here are a few photos of a front chevy 60 having the long side cut down to fit under a rover. 1st one is the chevy 60 complete and the 2nd is the it with all the brackets removed and the inner c removed.

next one is the inner c back on the axle. more pic to come as things get done.

You go boy

Cuttin' and turnin' some of the D60 knuckles is a biatch, and thats putting it mildly.

That shop looks familiar.:flipoff2:

Who's truck is that going into?

Looks like the Rovertym shop.....

yes it is RTE shop and it is going into my truck(93 lwb). Steve is helping alot on this project. i got the axle from Douglas Brown at Extreme Axle Sales. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374437

What are you doing in the rear?

rear axle will be an eaton i will post some pic when i start on the rear in nov.

a few more pic. as it progress

why not coilovers or a suspension change?

i am think of running coilovers in the front just looking at some 12inch travel instead of 14. at first i won't have the money for the shocks so it will get put under the truck with left over springs and shocks.

It looks like you are keeping the radius arms. There is no point on more travel than stock with the radius arm design as it limits articulation to less than 8".

why i am running 12 inch travel 7100 bilstein shocks on another truck right now and can use them to the full length

It looks like you are keeping the radius arms. There is no point on more travel than stock with the radius arm design as it limits articulation to less than 8".

How so? Not sure I get this. Do you mean stock set up with no adjustment for lift, or what?

Not in articulation, you can't. Articulate until the wheels are off the ground. The front shocks will not reach the end of their travel. The radius arm bushings (axle end) limit articulation. Why do you think a stock rig gets much more articulation travel in the rear? The shocks are the only limiters and they have the same travel front and rear.

On the second post: People with spring lifts may see an improvement because many spring lifts are poorly designed and limit up travel more than stock. As the compressing wheel can't go up as much as stock a longer shock allows the extending wheel to travel further. The articulation angle is still the same. You could achieve the same result by lowering the upper front shock mount.

I suspect that is what happened with the "I switched to 12" shocks and got more travel". The old quick fix 3" or 4" spring lift is a bad design as it hurts compression travel. It needs to do this to maintain a stable spring rate. A proper 3" spring lift should include lowered bump stops and lowered upper shock mounts.

However, in this topics case, with coilovers, you can design for maximum compression travel if you want. If you want to actually use the 12" of travel, you need a different linkage system.

Not in articulation, you can't. Articulate until the wheels are off the ground. The front shocks will not reach the end of their travel. The radius arm bushings (axle end) limit articulation. Why do you think a stock rig gets much more articulation travel in the rear? The shocks are the only limiters and they have the same travel front and rear.

the last time i looked i could

Red Rover I do not agree. Both from a personal experience stand point and a physics standpoint. Why would you lower the front shcok mount. Wouldn't a better design be to increase the height of the upper shock mount further into the engine bay and reun a longer shock? Am I missing something?

If the spring can not compress enough to use the full shock compression travel, then lowering the mount allows more extension for basically no cost. A longer shock does the same thing but is just more money for no more gain. This is the exact same idea as a drop kit in the rear.

Tell you what. Go articulate you rig (if you have radius arm). Measure the difference in shock length from one side to the other. It will be less than 8". I've measured rigs before. Have a look at my avatar. There is a stock 90 with 2 wheels in the air. The front axle's angle is less than the rear. The rear is shock limited, the front is radius arm limited.

Now with the coilovers, you can design to get stock compression heights (touching the bump stops). But the radius arms will prevent the extended side from exceeding 8" more than the compressed side.

8" depends on what bushings you are using up front and also the articulation stiffness in rear.

Wilsby has 12" shockers front. With no swaybar rear he gets about 10" front with drilled/holed bushings. With the rear sway bar almost all 12" are used.
It's a system. Stiffer rear opens up more movement front.

T

I get 12-13" with shot OEM rubber bushing in this situation

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/Hellbronco/PICT0080.jpg

Funny... Red you do not talk about travel of the axles up and down equally. (I mean full compression on both wheels at the same time.) I can compress my 12" 7100 completely up front. They will extend far enough to just barely unseat the spring. It is not "all" about the articulation.

If I understand your theory I could run 3"+ lift and lower the shock towers accordingly and run stock shocks and see no difference than a long travel shock???? I will not dispute the merrits of coilovers and link setups but why not stick with the raduis arms for simplicity. I doen't see where the extra $$$ will pay off. Keep in mind this is an East Coast rig that will see it's share of mud and rocks. As well a Daily Driving. Coilovers have not won ME over yet.

If I had a Trailer Queen that rarely saw the mud maybe but I'm not there yet.

Well, what is the point or straight axle up and down travel unless you are jumping the thing? The weight of the vehicle needs to maintain a constant average axle height plus or minus under all non dynamic situations.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with radius arms. All I was saying is there is nothing to gain with the stock radius arms by adding longer travel shocks. The posts above claiming more than 8" articulation are all non stock setups. The bushings have a fixed limited rotational movement.

The problem with most 3" spring lifts is that the spring can not physically compress as far as stock, so there is wasted uptravel with stock shocks in the stock location.

We are well beyond 3" lifts here don't you think:grinpimp:

As I have already stated, that has nothing to do with this case because the coilovers can be placed for whatever up and down travel desired.

The talk about 3" spring lifts came about because someone mentioned that they found more travel by adding longer shocks. I supposed that they probably had a spring lift. I then explained why a longer (or lowered shock mount) would REGAIN travel lost from the spring lift.

The whole point was that (from my experience and personal measurements) the stock radius arm setup with stock bushings does not allow for more than 8" of articulation, so adding a 12" or 14" travel shock does not help increase articulation travel.

I wholeheartily apologize for trying to bring some tech into this thread... :flipoff2: If you want to put 16" travel shocks on your stock suspension geometry go for it. I'm sure you'll impress everyone.

I'm not trying to be an ass here. I have never heard anyone say "hey just lower the front shock mounts and reuse your stock shocks" it just does not make sense to me.

Now I'm going to ask you a stupid question. On the rigs you have measured have they used a modified panhard rod or the stocker?? It will make a huge difference.

How does a panhard road affect articulation?

You are kidding me right.... The stock panhard rod binds up LONG before the radius arms ever do. As the axle drops away from the frame the rod twists like a torsion bar. If I have to explain this to you we can all discount everything you have said above.

Try it for yourself. disconnect the panhard rod at the frame, jack that wheel up as far as you can, try to reinstall. It will not go back in the backet. It will be twisted.

If you are not kidding me about this you need to get a hiemjointed panhard rod and enjoy abit more front end travel.

OK, well if you have tested and measured a real difference from stock to heim jointed who am I to disagree.

I have jacked the front of rigs up with the shocks removed to change springs. With the springs free plus a couple of inches, the axle still sat on the ground. It was not being held up in the air by the panhard rod. This case would put a lot more twist at the panhard rod axle mount than articulation. The bushings allow for twist and rotation.

Do you understand how the radius arms must move in articulation or do you just want to argue for no reason?

I'll argue here for arguements sake.

You can get more then 8" travel on the front axle with stock suspension or 1-3 inch lift.

I agree the shocks needs to be recentered with spring lifts or it limits droop.

Think about it and observe. When you stuff or observe a stuffed tire in its wheel well the oppisite side tire of that axle will reach its full extension of the shock. If you run a longer travel shock setup the extended tire will extend beyond 8" with OEM suspension.

And I agree that panhard rod alterations will enhance this extension as well. Especially on lifted trucks.

Bumstops need to be adjusted to keep larger tires from contacting the wheel wells and damaging springs/shocks after a spring lift.

Problems with front springs becoming unseated will happen as well. On longer travel suspensions, -longer shocks.

Suspension lifts will of course cause other driveline issues to be dealt with.

