By L_Tilly on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 08:57 am: Edit

I'm looking for some advice, because I think I've become completely confused. :-\

Ok, there are now about fifteen threads with hundreds of messages about this topic, and I have completely lost faith in my ideas. The situation is that my shocks are in need of replacement (68k) and I would like to change my springs at the same time. I don't want to open another shout match of favorite brands, but welcome such input off-list.

Anyway, I will eventually be adding a solid bar w/ winch on the nose as well as an expedition rack which could find itself carrying 300lbs on our trips. I also expect to tow (usually a trailer of firewood or landscaping materials, etc.) regularly. For those reasons, I planned on going OME HD all around for the springs and the matched OME shocks. Until I add the additional weight, this will give my stock truck about 2" lift front and back.

I want the HDs so that the lift is consistent as the weight gets added & removed. Both my wife and I like the firm ride of a "truck" so that is not an issue. I live in New Hampshire and my off roading is of the woodland type (some rocks, minor water crossings, lots of hills and angles), as well as snow playing. Now that you know where I'm coming from, here are my concerns:
1. With a 2" lift (but not larger tires), will there be a likely need for any other mods due to vibes, stress, etc. I don't want to open a financial can of worms without knowing what I'm getting in to.
2. Will the HDs completely ruin my "stuffage"? I hadn't thought of that aspect until a recent slinky thread. My choice of HDs over MDs is performance under heavy load on roof or tow.
3. Any suggestions or tricks of mounting the HDs in the rear that would help me maintain decent articulation? (required mounting hardware / accessories I may not know about)
4. Anything else I may not be thinking of? :-)

PS: I rarely get in a situation up here where one wheel wants to drop, and I'm probably still six months away from any form of rear locker, if that makes a difference to this topic.

advTHANKSance!!! Any personal experience is appreciated greatly! Always great info & ideas on how to spend my $$ !!!!

L_Tilly lnctilly@mediaone.net
96 Disco "Beowulf" - NH, USA

By Alex Schubow (Alex) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:02 am: Edit

1. Not likely, but possible. Each vehicle is different.

2. No, not completely. You will lose maybe an inch or 2 of up travel, no big deal.

3. Wait until the Krispy Kreme Slinky Challenge results are in. Until then, I guess it's all just opinions.

By Gil Stevens (Gil) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit

i run HD all around and have no problem with articulation, ride comfort, or anything else. its really not as confusing and complicated as this site has probably made it sound in recent threads.

By Scott H on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit

I'm with Gil, I have HD OME shockes and springs all around, a roof rack and an ARB and Winch up front. I did put a bit larger tires on it, but all and all, no problems. Is it the "best"? who knows, but it works fine for me.

Scott H

By Discosaurus on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit

""1. With a 2" lift (but not larger tires), will there be a likely need for any other mods due to vibes, stress, etc. I don't want to open a financial can of worms without knowing what I'm getting in to.""

Maybe, but probably not with only 2". Driveline vibration is an elusive thing. I barely had it with 3" - others have had it with less. Driveline vibe means a new front driveshaft.

""2. Will the HDs completely ruin my "stuffage"? I hadn't thought of that aspect until a recent slinky thread. My choice of HDs over MDs is performance under heavy load on roof or tow.""

They will, a little. It depends on how stiff and from who. Some of the HD OME springs have a tendence to 'coil pack' - compressing to the point where several turns bind together. Unless you're into more extreme forms of wheeling, I wouldn't worry about it.

""3. Any suggestions or tricks of mounting the HDs in the rear that would help me maintain decent
articulation? (required mounting hardware / accessories I may not know about)""

Nope - just put 'em in and enjoy the increased ground clearance and firmer ride.

""4. Anything else I may not be thinking of? :-)""

If you really want better articulation, take off your swaybars. You won't need them with the HD ride, anyway. That's the SINGLE best thing to increase drop.

Have Fun !

keith
discosaurus

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit

L Tilly - you don't sound confused, your plan sounds perfectly fine...

By John on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 11:51 am: Edit

Blue Gill is correct...for your needs its a good plan...keep it simple...And HD's do stuff.

By John Lee on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I concur with Blue Gill and JBS; your plan of OME HD springs and shocks all around sounds like a good one. If you like the firm ride, want to carry cargo, and want to tow, I would recommend HD's front and rear.

Some people with OME's have had driveline vibrations, but the vast majority do not.

HD springs will not ruin your stuffage. In a twisty spot, it's very easy for a Disco to get full stuffage with OME HD rears (762). Your entire rear of your vehicle is basically supported by a single spring. In such case, the spring will stuff.

