By Mike on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 02:57 pm: Edit

I am going to a 3" lift and need new shocks. Ranchos are $65.00 each and Bilsteins are $145.00. This is for the 12" travel shocks. What do you think??

Thanks for your ideas.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 06:01 pm: Edit

I cannot say anything about the Bilsteins, but I can say that I like my Rancho 9000's a lot. I know 2 other folks who run these as well (one on a RR, one on a Suburban) and they have performed flawlessly for them for years. Both trucks have been across this country a fair share of times -- the Suburban is used for towing AND wheeling, so the torture on those shocks is high.

Some folks say that the Ranchos will blow up on you, but I have only heard about this with lower-range (like the 5000's). Others are biggeted because they are not as classy as Bilsteins. Compared to the Bilsteins, you could carry a full set of spares with the Ranchos for the same price as just one set of Bilsteins at the price you referece. Also, Rachos are warrantied forever, so if one does break, you get a new one free. I guess the Bilsteins might be, too, though.

Maybe if I took a ride in the Bilsteins, I would convert, but for now, one vote for the Ranchos based on the logic above.

Tom

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Tom,

take a ride with me next time, maybe you will convert

Alex

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit

You're on!

Tom

By Mike on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 06:58 am: Edit

Anyone got the long travel Bilsteins?? The 12" travel kind??

By Jay R. on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 07:33 am: Edit

Here is my experience with the Ranchos.

I have been using Rancho RS9000 with the RTE 2" lift on my 97 Disco SE. I do not like the Ranchos. I got them as they were adjustable but I cannot find the right settings for a smooth ride.

If I adjust it for a better damping, the rig becomes really bouncy when going over bumps and speed breakers. It bounces about 4-6 times before settling down.

If I tighten them down, I can feel every imperfection on the road and the ride becomes really harsh.

I recently completed a 1700 mile road trip and just could not get the setting right to my satisfaction. Either it is too bouncy or too harsh. Moreover, my dog just refuses to get into my disco now. I had to transfer her to the other vehicle (Mitsu Montero) for most of the trip to keep her happy. :-)

I am thinking about swapping to Bilsteins. Does anyone know any new Bilstein shocks that offer enough travel for a 2" lift ? Are they specifically valved for the Disco or are they some generic shocks that can be used on the Disco ?

Thanks for any input.

Jay R.

By Mike on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 09:38 am: Edit

Jay,

I started this line. I have Bilstein "made to fit Discovery shocks". Handling is great, ride is firm but smooth with very little body roll. Way better than stock shocks. They will not travel enough for your lift. Bilstein makes "long travel" shocks. They come in 12" or 14" travel. I have not used them. I can't find anyone that has. John at Rover Tym has them, but he says he has them in at the wrong angle. So I need feedback on the Bilstein Long Travel.

By Mike on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 09:41 am: Edit

Jay,

If Ranchos are not good enough for your dog, that says something!!

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit

For what it's worth, I used to be in Tom's category of "Some folks say that the Ranchos will blow up on you". However, after so much feedback from people who actually use them, my opinion has changed. I certainly can't comment on a Rancho ride in a Disco, though. What Jay R. reports about his Ranchos concerns me, since bouncy is not for me either. That's one reason I run OME, and I am also interested in feedback on the long-travels, as they may be in my future along with long-term plans for RTE 3" springs.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 11:12 am: Edit

I have 12" travel Bilstein 6100s. Great ride, love 'em.

Alex

By Jay R, on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Mike,

I take my dog to the offleash park everyday and after the suspension install, she just runs away if she sees the Disco. I have to leash her to get her into the truck and then take her to an offleash park. Isn't that funny ? :-)

Alex,

How expensive are the 12" travel B 6100s ? Are they specifically valved for the Disco ? or are they adjustable like the Ranchos ? How does the ride/sway compare to the stock woodheads ?

My Disco definitely needs some shock therapy. :-)

Thanks.
Jay.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 01:09 pm: Edit

The ones I run cost about $110 each. I am planning on upgrading to short body Bilstein 7100 remote reservoir shocks with 360/80 valving. These will feel exactly the same as the ones I have now but will allow more up travel due to their shorter compressed size. They cost about $150 each and these are the ones I would recommend for a Disco with 2-3" of lift. You will need aftermarket shock mounts to fit these (I recommend Rovertym for these). You might also replace the heim joints that these come with for poly bushings for about $10 a shock. Whoever you buy them from can swap them out for you.

The ride is excellent both on road and off. They are firmer than the woodheads for sure, but do not impede offroad articulation at all. They are not adjustable, nor made specifically for the Disco, but are a very good match.

If you want to see some pics of these in action look in my photo gallery.

Body roll is good considering I run no swaybars, 32" skinny tires and soft springs with 2" spacers in the back and 1" in front. I am not shy about using the gas pedal on the highway (75-80 mph cruising) and the ride is confidence inspiring - not at all like the stock shocks and no swaybars - that was downright scary.

