Ride Height

Technical questions and answers
Post Reply
Alicerover
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Leicestershire

Ride Height

Post by Alicerover »

Can someone do me a favour please.
I would like to know what the 'ride height' is on a stage 1 fitted with multi leaf springs. The measurement needs to be taken from the top of the road wheel to the bottom of the wheel arch.
I could do with the heights for the front and rear please. I could also do do with the same measurements on a vehicle with parabolics fitted for a comparison.
This is due to my ongoing issue with Rocky Mountain and their parabolic springs, as I have now had information relating to an issue with the spring steel about 4 years ago when I bought my springs.
I need to establish a few things before I start jumping up and down!!
Many thanks in advance.
map1275
Posts: 1076
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:48 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Ride Height

Post by map1275 »

Isn't this in the workshop manual? Though the brochure may be the easiest but I don't have one on this computer. I seem to remember the manual quotes significant freestanding specifications on most if not all the available genuine springs.
Doesn't this again raise the point of one parabolic isn't a replacement for all the spring options Land-Rover has on any model? As I have the original 11 leaf rears which have sagged and fitted with extended shackles, so my current measurement wouldn't help.
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

I have just looked in the workshop manual and the owner's manual and can't see any such figures. They both have the same information: the length, width, number of leaves, thickness, rate and free camber for each of the four springs. I'm not sure which 'brochure' map is referring to - I have a number of them and can look later but doubt any have such info if it's not in the manuals - why would they? I can also take some measurements from my trucks later if you want, though I'd better move one on to level ground first, if you think such figures any use, but my springs have been on for donkeys' years (the most recent I know about were fitted 20 years ago - unlike parabolics, it would seem, they last!) I also would have thought the exact distances might also be affected by what kind of tyres you have fitted? But if my measurements are of any use to you, I'll see what I can do
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

I've just looked at the tech spec in my original brochures and it gives the 'Height of Body Floor (unladen)' as 30 inches (762mm) for both the Truck Cab and the 10 & 12 Seater SW - looking at the accompanying diagram, that's the rear body floor not the floor in front of the forward facing seats. (That figure is not given in the manuals, which instead give the 'Loading Height - approximate' [whatever exactly that is - there's no diagram] as 29.5 inches (736mm) for the SW and 32 inches (812mm) for the Truck Cab) You could measure the distance from the floor to the bottom of the wheel arches, add that to this figure (30 inches) and deduct the height of the standard road wheel to give you the figures you want. Alternatively, if it's easier, you could do a similar calculation from the 'Overall Height (Unladen)' which my brochures give as 79 inches (2010mm) for the SW (the manuals say 2m/78.7 inches)

I can't help you with equivalent figures for parabolic springs as I don't have them. Perhaps someone else can.
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

I have just been outside with a tape measure and, if that figure of about 30 inches is right, my trucks have sagged maybe as much as 4 inches. I'm really shocked by that as they don't look that bad (see recent photos below) and, frankly, I can't imagine the floor at the rear door four inches higher. Anyway, on that basis, don't think any other measurements I might take would be much use to you, nor can I imagine any taken by anyone else would be either unless they've just had brand new springs fitted. Also the rear springs I had fitted on one of my trucks 20 years ago now were the non-standard 8 leaf heavy duty ones, not the standard ones (which have 10 leaves) I can only wish you good luck with your dispute with Rocky Mountain.

ImageUntitled by Geoff172, on Flickr


ImageBradfield Moors, Peak District, December 2017 by Geoff172, on Flickr
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Ok, was thinking about this and went out and had another look, and this time I actually bothered to open the safari doors to see where the floor was in relation to the bottom edge of the doors, and the 'sag' is actually more like a couple of inches than four, which is a bit more reasonable :oops:

So, the measurements you asked for are (in inches):-

First vehicle: Front RHS 4
Front LHS 3.5
Rear RHS 3.25
Rear LHS 3.25

Second vehicle: Front RHS 4
Front LHS 4.5
Rear RHS 3
Rear LHS 2.5

That's with Michelin XZL 7.5x16 tyres all round (little wear on first vehicle and front of second, bit more on rear) I didn't bother to move the second vehicle off a slight slope which might account for slightly larger difference between front and rear measurements on that one (or it could be more worn rear springs) Hope this is of some help (although I can't imagine how) Now I need a cold beer!
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

PS I have taken 'the bottom of the wheel arch' to mean the closest point in the (outer) bodywork vertically above the highest point of the road wheel. If you meant anywhere else, you can work it out from that.
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
disco2hse
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:51 am
Location: Auckland NZ

Re: Ride Height

Post by disco2hse »

Just to add, that was my reckoning when I last got my rear springs reset (about two years ago). I measured to be 550mm, which seems about right.

This pic is from about a year ago.
IMG_20170620_162938535.jpg
IMG_20170620_162938535.jpg (189.58 KiB) Viewed 9285 times
Alan

1983 ex-army FFR 109 Stage 1
2005 Disco 2 HSE TD5
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Sorry Alan, I know this isn't my problem, but you measured what exactly to be 550mm?

Nice pic btw
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
disco2hse
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:51 am
Location: Auckland NZ

Re: Ride Height

Post by disco2hse »

Centre of the hub to the top of the wheel arch.
Alan

1983 ex-army FFR 109 Stage 1
2005 Disco 2 HSE TD5
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Ok, got it, thanks
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Too hot here today to do much (except sit and read the news) so I just went out with my tape measure again - both vehicles on the level now as I had to move them anyway as tomorrow's the day my new garage goes up - by your measure of 550mm Alan my springs are saggy to the tune of up to 2 to 3 inches (front and rear respectively) I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given their age but still I am - they don't look that bad - well, the ride height doesn't look that bad to me anyway - I mean, they don't look that bad compared to yours in your photo, do they? (also the SW's a lot heavier than a pickup, isn't it?) I'm certainly not going to start worrying about it (and I've certainly seen worse driving around) I wonder if the original spec was designed to allow safely for about that much sag over a reasonable lifespan for a spring?

Interesting though this subject is (?), I've no idea if it's been of any assistance to the OP.
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
disco2hse
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:51 am
Location: Auckland NZ

Re: Ride Height

Post by disco2hse »

haha, I hear you.

Consistency is important too. So if they are all down the same amount, no problem right? With a SW, you should also have heavy duty springs.

I had mine reset, as I said, fairly recently because I had replaced the heavy duty springs that were on there with standard duty. After about 10-11 years, they had dropped a bit and unevenly. I swapped them because the original spec for an FFR was 6x12V batteries (90-100kg), radio equipment weighing somewhere around 80-100kg, at least three crew and their gear (say 450kg), plus a 60kg camo rack on top and 40kg of camo netting. At 750kg above tare, the heavy duty springs were necessary. Post NZDF life, not so much.

These days, it seems harder to find someone that is competent to reset springs correctly, using a furnace and a big hammer. Most people bash the living daylights out of the steel while cold, destroying the temper. While they might get somewhere near to the right curve, since the steel has lost its temper it will soon sag (within about 18 months typically). Then people change to parabolics...
Alan

1983 ex-army FFR 109 Stage 1
2005 Disco 2 HSE TD5
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Using a big hammer correctly - a traditional skill that we certainly shouldn't allow to become neglected :)
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
User avatar
Geoff
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:21 am
Location: Leicester UK

Re: Ride Height

Post by Geoff »

Looking at the pictures John Roach has just posted of the truck he has for sale on here, you might try asking him about ride height on parabolic springs.
2 1981 Stage One 109 V8 SWs
Image
Post Reply