Regarding your question of how to increase your rear flex, this is somewhat of a can of worms, but I would recommend fitting slightly longer shocks (either by extending them or getting a shock other than the OME N44 that is slightly longer). If you run longer shocks, your OME springs will unseat in the rear. Then you'll either have to retain them or run cones.

Sorry if any of my posts contributed to your confusion.

By L_Tilly on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 04:02 pm: Edit

For everyone who has responded on and off Discoweb, THANKS!!! I have a few suggestions from some of you I want to look into more, but I think my initial plan is probably the way I'll go (besides, the initial plan came partly from reading your posts and checking out your Rovers in the Gallery anyway, so it couldn't be toooo bad). And heck, if I pick up a vibe it's a great excuse to go shopping again...

Now I just need to see if I can get this done before Rover Fest. Hmmmm...if not I'm sure I won't be the only humble Disco on the hill.

L_Tilly lnctilly@mediaone.net
96 Disco "Beowulf" - NH, USA

By John on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 03:16 am: Edit

"Regarding your question of how to increase your rear flex, this is somewhat of a can of worms, but I would recommend fitting slightly longer shocks (either by extending them or getting a shock other than the OME N44 that is slightly longer). If you run longer shocks, your OME springs will unseat in the rear. Then you'll either have to retain them or run cones."

This is the perfect example...a buyer wanting HD's but also asking how to quote" maintain decent articulation" un-quote. Solution...slightly longer shocks...retain or cones, which is true. Retain a HD spring you will get an additional 2" drop(approx) through spring pull.With cones you get maybe an additional 2" drop over the above. I see no problem with either. When you speak of stability...thats too little a difference to matter, These 2 mild set-ups are so very similar to the degree that Tom Pearsons KKC will show no difference in perfomance(opinion only). The statements to always breaking, stopping to fix, etc. is true to early designs in a shock mount for a slightly longer shock (primarily 11 1/4" travel as to 8" stock travel). SG has stuck with their originals, RW mounts did bend but Matt has made the necessary corrections in his product, and RT mounts were made beefy to start with. So I think the buyer can find good shock mounts for a slightly longer shock. In adding a 3" shock extension, I feel we have compromised compression shock travel for these balanced susps. we look for and stuffage we all seem to look for. Reducing up travel when using a slightly longer shock to maintain a stock upper shock mount isnt needed these days as strong shock mounts are availiable if desired. There are extremes in flexy suspensions using cones as I have one. 14" rear shocks with cones is getting into Kyles territory of train of thought. I know enough and have the experience to use that set-up. When turning downhill off camber I strap the real culprit, the rear upper a arm to keep its free motion under control which also reduces cone travel. The 10"/12" free travel in the rear a arm is the true beast that lets body roll get its head start,retained or coned. The controls are there for the experienced and there is lots of experience around.
This is not a testy statement or a controversy seeking opinion. I dont knock any types of set up as they all serve the man using them. This is only looking at that "can of worms" which shouldnt be the can of worms. Spoken in good faith....John

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 04:44 am: Edit

I will go along with most of that John. I still however see no need to change lower mounts. You are just adding a hanging point and they arent very efficient. They come loose by nature. The gas pressure of the shock pushing down on the nuts holding them, forces them to come loose over time. The lower shock mount is not captured as it is with the stock mount and therefore nowhere near as reliable. Sure it can be built like a wrecking ball but if it falls off it dont really matter..As far as extending the shocks gos. We all have quite allot of left over up travel in our shocks , I have had a rear tire stuffed about as far as it can go in the factory fender well and I wasnt even close to the bump stops yet. If you look at the stock bump stops on the rear of mine and the pad on the housing niether has ever been touched. That means the shock has never come close to full compression. Maybe if I was trying to jump some shit it would happen but for those type of people failure isnt far off anyway. I think that for people that fully understand how it works the shock extensions are just fine. If you run a spacer and the extension you will most likely get coil bind before the shock comes close to bottoming.
I wont go into which is more reliable. (Cones or retainers) I will just say that spring seats are for springs to be seated in... I think there is enough info out there already on how cones make ya feel on the trail. Using limit straps on the upper arm is a good theory but in doing so you are pulling that upper ball out of its socket. Thats a force it wasnt meant to take and threfore makes it not as reliable as it was to start with.
In my eyes the idea of any upgrade is to make the truck more capable and more reliable. Reliability being key with me. Adding parts , and more importantly more complicated parts ,reduces reliability. Think about the shock mounts. In stock form you only have one. There isnt an upper and lower really as the lower is integrated to the housing. The likely hood of that falling off is slim to none. So if you just add an upper and continue to use the factory lower shock mounting point you really havnt added anything and your truck is just as reliable as it always was (Provided you are using Johns uppers) that is a system I completely agree with.
Now , I will ask John a question here and see what I get. This will address the area no one seems to talk about.
Now John , you know as well as I that when the tire drops that far out and is providing the help you boys think it is ,it is very prone to wrenching the trailing arm mounts off? Its not pushing on a plane within the parameters that the factory mount was made to operate in. Yes your arms compensate for that somewhat (And they are a beautifull thing) but at a certain point that tire is trying to pass the truck , not push it. There is no way you can consider that reliable.