Your more stockish approach to your Land Rovers suspension is nothing to be ashamed off. In fact we should all admit that the small steps, in comparison, reduce reliability issues we build into our vehicles when we modify them.

And more travel out of your bushings will mean premature wear as well. This is especially the case with the panhard rod, as its bushing are very small in comparison to the rest of the suspension. And the new twisted position of the panhard rod after a spring lift will wear it out quicker then its stock position. Where it was designed to run.

This really is the case. I am not here to just prove you wrong. Front suspension travel can be improved upoun with stock radius arms.

JP

maybe your measuring in Canadian inches?

-ben

OK, well if you have tested and measured a real difference from stock to heim jointed who am I to disagree.

I have jacked the front of rigs up with the shocks removed to change springs. With the springs free plus a couple of inches, the axle still sat on the ground. It was not being held up in the air by the panhard rod. This case would put a lot more twist at the panhard rod axle mount than articulation. The bushings allow for twist and rotation.

Do you understand how the radius arms must move in articulation or do you just want to argue for no reason?

How does a panhard road affect articulation?
are you serious?

A panhard rod SHOULD NOT have anything to do with articualtion. However, some designs have inherent bind and can limit articulation..

I assume that the stock rover PH has a bit of bind ;)

The limitations in articualtion in a radius arm suspension is based on how rigid the bushings/rod ends/or whatever locate the axle are. A simple solution to this is to do a "wristed" arm which allows the axle to rotate and articulate more. Bronco Guys have been doing this for a while now. Drilling holes in the bushings allows more "rotaton" in the axle and allows a greater differential under articulation. Unfortunately, from what I understand this reduces the lifespan of hte bushings significantly.

Better idea is to do a true three link with 2 independant links on the Passenger side and a single link on the DS. And still run the Panhard bar for reduced bump steer.

I know you realize a 3-link design as you stated above MUST have a pan hard rod to center the axle under the frame. Without it the axle will shift side to side. You statment above makes it sound like it would be optional, which it IS NOT.

If I misread that then I am sorry but that is the way it reads to me.

Jason M - the wristed arm setup may work for the bronco guys (i doubt it though), but the people who have tried it on rovers used words like "scary" and "unpredictable" etc...

Jason M - the wristed arm setup may work for the bronco guys (i doubt it though), but the people who have tried it on rovers used words like "scary" and "unpredictable" etc...
There is no fundamental reason why a wristed arm would work on a Bronco and not on a Rover. Scary and Unpredictable are terms used by someone that was not used to the handling quirks of the wristed system. Most of the odd handling happens in on road situations. So typically the "wristed" system is locked when on road manners are required. Personaly I do not like radius arm suspensions. A simple three link would be very easy to replace it with and much more efficient in the long run.

<< A proper 3" spring lift should include lowered bump stops and lowered upper shock mounts. >>

blanket statements like this are really misleading for n00bies :rolleyes: if you're talking about using stock or stock spec shocks then sure. but a "proper" lift is one that sets the suspension up for that particular vehicle and nothing else. everything else is bullshit.

i had close to 4" of lift on the front-end with the stock towers and 10" 7100 shocks. The stock mount points in the front were just about perfect. after my adapter took up about an inch the shock sat at around 60% compressed on level ground. I don't see how a lower mount would do any good, and these guys are talking about running 12" shocks.

As for articulation I think what you stated has played out true for my application. With that much lift and stock radius arms I can't seem to max out the 10" shock, and my bushes are fully shot to hell.

<< Jason M - the wristed arm setup may work for the bronco guys (i doubt it though), but the people who have tried it on rovers used words like "scary" and "unpredictable" etc...>>

i'm going to mount mine within the next month or so for the helluvit to see what all the fuss is about. it may not stay on there but it's paid for and I'm curious.

edit: oh yeah - enough with the lame-azz chit chat about shocks and spring lift - show us more of this front 60! :bounce2: :bounce: :bounce2: :bounce: