reduce up travel then moving the available travel of the shock to a useable area is not dodgy at all...
Its also the principal of the Arctic trucks in most cases...
Mounts for springs and shocks are lowered around the entire vehicle to allow fitment of the 39"+ rubber.
Wizard
So assuming 4 inch spring I need 4 inch travel up and 4 inch travel down 8 inch + travel Shock
Slunnie your saying that with the of the shelf 2inch Shock being extended it still going to give me 2 inch travel is this correct 2 up 2 down
This part for me any way has proven the most difficult in the investigation to fathom
with most after market bump stops they only have 7cm extension is this no adequate
ChatterBox
ROVERNIT, might be an idea to try and determine what sort of travel (both up and down) you are trying to achieve. I did this on my rear by removing the shock whilst on a friends hoist and seeing how far things would go down and then up, taking measurements between bump stops etc. Tihs then allowed me to get a open and cllosed travel figures so I could then search for a shock within these numbers.Originally Posted by ROVERNIT
Hope i am making sense but as mentioned before, it really depends on what you want to achieve from the change and chances are someone has done that exact change on here already or can at least assist you further.
Good luck, Mick
'99 Manual TD5 D2.......heap of money spent on it and it has ended
Wizard
To date Ive been advised OEM shocks, which ARB stated it would not be good for my application now Im not sure if the adviser meant D2 shocks or if he had something else in mind
Ive gone in the direction of Procomp which where great in travel but lacked to be revalved for my purpose I might mention that this was the cheapest option also and more investigation is needed
and finally bilstiens which are expensive but at least can be tailered to my needs (if I was 100% sure to what my needs are) in plain terms I want my Disco to be the best it can in Articulation as well as drivabilty but as with anything its a case of each to there own I suppose
I think your idea might be a good one, I might place in the spring when they arive and remove the original shock measure the bump stop level then jack up 0ne wheel up measure the distance open and closed then shop for a shock but wont spring have some sag due to having no shock ?
Swaggie
Lengthening shock shafts I think is dodgy also and if buing new I would (and have) recommended against it. Its a mod that you'd probably make if you didn't want to buy new shocks, likewise I think lowering the turrets is also a mod that you would make if you didn't want to buy the correct shocks. What advantage is there to lowering a shock turret over buying longer shocks? Price is about the only benefit. None of these solutions offers any more travel than standard, whereas raising the turret to ensure that a proper longer travel shock can be used and still have the closed position somewhere so that the bumpstop is used before the shock closes is done right. The iceland trucks with 39"+ tyres and reengineered suspension are a different ball game. Now Monster trucks on the other hand!Slunnie...
Lowering the towers isnt dodgy IF.... IF.... Your running extended bump stops...
Moving the shock travel is no more dodgy than extending the shaft on a bilstein to suit a 4" lift
But since extended bump stops reduce up travel then moving the available travel of the shock to a useable area is not dodgy at all...
Its also the principal of the Arctic trucks in most cases...
Mounts for springs and shocks are lowered around the entire vehicle to allow fitment of the 39"+ rubber.
Cheers
Slunnie
~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~
Swaggie
No, the amount of lift is completely independant on the travel, and the amount of travel you have is dependant on things like weight of the vehicle, spring rates etc. A lot of people say that you should have 50% up and 50% down travel, but the reality is often something different. With those springs you will have about 10" travel.
7cm bumpstops is too much, but they will work. Can you cut them down?
Cheers
Slunnie
~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~
Swaggie
I think a lot of people do it this way, though I tend to think it may not produce the correct measurements. Full articulation is not necessarily the same as full travel, and often full travel is only reached with a bit of dynamic load (ie, load it up and jump it!) and this is especially the case with the Disco2. You can work out the shock lengths needed with a bit of maths and knowing your old + new spring free lengths.
Cheers
Slunnie
~ Discovery II Td5 ~ Discovery 3dr V8 ~ Series IIa 6cyl ute ~ Series II V8 ute ~
OldBushie
I have been watching this thread with interest. I have taken my car on some fairly tough terrain since owning it. It still sits on the original springs and shocks. Whilst I would love for my car to sit as high in the sky as both Slunnies and Redbacks I simple cannot justify the amount of work involved in the 4 inch lift. If you have a mild 30 mm lift (like that on CAL415's) you can still retain the superb drivability of the vehicle and have the extra clearance. This is just my opinion.
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks