canter rims
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
engineer
Adventurer
You could possibly leave as little as 3 leaves in with the coil over-rider above.
Try something with a long travel like a defender coil, I think the ute rear end on the defender had dual coil if i'm not mistaken.
The main thing is to eliminate the shorter springs to decrease the rebound rate, and it did work well for us on an Arkana 6X4, made her very comfortable.
Try something with a long travel like a defender coil, I think the ute rear end on the defender had dual coil if i'm not mistaken.
The main thing is to eliminate the shorter springs to decrease the rebound rate, and it did work well for us on an Arkana 6X4, made her very comfortable.
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
SWB's
Please keep us posted on that, eh. BTW Which Coopers are you looking at?
Yeah I know. The backs are the easiest to fit longer springs but. And you will probably have to something at the back anyway to raise the rear to meet the new height of the fronts. There is the cost of the springs to consider here too remember. If you are after improved articulation (and ride) offroad, look at longer rear springs. If you are just after an improved ride > yeah you can get away with only doing the fronts . We often do this at work and do a simple rear suspension lift to suit.
Seeing as how we were talking about SWB's being a good platform truck for a camper I included some pics of a short wheel base we did at the start of this year. It runs outback tours from Broken Hill. And just by chance this one has the long spring packs in the front and the standard springs with a lift in the rear.
Alan I wasn't sure > is your FG a SWB too?? Like I said I hardly ever see em.
Please keep us posted on that, eh. BTW Which Coopers are you looking at?
Yeah I know. The backs are the easiest to fit longer springs but. And you will probably have to something at the back anyway to raise the rear to meet the new height of the fronts. There is the cost of the springs to consider here too remember. If you are after improved articulation (and ride) offroad, look at longer rear springs. If you are just after an improved ride > yeah you can get away with only doing the fronts . We often do this at work and do a simple rear suspension lift to suit.
Seeing as how we were talking about SWB's being a good platform truck for a camper I included some pics of a short wheel base we did at the start of this year. It runs outback tours from Broken Hill. And just by chance this one has the long spring packs in the front and the standard springs with a lift in the rear.
Alan I wasn't sure > is your FG a SWB too?? Like I said I hardly ever see em.
Very nice truck!
The rims I can get made in alloy or steel 16" x 8" but it could take a while, the tyre size was 35" 10.5 x 16" my truck is a SWB, yes l agree with you the front longer leaves would be the go! and raise the rear to suit.
The rims I can get made in alloy or steel 16" x 8" but it could take a while, the tyre size was 35" 10.5 x 16" my truck is a SWB, yes l agree with you the front longer leaves would be the go! and raise the rear to suit.
whatcharterboat said:Please keep us posted on that, eh. BTW Which Coopers are you looking at?
Yeah I know. The backs are the easiest to fit longer springs but. And you will probably have to something at the back anyway to raise the rear to meet the new height of the fronts. There is the cost of the springs to consider here too remember. If you are after improved articulation (and ride) offroad, look at longer rear springs. If you are just after an improved ride > yeah you can get away with only doing the fronts . We often do this at work and do a simple rear suspension lift to suit.
Seeing as how we were talking about SWB's being a good platform truck for a camper I included some pics of a short wheel base we did at the start of this year. It runs outback tours from Broken Hill. And just by chance this one has the long spring packs in the front and the standard springs with a lift in the rear.
Alan I wasn't sure > is your FG a SWB too?? Like I said I hardly ever see em.
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Alan thanks. This is the "tough looking one" I mentioned, but as you see it here, was how it looked when we finished it. I will still post the pics of it as it looks now. We have it back in the workshop for some more body mods. The owners have since fitted a winch, bullbar, cab roof rack, radios, compressor, spotlights and the biggest side mounted fuel tank I've seen on an FG. Also it has a full body computer generated "outback" mural instead of the normal sign writing which looks really good too.
Awesome about the rims. I wasn't aware that Cooper did anything that had a suitable load rating. Maybe your state laws are different to ours. Double check with the authorities to be safe before you outlay the bucks, heh. You'd never get away with that on a standard wheelbase.
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Engineer. Sales ain't my thing. Just give em a call. Also I don't want to end up with a full blown hijack either or it'll have to go in another thread again.
That one above was a 12 seater with the rear boot so a 15 seater with a rear boot would end up on a standard wheelbase chassis. We do mainly wide bodies now which means you can get 2 seats on either side of the aisle instead of 2 and 1. So they keep the length down.
But if you really want the narrower body you end up with something like this one below but with a boot. This has the wind deflector (WD) but not the roof cut out in the cab (only the back). So you can still see out that little window at the front of the cab (like on the white SWB). BTW As a tour operator ask about seasonal hire rather than buying your own truck out right.
This is one of my favorite trucks (about 7 or 8 years old now). I'd love a camper something like this.
Guys I could keep throwing these pics up forever. I've got 100's of 'em but please tell me to pull my head in if you're getting sick of it.
John
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Hey Dave . How are ya going?