Alex

By Mike on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 08:42 pm: Edit

I was told by Bilstein to get the shrader (spelling?) valve Bilsteins. The remote reservoir shocks are for racing and are just designed to keep them cool. The part number is the same it just ends with a S for shrader instead of a R for reservoir. It's still and short body 12" travel shock. The one ending in R was about $40-50 more per shock.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 04:28 am: Edit

If you get the shrader valve shocks you have to pump them up with nitrogen. Do that a few times (until you get it right) and your cost will probably be similar to the reservoir models, I would think. Do you know of anyone who runs them?

BTW, Bilstein also recommended the shocks I have now - 6100 series B460350 - and these shocks are too long for a 3" lift - that's why I'm replacing them with the 7100 SB. With a 4-5" lift they would be perfect. So take anyone's advice with a grain of salt, and especially so if they do not deal with Rovers on a daily basis.

Alex

By Jay R. on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 08:35 am: Edit

Alex,

You mentioned the RTE shock mounts. I already have the RTE rear upper shock mount which I used to install the Rancho 9237 (?). Do I need the rear lower mount to install these Bilsteins ?

I am looking to improve my onroad and hwy ride as this where the truck spends about 90% of the time. Looking for something slightly stiffer than OEM shocks to reduce body roll & a firmer ride. I don't mind if the offroad ride is a bit harsh as I go on trails maybe once or twice a month.

Taking all this into consideration, which shocks would you recommend ? Can I talk to someone at Bilstein who is knowledgeable about the Disco shock applications ? Especially lifted ones.

Thanks.
Jay.

By Mike on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 10:00 am: Edit

Axel,

I thought Bilstein put the gas in and that was it. In fact they said I had a choice of gas pressure from Bilstein. Are you sure you put it in?

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Jay - 4-6 times? What the heck are you doing with them? Do you have the Medium or Firm springs?

I was just at Silver Lake hitting whoop-de-doos at 10-15 MPH. Had the front set to 3 and the back set to 4 and it was doing well on all but the most severe ones. I was able to bottom out the shocks, but that was when I had two people in the back weighing in for a combined 500 lbs.

Ironically enough, for some of the wheeling with other passengers, their 8 week old boxer pup slept right through it!

Tom

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Jay R - you need upper and lower mounts to fit these.

I would recommend going with 360/80 valving - good firm ride w/o being harsh.

Alex

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Mike, I assume you were talking to me when you addressed Axel.

No, I'm not sure if you have to charge them yourself. If not though, what the heck is the shrader valve for?

Alex

By Ron on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 03:20 am: Edit

If you get the shrader valve shocks you have to pump them up with nitrogen.
Do that a few times (until you get it right) and your cost will probably be similar
to the reservoir models, I would think. Do you know of anyone who runs them?


You need to have access to Nitrogen. They need to be topped up occasionally plus you will want to fiddle with them.

Ron

By Jay R. on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 07:33 am: Edit

Tom,

I do have the firm spring but generally do not carry any weight in the back around town. With the Rancho set to 4 (or 5), the ride is really harsh on bumps and ruts with no oscillations. With a setting of 3, it starts oscillating after dips & bumps on the road. The fronts seem to be working fine with the weight of the engine & driver/passenger.

Alex,

Thanks for the info on the shocks/mounts. Looks like I need the lower mount to go with the Bilstein shocks. I also appreciate the information on the valving.

Thanks.
Jay R.

By Mike B. on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Jay:

I too have the RS9000 shocks. I finally got them tuned well enough to suit me last weekend. I have the RoverTym 2" springs and upper shock mounts. I used a combination of 3 up front and 4 in the back. I have a winch and bumper up front and usually carry about 300 lbs of gear in the back and this setup works well for me. I unhooked the rear-anti-sway bar and I have had it up to 80 mph and it still handles fine.

Thanks,
Mike B.

By Jay R. on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 05:56 am: Edit

Mike,

I generally use 3 or 4 up front and it works Ok. The problem is the rear. As I already mentioned, I do NOT carry any weight in the back and the rear swaybars are disconnected. I think this is the problem. When I put a lot of weight in the back, it seems to be much more compliant. Without the weight (the way I normally run it), I am unable to find the right setting and I have tried them all.

Does anyone think that the rear swaybar might help this sitation ? I can hook it up and see if it improves.

Regards,
Jay R.

By Ron on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Jay

Your spring rate is too firm. You need to change rear springs to something lighter.

Sway bar will make things worse if anything.

Or carry more weight.

Ron

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Jay -

Just some food for thought...my rear sway bar is on and I am happy with the Ranchos. Maybe that is what makes the difference.

Ron - Not to trying to debate the topic, just stating my setup.

