Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Bilstein 7100's	3		05/16 12:38pm

By Mike on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 11:24 am: Edit

Anyone know travel/flex of RT 2" vs. 3" lift?? I am considering a Rover Tym lift for my 97.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

I don't think the lift guages how much travel or flex you will have. I think you can use the same shocks on both lifts as long as you use the RT rear shock mounts and cones. With that statement, I am assuming that you would be using Rancho 9000's.

I think a lot of folks doing a two inch lift opt not to use the bottom shock mounts and have 1 or 2 less inches of travel because of the type of Rancho's that fit. Not really a big deal.

The 3" lift just buys you ground clearance in approach, departure, and breakover angles. It also buys you more potential for driveline issues.

I think my assumptions above are correct, but I could be off. Anyone?

Tom

By Mike on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

Tom,

I was thinking of Bilstein long travel shocks. This is what John at RT told me he is going to.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

Ah, well, does he recommend the same Bilsteins with both lift? If so, I think the travel will be the same.

I am surpised that he is going to be recommending Bilsteins. Did he say why?

Tom

By Ron on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:00 pm: Edit

I think he is using Bilstien 7100s now not the regular Bilstiens. Heim joints on the ends and remote resivoir.

Ron

By Mike on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Same long travel as other off road shocks with better on road handling. He said this to me a few months ago. I don't know if it's still his thinking. I know Bilstein is the best for on road but the long travel are mucho $$$.

By Mike on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit

So what is the travel of 2" or 3" RT lift. How many inches?? Is it more than OME?? SG?? Land Rover HD from Rovers North??

Thanks

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

For what it is worth, I have been really happy with my Ranchos both on road and off, and they are really reasonably priced, especially if you get them from a place like 4wheelparts.com.

Never tried Bisteins, OME's, or Land Rover HD, so I can't compare those.

Anyway, shock companies make shocks with different lengths of travel, so your question is hard to answer. Personally, I have never measured the travel on my lift, I just know that it is a "lot", see the pics under Tom Pearson in the gallery to see what the 3" RT lift with Cones can do. Of course, I could have done the 3" lift without the cones and used shocks with less travel, and it would flex less. There are a lot of factors at play.

Don't get too hung up on travel. Yes, it is good to have, but it becomes less important if you add lockers in the future.

Tom

By Ron on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Mike if you are looking for a "quick and dirty" answer. The travel of a suspension is usually the same as the travel of its shocks so with a rovertym suspension and 14in travel shocks you get 14 of travel. Stock is like 8 or so. OME will be 8. SG stage 1 is also 8 but you trade 2in up for 2in of drop with the drop kit. SG Stage II and III I dunno, 10 and 12 maybe. You cares they are not worth it.

Cheers
Ron

By Perrone Ford on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 01:55 pm: Edit

I am running a RT 3" lift on my 91RR. The lift and the flex have nothing to do with each other unless you are talking about retaining springs. If you are retaining springs, then I would bet on 8" or more of travel depending on the leverage you can apply to the spring.

If you chose NOT to retain the springs then the travel is dictated by the shock and the springs have no bearing.

-P

By david b. on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 07:57 pm: Edit

do those lower shock mounts on the RTE 2" do something?

By Mike on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 10:33 pm: Edit

I have a RoverTym 2" lift on a 1998 Discovery. I have Rancho RS9000 shocks (9234's in the rear and the 9027's in the front). I replaced the upper shock mount in the rear and put in a set of RoverTym Quiet Cones.

I still have my antisway bar in the front connected. With the rear anti-sway bar disconnected, I gained about 6" of travel in the rear with this setup. Basically, the rear wheel drops completely out of the wheel well at maximum flex.

By not replacing the lower shock mounts (required cutting and drilling that I did feel was for me), I used a shorter shock in the rear and gave up 2" of articulation. For me, I did not think that I needed the extra two inches of articulation.

Do I like this setup? You bet! The wheels stay in contact with the ground under a much wider variety of circumstances. I have not been cross-axled once since I made the change. I still get stuck, but I can get through a lot of stuff that the stock boys can't.

Keeping the wheels in contact with the ground helps keep the vehicle in control (can't steer very well if your wheels are up in the air!) and helps keep forward momentum. Under maximum flex there won't be much weight on the wheel that drops down, but many times, it is just enough to keep you going and in control.

Do I want any more flex? No. Right now, I have as much as I want. I live in Florida, so I don't do much rock crawling. The bigger lifts and increased flex helps the rock crawlers much more that it would benefit me.

How do I like the Rancho shocks? They are not as sexy as Bilsteins or OME's. They are not made as well (if you judge them from the outside) as the other brands. However, I have been using them for 4 months now and I am completely satisfied. They have taken a lot of abuse and they work great. In my opinion, Ranchos are the cheapest way to get long travel from a Disco. Would I recommend them to you? YES.

I really like John at RoverTym. He is one of the best and most honorable people that I know. He is an excellent engineer and really seems to understand the geometry of a Disco. I don't think that you can go wrong taking his advice. Tell him what you want to do and what your concerns are and he will bend over backwards to satisfy you!

Lol,
Mike B.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 12:01 am: Edit

Just curious, mike, what does Lol mean? I always think you are "laughing out loud" at the end of every message.

Couldn't agree more on the Ranchos and Rovertym, by the way.

Tom