Dave I drove a 2WD FG SWB for years regularly doing long runs. They are great on the highway but top out out about 110 k's. The taller wheels fitted when you do a SRW conversion make a huge difference to highway cruising and sure the springs, shocks and suspension seats all go towards creating a comfy long distance cruiser.
On the flipside. The seats don't recline as you say for sleeping and the new 2WD's are usually better setup for the road. Low CoG, anti-roll bars, traction control, auto transmission (our 4x4 Jap trucks are all manual boxes), disc brakes with ABS etc, However, maybe you want a dual purpose setup. Then sure, the simple answer is IMO "Yes an FG 4x4 can be made into a suitable long distance highway cruiser."
Dave I'm not sure either. I still haven't seen our new model and have been too busy to check it out online. There is obviously a couple of demos running around at the dealers but I don't believe FUSO have the go ahead to sell any here yet. Probably not until early next year (Engineer > this is true isn't it??).
It's a shame cause Isuzu has really got the jump on Fuso Australia by releasing their totally new "Euro IV" model NPS 300 5.2L 4x4 a few months back. An awesome dual purpose machine. Isuzu truck sales in all categories (not just 4x4) have exploded here in the last few years.
We don't have a current NA FG either. All our FG's have been 3.9L turbos for the last couple of years but with the old style cab and the 5 stud wheels.
Dave. Good to talk again. Take care John.
Dave I drove a 2WD FG SWB for years regularly doing long runs. They are great on the highway but top out out about 110 k's. The taller wheels fitted when you do a SRW conversion make a huge difference to highway cruising and sure the springs, shocks and suspension seats all go towards creating a comfy long distance cruiser.
On the flipside. The seats don't recline as you say for sleeping and the new 2WD's are usually better setup for the road. Low CoG, anti-roll bars, traction control, auto transmission (our 4x4 Jap trucks are all manual boxes), disc brakes with ABS etc, However, maybe you want a dual purpose setup. Then sure, the simple answer is IMO "Yes an FG 4x4 can be made into a suitable long distance highway cruiser."
Dave I'm not sure either. I still haven't seen our new model and have been too busy to check it out online. There is obviously a couple of demos running around at the dealers but I don't believe FUSO have the go ahead to sell any here yet. Probably not until early next year (Engineer > this is true isn't it??).
It's a shame cause Isuzu has really got the jump on Fuso Australia by releasing their totally new "Euro IV" model NPS 300 5.2L 4x4 a few months back. An awesome dual purpose machine. Isuzu truck sales in all categories (not just 4x4) have exploded here in the last few years.
We don't have a current NA FG either. All our FG's have been 3.9L turbos for the last couple of years but with the old style cab and the 5 stud wheels.
Dave. Good to talk again. Take care John.
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Thanks Dave. Well done.
Allan
Hopefully this will stimulate some more discussion on the topic.
I have been puzzling over 16 inch rims for a while. Initially I wanted 19.5 inch rims but I heard that when you let the air out of them the tyres don't necessarily balloon out.
I then noticed that Earthcruiser had done some serious sand (Madigan line etc) with the 16inch Michelin XZL combination so I figured it was a good direction to go in.
If my interpretation is correct, to run Michelin XZLs I can only use a 16 X 6 or 16 X 6.5 inch rim. And for Coopers I need at least 16 X 7 inches and their load rating is lower.
So a tough decision needs to be made that factors in long term tyre availability cost etc. The cost bit has me nervous already. However I am leaning towards the 16 X 6.5 inch XZL combination.
However the final problem is getting an engineer to agree to the idea, in Canberra they will only accept a NSW or ACT certified engineer. (You mention Qld to ACT rego officials and they shudder)
Given the 4 inch increase in Diameter is a radical change from standard has anyone managed to get an Engineer to agree to the XZLs described on an FG in NSW/ACT?
My final point of confusion is that the XZL is classed as an "off road" tyre, can it still be used legally "on road" in Australia?
cheers
Michael
ps this is my first post!
Hopefully this will stimulate some more discussion on the topic.
I have been puzzling over 16 inch rims for a while. Initially I wanted 19.5 inch rims but I heard that when you let the air out of them the tyres don't necessarily balloon out.
I then noticed that Earthcruiser had done some serious sand (Madigan line etc) with the 16inch Michelin XZL combination so I figured it was a good direction to go in.
If my interpretation is correct, to run Michelin XZLs I can only use a 16 X 6 or 16 X 6.5 inch rim. And for Coopers I need at least 16 X 7 inches and their load rating is lower.
So a tough decision needs to be made that factors in long term tyre availability cost etc. The cost bit has me nervous already. However I am leaning towards the 16 X 6.5 inch XZL combination.
However the final problem is getting an engineer to agree to the idea, in Canberra they will only accept a NSW or ACT certified engineer. (You mention Qld to ACT rego officials and they shudder)
Given the 4 inch increase in Diameter is a radical change from standard has anyone managed to get an Engineer to agree to the XZLs described on an FG in NSW/ACT?
My final point of confusion is that the XZL is classed as an "off road" tyre, can it still be used legally "on road" in Australia?
cheers
Michael
ps this is my first post!