Tom

By Rancho Hater on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Ranchos are lousy shocks. They have a mushy ride to them because they are not pressurized like the Bilstein and OME shocks are. The Rancho 9000 series tries to make up for this by having the adjustment knob to make the shocks stiffer or softer. But JR said, the Ranchos end up feeling too stiff or too soft and never feel quite right. If the ride is too soft, you tighten the adjustment knob and get a ride that is fine on smooth pavement until you hit a bump and feel like you hit a wall. If you want to tone down the ride a bit you loosen the adjustment setting and you end up with the same ride you had before that was too mushy on the pavement. You can never get the setting quite right. The only reason to buy the Rancho shocks at all is that they are available in a wide variety of sizes to suit the sexy suspensions that don't help traction and end up breaking on you. Better to get a locker and get some REAL traction without the sexy suspensions that ALL break.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Rancho Hater -

You sound like one of those doofus audience members on Jerry Springer who are paid to start a fight. Try a locker combined with a sexy suspension like the RoverTym, and you will never settle for anything less.

Tom

By Rancho Hater on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 02:52 pm: Edit

I'm not trying to start a fight. Just responding to someone's request for information about Rancho shocks and trying to prevent him from making a bad mistake by buying Rancho shocks. If he asked for opinions, I think it's fair when people give their honest opinion on the subject.

If you're offended because I said I hate Rancho shocks, I apologize. I didn't mention names and didn't mean to single out or offend anyone. Just because someone says that the shocks you have on your Disco suck, you shouldn't get pissed. Unless you know that what that someone said is true. If I said that your Detroit locker and your GBR 4.10 gears were pieces of of shit, would you get pissed? Of course not, because you know it's not true and you know damn well I don't know what I'm talking about.

If you think your RoverTym suspension is adding anything other than making your rear axle noisy, try going back to your stock suspension with your Detroit and Truetrac installed and let me know if you feel any difference. The only difference you will get is that you won't hear the rear springs popping in and out.

By Mike J. (Mudd) on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 03:04 pm: Edit

So Hater,
You prefer stock height? I really want RT 2" lift and some bigger tires. You say no?

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Rancho Hater,

I wasn't responding in a fightin' or pissed mood, sorry if I came off that way. Just stating the obvious. I don't think my RT setup will break, and I can see the huge difference in what I am doing in my Disco compared to others with a more typical Disco setup (2 inch or more lift, no drop kit, 245/75's). I have made it up shit that other some other Disco's with lockers just couldn't or wouldn't bother trying (and some of those had an equal lift height).

Go back to my stock suspension? Yeah, and leave bumpers, bent trailing links, torn off mufflers, endcaps, plastic side sills, and bent link mounts on the trail because my extra grip helped rip them right off. Not to mention when I hit the crest of some funky off-camber hills and my body tilts way over and my roof knocks a tree instead of sitting flat as the suspension flexes away I will be loving the stock setup. Why not leave the sway bars on while I am at it?

Anyway, if my shocks and RT suspension sucks, I'll enjoy the suckiness and keep the tow straps in the back and winch cables spooled and put the extra money towards nice steel bumpers instead of shocks.

Tom

By Rancho Hater on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Oooops, I misspoke. When I said go back to your stock suspension, I meant the stock shock mounts. I should have said stock shock mounts instead of stock suspension. Slip of the tongue.

So, my request to you to prove the ineffectiveness of your rear suspension is to stay with your current spings and such if you want the additional clearance, but stick with the stock shock mounts and a shock that corresponds to your spring height.

For example, if you have RoverTym 3" springs, go with a shock that is approximately 3" longer than stock rather than a shock that is too long for your vehicle. That way, you won't need the noisy spring cones because your springs won't pop out.

Try this combination and you'll see that there is no performance difference from using a super flexy rear suspension. In fact, your performance should improve slightly because your front and rear suspension will be more balanced than what you currently use. You'll still get plenty of flex, but your Disco won't flip left and right on the rocks because of your super flexy rear and your relatively stiff front suspension. On off-camber situations, your vehicle won't tilt away from the slope as much as with your super flexy rear suspension.

If you are making it up hills that other locked vehicles aren't, I would attribute it to better driving or different tires or such rather than a super flexy rear suspension. The only time the flexy rear suspensions help is when you're dealing with open diffs. With lockers in the picture, there is no traction difference and less stability on the trails.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I think putting up with the disadvantages of Rancho shocks might be worth it if the super flexy suspensions improved performance in some meaningful way. It might be worth it to trade some road performance/comfort to gain some trail performance. We do this all the time by lifting our vehicles for added clearance or fitting a roof rack for added load carrying capability on long trips. These are reasonable compromises.

But to sacrifice road performance/comfort to fit a lousy shock just because it fits a suspension that doesn't increase performance and breaks is not wise.

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 01:36 am: Edit

Kyle? Kyle? Is that you? Kyle?

By Rancho Lover on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:22 am: Edit

Duh, of course it is.

Rancho Lover

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:31 am: Edit

Rancho Hater -

So, you are saying that ALL Ranchos break, ALL Bilsteins NEVER do, I hate the ride in my truck but am afraid to admit it, and my flexy suspension is useless and never helps in any circumstances, but hinders in most.