By Ron on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 05:28 am: Edit

,it is very prone to wrenching the trailing
arm mounts off? Its not pushing on a plane within the parameters that the
factory mount was made to operate in.

Which is why you make the arms longer and use hiem joints to attach them to the frame. Less angle and a better mount.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 05:33 am: Edit

Yeah Ron if you want to go that far. But that throws more geometry twists into the picture that I am sure will come along shortly. Even with the jointed arms the tire is still trying to pass the truck. The spring angle is all out of whack and nothing is positioned as nicely as it was to start with. And the poor drive shaft.... damn...

Kyle

By Ron on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 05:36 am: Edit

I know. But everything has a logically next step. The key is to figure out for yourself when to stop walking

Ron

By John on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 05:59 am: Edit

Now , I will ask John a question here and see what I get. This will address the area no one seems to talk about.
Now John , you know as well as I that when the tire drops that far out and is providing the help you boys think it is ,it is very prone to wrenching the trailing arm mounts off? Its not pushing on a plane within the parameters that the factory mount was made to operate in. Yes your arms compensate for that somewhat (And they are a beautifull thing) but at a certain point that tire is trying to pass the truck , not push it. There is no way you can consider that reliable.

You take Toms retaining his spring, Look at the angle fully dropped.....and call it x degrees. Unretain, add cones and the additional 2" drop occurs in his set-up. With a stock lenght arm or RT arm(27") the angle of the arm increases by 4 1/4 degrees, also in that additional drop of 2" beyond the retained lenght, the tire moves forward 5/32" in that additional drop(you can check my trig). Ive never seen those mounts wrenched off, only bent back. My truck is different of course, but I am not the norm. So far I have stayed ahead of my tire.

By Discosaurus on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 06:35 am: Edit

""Now John , you know as well as I that when the tire drops that far out and is providing the help you boys think it is ,it is very prone to wrenching the trailing arm mounts off?""

Ha. Yeah - that's for sure.

I was wheeling as a rider with Chris Walker in San Deigo when he was still running his Disco. He was getting so much flex that we twisted the stock trailing arm frame mount almost off the truck. Damn near got stranded way out back in Los Coyotes reservation - not a good place to be.

keith
discosaurus

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 06:37 am: Edit

On your truck the arch is not the same and the forward movement are not the same. You know this. And you didnt really answer the question. Basic engineering. What is more reliable? The tire pushing from where the drop kits puts it or pushing from closer to the body ?
4 1/4 degrees on which setup? Coned or retained? surely 2" more or less will make it differ..

Kyle

By stecz on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 06:39 am: Edit

Great, now I'm really confused... I was going to put OME MDs on my '97 Disco 1, but now it sounds like I should probably go with the HDs. I tow with it some (but it's fine with the stock springs, it doesn't sag with the trailer, but it does wallow horribly), and I want to put an expedition rack on it.

Right now it's pretty stock, except for 245/75/16s (fit with no trimming by the way, but I've only done very light off-roading with it), and a front brush guard with lights.

Does anyone know what the spring rates are for stock, the OME MDs and OME HDs? How do the spring rates for the rovertym springs compare? They will probably lift my truck to much also.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 07:00 am: Edit

If you dont think that wheel is trying to pass the truck then here is a good pic. Yeah they were stock trailing arms but that shows you how the force is traveling. Put a stronger arm on and the next thing in line is the mount...

http://saturnold.vcu.edu/~ahang/CT/broke.jpg


Kyle

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 07:06 am: Edit

Tilly , this little battle of ours seems to work its way into each thread. But to answer your question. I would prefer the Rovertym springs over the OME. The RT springs will give you some lift but at some point you will probably be thankfulll for it. The OME just didnt cut it for me..

Kyle

By Blue Gill (Bluegill) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 07:17 am: Edit

stecz: check out the "suspension" link under the "Tech" section of this webpage.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 01:55 pm: Edit

John ? You hittin the booze again??


Kyle

By John on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Sorry,when I see "this little battle", I go no furthur and click on ignore....have at it....

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I wish I had a quarter for every time someone bowed out like that... Arent you the one that always ends his mails with some lines about feed back ? I actually want you to prove me wrong here.

