Thread: WANTED: More Flex

Have you tried flexing it with the shock mounts undone on the front, as the front shocks may be bottoming out if they are longer shocks or not stretching enough if standard shocks.

Also from what I can gather the only way you will get more flex out of the front is to go softer springs and they dont nessesarilly have the same amount of coils, most of the time the softer they are the less they have and the wide the coil spacing but you are right that they would be longer while not installed.

The other question is why do you want more flex?
Most D1's Ive ever seen including my own will pretty much flex the same which is bloody awsome for off the lot, mine standard and lifted was the same to the mm on a ramp but when you start playing with shock lengths and spring rates as well as disconnection swaybars you can achieve more but why is the question.

You can spend heaps on after market stuff but do you really achieve anything with more flex or is it just to look impressive if so then just go for soft springs and no swaybars, you will get awsome flex but will sway around on the road and tracks like nothing on earth although very comfy due to the nice soft ride but then you do get used to rolling it into corners but if you have to change directions quickly it gets extremely interesting.

I suggest that you ask Lovells what the spring rate is.
If you recall the post last week, the Kings front springs were 260Lbs or something.
Standard springs are 133Lb per inch.You can get good articulation and a good ride with 92 RRC green rear springs in the front They are 160 lbs per inch and 16.1 inches . They give about 2 inches lift and I reckon are ideal if you do not have a heavy bullbar and winch..
Regards Philip A

The front end geometry of Landy's isn't the greatest for articulation like what the rears generally are. The way they are designed, is when the axle articulates the roll resistance (resistance to articulate) continually increases. The front axle also works like a big sway bar, and this is why so many 4WD's (coil landys, Patrols, Landcruisers etc) will have really good rear articulation but not as good front articulation. Without going to engineering changes, there is a product from Haultech in QLD which they call slotted bushes, and these will minimise the binding in the axle bushes that restricts articulation in the front. Be aware though, these bushes do chop out with corrugated touring.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Without going to engineering changes, there is a product from Haultech in QLD which they call slotted bushes, and these will minimise the binding in the axle bushes that restricts articulation in the front. Be aware though, these bushes do chop out with corrugated touring.

So what is the on road effect of reducing the roll resistance in the front end?

Originally Posted by TonyC

So what is the on road effect of reducing the roll resistance in the front end?

I think it would be giving LR too much credit to assume it was purposely designed to achieve this and thus improve handling. Substantial body roll would already be incurred before the increased stiffness had much effect. Having said that, Nissan and Toyota appear to have copied the principles of the design while making the usual Japanese detail improvements eg longer shocks, not putting the shock in the spring etc.

Longer shocks (eg Toyota 80 Series)are the easiest way to get a few more inches down travel but brake lines may need to be extended and shocks may bottom on compression requiring extended bump stops and thus negating some of the gains.
The Haultech bushes work to the extent that the shock permits but will make the vehicle feel less 'tight' and a bit vaguer on the road - another compromise.

Any further gains will require a lot more work and are generally not 'bolt on'.

My work 100 series Landcruiser (solid front axle) had a lot more front flex than my 110 - I think its primarily due to the shock length.

More is better if for no other reason than matching the rear, resulting in a more stable vehicle off road.

So what is the on road effect of reducing the roll resistance in the front end?

In general the car will body roll a lot more , if you are talking about the effects of removing the anti-roll bar.
You really have to remove the rear one also or you get oversteer.
This is not a simple question, because you have to account for what the spring rate is.
Obviously a car with 250LB front springs, and similar rear springs will body roll a lot less than a standard car with 133Lb front springs.
Anti roll bars are just additional springs that only work when cornering. They alow a better ride than having springs that perfrom the same function.
If you are talking the bushes, this question was asked on Outer Limits a long time ago, and people with them fitted said they feel "different" but not worse.
IMHO they will not effect body roll or handling much as their effect is at the extremity of travel, and the suspension will not get to this area on road.

Regards Philip A

180lb front springs or the 160lb rears up front as already mentioned, with the Haultech holey bushes.

220-240lb rear springs unless you will be carrying a heavy load. Crank the rear trailing arms or fit kickers/spacers to the rear bush mounts to releive the stress at ride height in the rear chassis lower link.

I had the above with cranked front radius arms, and although yes I had extremely long travel shocks, the above suspension changes alowd me to get a front wheel up a meter high rock/ledge no worries. The shocks will be your limiting factor.

Presumably if you've got ACE, you can get away with soft springs and have the best of both worlds? Or will excessibly soft suspension make the ACE work too hard in spirited on-road driving?