WOW, you have never even ridden in my truck or even met me (I think, I don't know your name). I am assuming you have at least ridden in an RT equipped truck. If not, you are definatley clairvoyant and should be on one of the 900 numbers with that washed up motown singer whose name escapes me at the moment.

I am bored with this...no more posts on this topic by me.

Mike - Do whatever you think is best. The Bilsteins probably do ride better than the Ranchos, and maybe they last longer and are more reliable. My Rover is a trail rig that gets me 100 miles round trip to work everyday comfortably. It never has and never will be a Lexus, it doesn't need to be in order to provide comfort. Your best bet is to try and get a ride in each. If you are ever around Chicago and haven't bought your suspension yet, you can take a ride in my truck and see what you think.

Tom

By Ron on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:36 am: Edit

For example, if you have RoverTym 3" springs, go with a shock that is
approximately 3" longer than stock rather than a shock that is too long for your
vehicle.


This is such horrible advice.

Ron

By Shocked on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:09 am: Edit

A shock that is 3" longer, with a stock lower stem mount and an upper stock 18 m/m eye mount....can you give brand and part no.? This would be great information to share with the board.

By Rancho Hater on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:36 am: Edit

RVR OVR -

"So, you are saying that ALL Ranchos break, ALL Bilsteins NEVER do, I hate the ride in my truck but am afraid to admit it, and my flexy suspension is useless and never helps in any circumstances, but hinders in most."

This is ridiculous. Do you think you're actually fooling anyone here? You're obviously exaggerating whatever I write to make it seem ridiculous. I never said these things and you know it.

I never said all Ranchos break. I said that all of the super flexy suspension pieces break. All of the super flexy suspension designs have suffered shock mount breakage. While your shock mounts remain intact and may very well remain intact for the life of your vehicle, all of the super flexy suspension designs have suffered failures, whether Desert Rover, Safarigard, Rockware, and yes, RoverTym. When you look at how few of these kits are actually out there in use, the number of failures you hear about is pretty dramatic. Compare this with the huge number of stock shock mounts out there in use. Have you ever heard of a stock shock mount breaking? It probably happened, but it happens so rarely.

I never said Bilsteins never break. That's absurd.

I never said you hate the ride in your truck but are afraid to admit it. Again, go back and read my posts and please point out where I said these things. You obviously love your truck and the mods you've done to it, which is why you're so pissy about my Rancho comments. Again, there was never any intent to single you out or offend anyone. I was simply responding to someone's request for opinions on Rancho shocks. Why can't you see that?

I never said that the super flexy rear suspensions are useless and never help in any circumstances and hinder in most. I can conceive of some trail situation where the super flexy rear suspension could help. But I think that generally they are poorly designed. They do not improve performance (in locked vehicles) and are prone to breakage. All they do is look sexy when you're ramping in the parking lot, and make a lot of noise on the trail.

By Ron on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:40 am: Edit

Rancho Hater,

You can't just put on longer shocks. Shocks are not meant to be used as bump stops and putting on 3in longer shocks with stock mounts will make them function as such, depending, of course, on the compressed hieght of the springs. 1-2in longer you might get away with it. 3in, probably not.

Ron

By Axel Haakonsen (Axel) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 06:28 am: Edit

Just FYI, Rancho Hater is not Kyle, who always signs his own name. I can tell that not only from the ip address, but also from the writing style.

By Rancho Hater on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 06:33 am: Edit

Ron,

If you measure and do the calculations on the super flexy suspension systems with their extended shock mounts and super long shocks, you'll see that these systems have shocks that are the equivalent of being longer than running 3" longer shocks with the factory shock mounts. Your point about running overly long shocks and bottoming out is well taken, but my point about runnning 3" longer shocks was not to recommend it for everyone, but rather to recommend it only as an alternative to the super flexy suspension designs. If you're into flex (I'm not, but someone obviously is if he's running the super flexy suspension on his truck), then my advice would be to fit 3" longer shocks using the stock mounts rather than super long shocks on the extended (and weak) shock mounts). The bottoming out problem is less than with the super flexy suspensions with their super long shocks.

Regarding your point about the bottoming out of shocks, I'm not so sure that is a problem. The SG drop kit, which many people use with OME springs, is about 3" in length, and I don't hear people complaining about it. With all of the SG bashing on the various bulletin boards, I would think that people would complain about the drop kit if there was something to complain about. If we add 1.5" taller RT springs (which are also stiffer than the OME springs), I think the bottoming out problem becomes more theoretical than real.

Also, a 3" longer shock would bottom out less than the SG drop kit. The SG drop kit extends the shock 3" at full extension, but it also extends the shock 3" at full compression. A correctly fitting shock that is 3" longer than stock at full extension will only be approximately 1.5" longer than stock at full compression because the shock's 3" longer length is shared by both the shock's shaft and its body. Combine this with the RT 3" springs, which are very tall and very stiff and I think the risk of bottoming out is reduced substantially and/or eliminated. Just a guess though because I've never tried it.