Kyle

By spacer on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit

l tilly if you like your current ride but just need more heigh you could go for spacers under your springs and shocks
it works fine

By clamps on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 02:28 am: Edit

i don't understand something, i hope that someone can clear something up for me. if you are clamping your springs on the top to keep them from popping ou, it seems to me that you have to long of a shock. by clampimg the spring with long shocks you are pulling the spring apart at full drop. this dosen't seem like a good idea for a long life of a spring.

By stecz on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 04:02 am: Edit

Regarding spacers. Who else makes them? The RoverTym ones are as expensive as springs. Are they any easier to install?

By John on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 04:15 am: Edit

I would not put spacers on stock springs...raising your center of gravity on stock springs isnt a sound idea. More wallow. Your best bet is to go with your spring change.

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:06 am: Edit

Clamps,

This is the can of worms I spoke of before when I replied to Mr. Tilley. It's very simple to recommend OME springs and shocks to someone because are such a solid and readily available combination. However, when you discuss tweaking your suspension in whatever way, it can become a can of worms because the mention of tweaking often opens up even more questions and tangential threads.

"if you are clamping your springs on the top to keep them from popping ou, it seems to me that you have to long of a shock."

Your statement, if interpreted as a generalization and not an absolute rule, is correct. If your springs are unseating, your shocks are too long. The factory shocks are short enough that even the short factory springs don't unseat. The OME shocks are about 1" longer than stock, but they are short enough that the OME springs don't unseat.

Open-diff vehicles can benefit from more flex in the rear. Locked vehicles are different, but many owners of locked vehicles want more suspension flex under the belief that their traction will improve. Other owners just want some more sex appeal. Many people in search of more performance or just more sex appeal often fit longer shocks to get more rear suspension flex. These longer shocks will unseat the rear springs at full flex.

To handle the problem of the rear springs unseating, most people either fit a cone to guide the spring back when it wants to reseat or spring retainers to prevent the spring from unseating in the first place.

"by clampimg the spring with long shocks you are pulling the spring apart at full drop. this dosen't seem like a good idea for a long life of a spring."

I have to disagree with you here. You might be correct if the spring experienced severe amounts of stretch and/or became hyperextended, but that doesn't happen with retained springs.

On a retained set-up, the weight of the axle and wheel are what pull on the retained spring. These components do no weigh enough to overstretch the rear springs. Take a look at this pic: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/retainers/DCP_0243.jpg

Though not clearly visible in that pic, the rear shock has been disconnected and the spring is the only thing holding up the axle. The spring is an OME MD rear (764). With just the weight of the axle there, the 764 is hardly stretched at all.

With the added weight of the wheel there and the other side pushing a bit, the rear flex turns into this: http://www.expeditionexchange.com/retainers/DCP_1151.jpg

The 764 is stretched in that pic, but not even close to the point where it would become hyperextended. My shocks are short enough (26" extended length) that they max out, but others with very long shocks such as Alex Schubow have reported that the springs limit the flex of the rear axle before their very long shocks max out. In other words, the weight of the rear axle and wheels is not enough that you can hyperextend or overstress your rear springs when they are retained.

It might be helpful to imagine compressing your spring until the coils stack up. Unless you hold the spring in this position for a long period of time, the spring will decompress without damage. It takes a great amount of force to compress the spring to solid.

The OME 764 is roughly 17" tall with no load upon it. Fully compressed, I'm guessing that the 764 would be well under 8" tall. If the 764 can compress 8" without damage, it stands to reason that it can extend 8" without damage as well because the spring's material is uniform and resists compression and extension in a similar fashion.

The weight of the axle and wheels is not enough to expand your spring 8". Not even close to it. Even running with no rear shocks and retained springs, you will not hyperextend or damage your springs. You put more stress on your springs every day when you drive over bumps and compress the springs under the weight of the vehicle.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:23 am: Edit

In defense of the slinky John Lee , the weight of the housing is not the only down force. It can be but if you have a long bumpstop the truck will sit on that and apply even more down force to the dropped wheel. There is a little leverage action going on there. Nad this only happens in certain situations , unless the bump stop was huge..


Kyle

By John Lee on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:27 am: Edit

Kyle,

Yes, if the bump stop is long enough, it's possible to get a fulcrum effect from the bump stop and transfer some of the compression force of the tucking wheel into an expanding force on the dropping wheel. It's also possible to get this effect from an overly long shock, which is more likely than the bump stop because most people's bump stops don't even come close to touching.

By Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 06:29 am: Edit

Yes , thats my point about stuffage vs what looks like stuffage. They are getting bigger and bigger bump stops!! And yet they still claim stuff..

Kyle