I think the real problem of 3" longer shocks to 3" longer springs is unseating of the springs. The shocks may be long enough that the rear springs unseat. That's why I used the word "approximately" regarding the 3" longer shock. That's just a ballpark figure. Obviously, experimentation would be required to get everything perfect. You could fairly accurately estimate the correct shock length by undoing the stud on the rear shock and flexing your truck and seeing when the spring begins to unseat. Then measure the correct shock length required.

The obvious problem is finding the right length shock for this. Finding the optimum shock length is easy compared to this. There are the custom shock makers out there like Fox and King. If you're lucky, some Bilstein racing shock or other factory shock might fit. And, dare I say it, the Rancho line, with its dozens of sizes and configurations, will probably include what shock you need.

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 06:42 am: Edit

i broke my rear lower STOCK shock mount because my Rockware gave way.. and banged the fuck out of it.

i had to weld on a RTE mount

rd

By Ron on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 06:54 am: Edit

Rancho Hater,

The SG drop kit is 2in and comes with a longer bump stop. Mine is bent. It sucks, but has yet to fall off. One point which we can find common ground on is the cone/superflex stuff. I dislike cones so I now have retainers (3/8in steel plate with 1/2 grade 8 bolts) on everything but the disco (which still has the SG kit). Basically along the design of the SG drop kit. Where I disagree is in the use of the stock upper mount. I belive (as well as most of the D90 guys I know) that the way to go is with a longer shock on a higher upper mount and a retainer rather than a cone. The lower mount IMO is more so that you can use an eye end shock rather than a stud end shock than anything else.

There are so many other factors as far as what length shock will work, with a relocated upper mount and a retainer you can really have too long a shock as the spring will not let it drop out more. Overall I see cones as a compromise and a way to cheap on RTI with little real world gain. The real limit as I view it is the lack of travel in the front as while the rear may flex like a champ the front does not. Making the front flex is not easy, cheap, or w/o signifigent trade offs so unless you are OK with unbalanced articulation then you are really limited with a rover suspension.

enough rambling

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 07:23 am: Edit

It wasnt me but I am going with him on the sexy flexy... Sexy is pretty much all it gets you and even that phase is staring to fade. Rancho shocks? God I hate em too , especially those fagety little colored booties on there.. I say as always that a good shock is a black shock.. Thats how picky I am over a shock..

Kyle

By Shocked on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 09:46 am: Edit

A stock Woolhead has is an 8 " travel shock I believe...correct me if I am wrong. The most popular "flexy suspension" shock is the RS 9005 which is 11 1/4" travel. Does that not fit into earlier convesations about a 3" longer shock as opposed to the flexy susp shocks? Its only 3 1/4" longer travel than stock....

By dontwanttosay on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 10:18 am: Edit

Should we say oppiniated?

All of you!

By Rancho Hater on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 10:53 am: Edit

Shocked, rather than look at your shocks in terms of amount of inches of travel, you might want to look at their compressed and extended lengths and then compare from there. Many racing shocks are very heavy duty and will be substantially longer compressed and extended than other shocks, though they may both have 8" of travel.

By Ryan on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 11:12 am: Edit

How about just upgrading your springs to Rovertym ones, would that help the stability problem. Or how about clamping the springs so that they don't leave their seats.

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 11:55 am: Edit

well ryan,
clamped springs? top and bottom ? like solidl retained? boy i got retainers for you.

what you describe is very similar to what i have for chickety.
taller springs, and longer shocks.
springs fall out when shocks are fully extended.
so they are now solidly clamped. coils are stretchy enough that i didn't loose much articualtion for balance purposes.

and here's the result:
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/hochung/comparo.jpg
first pic is of shorty bilstin shocks with OME super heavy duty 763s.
second pic is of coil over front and rear.
and the yellow one is very close to the current setup.

now retainers?
try:
http://www.expeditionexchange.com/retainers/

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit

I saw those retainers - very nice work. I've not had my 3/16" steel straps with nuts welded to them fail yet, and I've stretched the hell out of my springs. Your stuff looks so nice though that I'm tempted to buy them anyway very clean.

Alex

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit

glad you like them.
yes, they are indeed nice. solid beef.
you know we like beef.

http://www.expeditionexchange.com/johnbull1/beef.jpg

By Ryan on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Ho, how much does your coil-over conversion cost?

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit

ryan, if you have to ask... then...

i think it was about 3000 or 4000 for everything.

now, you asked me that just to make me feel stupid right? because, between the white disco with coil over, and the yellow disco with some cheaper suspension, you cant' see that much difference in flex.
so those thousands were just wasted?
hehehehe

By Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 02:55 pm: Edit

http://www.lrcsd.com/Photos/Truckhaven01/spring.jpg

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Thats a real sexy shot there...

Kyle

By Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:39 pm: Edit

So much for cones...

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Well , that guy just wanted more sexy then his poor little cones could handle. That is what "Cool" is all about.Some even think some carnage is cool. They wave that shit like a flag. Very strange phenomenon.


Kyle

By Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:53 pm: Edit

::chuckle::

I think someone sunk his battleship.

I'm content when things work. I'm much better at sitting back and looking smug then I am at looking sexy flexy and cool.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Yes , to me that is what "Cool" is all about. Kicking back and waiting for the wounded to fix their junk while taunting them about how "Cool" they are looking at that moment... That shit should be a credit card comercial,,,,, "Priceless"


Kyle

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Is that Fox shocks on rovertym hardware? I think the shocks mighta been a wee bit too long..


Kyle

By Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Kinda looks that way from the pic.

Here's a link to another angle:

http://www.lrcsd.com/Photos/Truckhaven01/TooLittleTooMuch.jpg

Seems like checking out the extension on your new suspension toys would be better left to the shop/garage then the desert. It's hard to tell in either picture, but I have a feeling that there is a bit more extension left in that shock then shown.

At least he brought a shovel.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 05:10 pm: Edit

It's the same with the Ranchos: http://www.rovertym.com/ourprod/heimlinks/1.jpg

By John on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 02:41 am: Edit

In the above pic, the shocks were unbolted to see the drop availiable with heim jointed links to see what lenght shocks and cones would be suitable for that particular set-up. That set of cones on the truck werent meant to act with that set-up and of course would not work. I could post a current pic of the working set up for the heim jointed rear link set up, but no need to create a discussion centered on opposing opinions. As my truck is a daily driver to Canada, Tenn,Vermont, the Carolinas,Georgia and numerious trails in between I will say the suspension works great for me in the hills and at 80 mph. Cant say I have ever broken down or broken a part as well. Its a system that works for my needs which doesnt suit other needs. Thats the good old American way.We are blessed with choices.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 04:23 am: Edit

Thats kinda like the thread going on over in the general section. Can the slinkys do it all and keep doing it time and time again? We cant single out certain trucks so we have to look at the sport as a whole. In looking at that we can quickly see that they cant do it and dont even do what they do good for long. As john says, Its a choice I suppose. The failures are not even the products fault in allot of cases but rather the implemantation of them. Some people think its cool to work on your junk on the trail and they think thats progress. If I had more time to go out and screw around I may as well. The trips we go on dont afford such things so they are a menace when they happen and we avoid them at all costs. It all boils down to what ya wanna do. BUT , there will always be the two sides to the debate. Everyone knows what side I am on and I havnt seen a single slinky setup yet that didnt cause a break down on the trail.Thats where I am coming from.....

Kyle

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 04:58 am: Edit

The question is when does flexy become slinky. Run some longer shocks with relocated upper mounts and clamp whatever springs you have. Do it right and it won't break. Try to cheat and use too long a shock w/o the right bump stops or use crappy retainers and you are looking for trouble.

Ron

PS Ho those are nice retainers.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:14 am: Edit

Ron I have seen failures from every type , retained , unretained , big buck setups and small change setups. What I havnt seen is a stock mount break/fall off when put under the same conditions. Anyone besides Rob? (and I was the one that started that ball rolling on his).

KYle

By John on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:15 am: Edit

"The failures are not even the products fault in allot of cases but rather the implemantation of them."

And thats a good statement. Some drivers say add lockers and say anything beyond that is stupid. Some drivers say put on bigger tires for more clearance and say anything beyond that is stupid. Stock axles, stock tie rods, stock diffs, stock bumpers and the list goes on fail because we push them to the limits and they arent designed to do what we do.. Then we upgrade: lockers, tires, sliders, bumpers, winches, and the list goes on. Everyone upgrades to his way of wheeling and comfort level. I guess a bone stocker can laugh at all of us. His opinion. I really dont know of anyone who hasnt upgraded because he knows the stocker doesnt cut it in the real offroad. The Camel Trophy days with stock 110's, D-90's and Disco's saw a lot of carnage and trail repairs...their dicipline was tough, but they wanted to do it and payed the consequences, and obviously the same thrills we seek. Repairs on the trails isnt a pain, its more of a heritage with pushing land rovers to limits...stock or otherwise.
But the keywords here is everyone has bolted on an upgrade...why do we knock the upgrades beyond our set-up...I dont see stock trucks on the trails beyond "puppy paths". To downgrade upgrades is voicing a personal opinion...personal opinions are like the constitution. I guess venders should just say no, its bad for you.

Anyone on this posting have a stock truck?

Why does this list support upgrades by postings in the tech sections and info on how to bolt it on? Its ok to say you dont like it, but the vehement postings and down grading of happy people and their Land Rover's is a podium thing.

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:29 am: Edit

Kyle,

What I am getting at is that if your shock is too long it will break, even with the stock mounts. Thats the issue. You can't use the shock as the bump stop on the way up and if you go too long you risk jacking the rear axle under and breaking crap that way. In the former case all the force that should have been taken up by the bump stop gets transmitted through the shock into the mounts and in the later the angles get reall messed up and stuff just bends. This is why you are seeing failures. If you do it "right" and pick a shock just long enough and you will be ok. Is that to say if you go with cones and massive flex you will have failure, no probably not, the question is when is the increased chance of breakage no longer worth any marginal improvement in performance.

FWIW

Ron

PS I welcome attempts to break my retainers and shock mount spacer

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:41 am: Edit

well said john.

we all know that different people wand and do differnt things. and indeed we are blessed with the variety of choices we have for our land rovers.

this is how i see it, happiness has no boundaries and no price tag. if a shitload of chrome makes you happy, by all means, go for it.

last week i met a great guy that had a decked out D90. slinky suspension under his truck.
nice flex and all. but the mounts were cracking and he was constantly getting out to check to see if it cracked any more... worrying if he could make it home safely.

i was chatting with him and he said he did what he did because it was cool and it was the ultimate and because it made him happy. and i dont' blame him for wanting to be happy. that's all cool beacuse he knew he was happy with a pile of shit.

now, when we deny we have a pile of shit, that's a different matter where we need to educate ourselves.... remember that denial is always the first sign...

some call my disco color baby shit yellow.
but, it's what makes me happy.
so there, we all happy spending the hard earned DSUs in upgrades or cracking downgrades... but as long as we are happy, that's cool, as long as you know what you are getting into.... even if it's a pile of baby shit yellow.

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:43 am: Edit

some call my disco color baby shit yellow.

Gee I wonder who that could be?

By Jeff Bieler (Mrbieler) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:49 am: Edit

Ho,

I think the key phrase is "as long as you know what you are getting into"...

It's real easy these days to open the purse strings, get all the cool toys put on, and not have a clue about what you're doing or what the impact will be down the trail.

Oh, and with a 6 week old in the house, I can assure you that your truck looks like baby shit yellow! I will never look at deli mustard the same way again. ;-)

Jeff

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:54 am: Edit

Its funny that the constitution should protect some things and not others. I am not talking opinion I am talking fact. The fact that these people come here to read. They don’t come here to have us all say “Sure bolt on anything you can get and run with it , it will work like a charm” The fact is that damn near all the aftermarket suspension systems have failed. I don’t wanna hear about pushing things past its limits , I have had to fix Chris’s truck more then once and he has the super sexy super dollar $G setup that was designed to do more then a stock setup. He has broken running the same trails as I and running them in the same manner. I don’t talk about things I hear , I talk about things I have seen. If I have seen them then obviously I was running with them. I havnt suffered a single suspension breakage and the others are crumbling around me . That’s the way it is and that’s not an opinion… Your statement was well written john and it gives a warm fuzzy feeling but what it says basically is that people should get whatever they want for whatever the reason and we should just shut up and not give them the down side of that if they ask. Yes , break downs happen and there have been many a poor bastard out on the trail patching up his junk. But lets not say that’s the way it is and just buy whatever. Lets try to avoid that shit. I can work on my junk right at home. I don’t need to drive half way to hell and back to sit in the woods and work on it.


Kyle

By John on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:08 am: Edit

Yes dear.....

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:22 am: Edit

LOL

By Rob Davison (Pokerob) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:40 am: Edit

john, i thought kyles truck was stock..

rd

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:49 am: Edit

it is , its is... Atleast for the topic here. I have Johns front springs and stock woodheads on stock mounts...

Kyle

By Leslie on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 07:20 am: Edit

Kyle,

What about the rear of your truck? What size tires are you running?

-L

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 07:26 am: Edit

Shocks? I have the stock woodheads there as well on the land rover mounts.. I will admit they are a little short but have been doing just fine.

Kyle

By Leslie on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 07:28 am: Edit

Well, shocks and springs....

Are you up to a larger-than-stock tire size?

-L

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 07:57 am: Edit

Yep , 265/75 16 with about 2 1/2" of lift back there and the rear sway bar...


Kyle

By Eric N (Grnrvr) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 08:03 am: Edit

Kyle are you running 2 inch RT springs, and have you done anything with your gearing? I want to put 265/75 on but, the thought of gears and axles makes my pocket hurt.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 08:10 am: Edit

No I have the big springs in the front and yes I am regeared. The axles and and driveline upgrades should be high on your list of priorities if you plan on really using the truck off road allot. I feel you should upgrade the parts that are known to break before even thinking about slinking..

Kyle

By Ryan on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 08:27 am: Edit

...and what would those parts be?

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 09:39 am: Edit

Axles (known for failure)
Diffs (known for failure)
Trailing arms (known for failure)
plastic sills (crunch gos the door)
Steering links (known for failure)
Thats a damn good start..


Kyle

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit

LOL
also driver KFF (known for failure!)
so get going to some local club for experience

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:33 am: Edit

Yes Nadim , maybe that should be on top of the list. Thats the most valuable component.

Kyle

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:33 am: Edit

God knows how many times my poor disco got stuck because of me!...LOL

By Murray (Cdnrvr) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:44 am: Edit

Kyle - have you been looking at my Christmas wish list?

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit

Hmmm , did I miss something??


Kyle

By Murray (Cdnrvr) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:56 am: Edit

Previous list ...

Axles (known for failure)
Diffs (known for failure)
Trailing arms (known for failure)
plastic sills (crunch gos the door)
Steering links (known for failure)

In the process of aquiring all that right now. If you mentioned Elizabeth Hurley as well ... I'd think you were Santa.

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:57 am: Edit

Kyle - Don't forget:

Stepper motor (known for failure)
Valves (known for failure)
Gas filler necks (known for failure)
Sunroofs (known for failure)
Stock shocks (known for failure)
Stock shock mounts (known for failure)
Rotoflex (known for failure)
Stock Tires (can pop on sharp things, get em thicker)
Fuel Pump (known for failure)
Alternator (known for early failure)

The list goes on....

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:00 am: Edit

LT77 (failure)
R380 (know for failure)
Diff linkage (know for siezure/failure)
CV joints (boom hehehehe)

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:05 am: Edit

Ron, you are nuts, nothing but sexy suspensions and Rancho Shocks can break and leave you stranded.

Tom

By Murray (Cdnrvr) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:08 am: Edit

Tom - don't open that can of worms again

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

Ron...
LT77s is very very strong...LT85 is better, but 77 will work with engines smaller than 5.7L

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:15 am: Edit

I didn't know it was closed!

Tom

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:16 am: Edit

LT77 is dog, Nadim. Sorry man but it just don't cut it. It may not go boom quite like an R380 but them little gears and synchos do not like V8s. Almost all were waranteed and replaced ith the R380. Marginal with a TDi if you hae the LT77s, V8 and soon you are driving a non-synchro box thats a bitch to get into reverse. Driven enough with one to know better.

Ron

PS LT85 is a beast as is the LT95 LT77 and R380 are car trannys (well so is the zf but . . . )

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:19 am: Edit

The boys are touchy about the flexy. What did it? was it the "faggety bootie" comment? lol

Kyle

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:26 am: Edit

I plan on getting the LT85 in the disco now...but no $

By Ho Chung (Ho) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

nadim, when you gonna get the auto?

By LOL on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:29 am: Edit

Yeah Tom I thought you posted you weren't going to post any more? I thought you were bored and weary of all of this talk? Here are your own words:

"I am bored with this...no more posts on this topic by me."

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:31 am: Edit

Faggety Bootie? I missed that one, I will scroll up. No, Kyle I am not touchy about the flexy. To each their own. Just shedding some light on the fact that everything is succeptable to breakage on the trail or on the highway to the folks in the office reading this thread.

By the way, when is that bumper of yours gonna be offered to the public?

Tom

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

Nadim,

I doubt the LT77 is going to leave you stranded its just they tend to wear pretty bad and that can make them a challenge. Some people like them, then again some people think a series IIa has a smooth tranny.

cheers
Ron

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:33 am: Edit

OOOOOPS!!! Sorry, that was last night. Today, work is more boring than this topic!!!

Tom

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:33 am: Edit

And if you want to have it absolutely bulletproof get a 727tf out of a 83-85ish RR

Ron

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit

And how does that fit into the thread Tom ? I think the readers get a real good idea of the every day items that fail by reading all the other threads. Argue that one should buy sexy before strength.... I wanna hear that...

Kyle

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:47 am: Edit

the LT85 is a manual...
will try to get it from the military people in lebanon...this summer/fall...depends on the connections and bribary!

By Ron on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:53 am: Edit

Ya you should see one in any HD 110s and a lot of the 127/130s depending on year

Ron

By nadim on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

yeah, they run HD110s!...so should find some hopefully!

By RVR OVR (Tom) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:57 am: Edit

Not every lift that comes out of RT is "slinky" or "sexy". You can get a 2" lift without the cones and not be sexy and be strong. Go back and read your earlier comments and the ones of Rancho Haters that are basically stating that ALL sexy suspensions break but aren't really stating what particular stuff and why. Somebody looking at this would simply assume that the RT stuff is all shit and breaks. I don't think that my RT components will break any time soon.

I never said you should sacrfice strength for sexy. In all those pictures above nothing that is part of the the kit that John would recommend is broken. If you have seen a bent RT cone, shock mount, or otherwise that wasn't done so with somebody driving like a nut, or wasn't handles and corrected by John like a professional with new product having the kinks worked out with an improvment made to not make it happen again, I will concede and accept it. However, if you haven't, you shouldn't simply state that all the sexy stuff will break.

Tom

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 12:07 pm: Edit

ok , I agree with that completely , but that dont make the diffs and axles any stronger. And it damn sure dont make them any cheaper. It just puts you further away from getting them cause you blew your wad. I agree on the springs. But not the sexy flexy... You are replacing mounts and parts that dont normally break. That makes no sense If you are just trying to upgrade your truck . I also comented that it wasnt component failure in the pic but rather poor choice of shock.