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Hi Michael. Welcome.
This is my opinion and I've said it before but for an allround, allterrain, most economical setup (particularly the Hankooks over the dearer Bridgestone), the 19.5 " are hard to go past, however for pure offroad, the XZL's are probably the pick (unless money is no object or you can look at the XML's).
More important than how much they "balloon out", is how long a footprint they can give. If you read the "FG fleet mechanic interview" the guys that run these every day on the beach still run around 60PSI unless it's extra soft and they might go down to 40. They also run the XZL "road" version when they can get them too which are the same size but with a conventional tread and therefore give extra milage.
This truck was setup with all our standard long travel suspension, dual shocks, XZL tyre combo etc that has been around for 10 years or more on tour buses and older motorhomes. So yeah definitely a well proven setup and a good direction to go in. The 19.5"s are relatively new to Canters as a SRW conversion.
No. Not quite right. The standard 6.00 rims are OK but 7.00 are closer to the correct width for an XZL 100R/16 tyre. If you are going to get the wider 7.00 rims, then you can also get them made with the correct offset. The OEM wheels don't give the correct wheel alignment (front to back) but as I said you can get away with it.
We build a lot of commercial vehicles for NSW including some for Government agencies and many run the XZL's. Legally. Not sure about ACT. I know NSW are a bit over the top on some issues such as exhausts. All the NSW vehicles have had to have a rear / roof top exhaust outlet . See the that little white SWB for example. Adding that much length is just ridiculous for a little turbo truck.
Michael, I know it’s a big claim but to quote Michelin on the XZL, they are “designed for exceptional traction and handling on all terrains including snow, sand, mud or highway”. See the "highway" bit, so they are a very different classification to an Agricultural tyre.
I took this pick today of an almost completed bus on XZL's with the OEM rims. It''ll probably spend most of it's life in sand.
This is my opinion and I've said it before but for an allround, allterrain, most economical setup (particularly the Hankooks over the dearer Bridgestone), the 19.5 " are hard to go past, however for pure offroad, the XZL's are probably the pick (unless money is no object or you can look at the XML's).
More important than how much they "balloon out", is how long a footprint they can give. If you read the "FG fleet mechanic interview" the guys that run these every day on the beach still run around 60PSI unless it's extra soft and they might go down to 40. They also run the XZL "road" version when they can get them too which are the same size but with a conventional tread and therefore give extra milage.
This truck was setup with all our standard long travel suspension, dual shocks, XZL tyre combo etc that has been around for 10 years or more on tour buses and older motorhomes. So yeah definitely a well proven setup and a good direction to go in. The 19.5"s are relatively new to Canters as a SRW conversion.
No. Not quite right. The standard 6.00 rims are OK but 7.00 are closer to the correct width for an XZL 100R/16 tyre. If you are going to get the wider 7.00 rims, then you can also get them made with the correct offset. The OEM wheels don't give the correct wheel alignment (front to back) but as I said you can get away with it.
We build a lot of commercial vehicles for NSW including some for Government agencies and many run the XZL's. Legally. Not sure about ACT. I know NSW are a bit over the top on some issues such as exhausts. All the NSW vehicles have had to have a rear / roof top exhaust outlet . See the that little white SWB for example. Adding that much length is just ridiculous for a little turbo truck.
Michael, I know it’s a big claim but to quote Michelin on the XZL, they are “designed for exceptional traction and handling on all terrains including snow, sand, mud or highway”. See the "highway" bit, so they are a very different classification to an Agricultural tyre.
I took this pick today of an almost completed bus on XZL's with the OEM rims. It''ll probably spend most of it's life in sand.
Thanks for the detailed reply WCB
You did open my mind to the various options that 16 inch allows. Such as not buying Rims and just using the standard rims to save money. Or to make one spare out of a standard rim and only buy 5 rims with the correct offset.
My goal is to do the Madigan line at some point. I am paranoid and it probably relates to us being stuck on several beaches in Cape York. For some strange reason the tide seems to rise quicker than air can be let out of the 6 standard tyres. (we did manage to escape under our own steam)
Say you have the choice of either rim size, the Madigan line is your goal, and safety is more important than dollars in your pocket, which option would you choose?
The bit about rims being 6 or 6.5 inches came from here,
http://www.tirecraft.com/commercial/MichXZLspecs.htm
it is old info, but sadly there is bugger all new information published on the net. I rang the local Michelin distributor today and he couldn't even find 16 inch 255/100XZL tyres in his books.
The other task to prepare for the Madigan line is to do a full rebuild of the camper and try to make it a lot lighter. Currently I am sitting at about 5.5 tonne when kitted out for a long trip so the truck needs to go on a diet...
You did open my mind to the various options that 16 inch allows. Such as not buying Rims and just using the standard rims to save money. Or to make one spare out of a standard rim and only buy 5 rims with the correct offset.
My goal is to do the Madigan line at some point. I am paranoid and it probably relates to us being stuck on several beaches in Cape York. For some strange reason the tide seems to rise quicker than air can be let out of the 6 standard tyres. (we did manage to escape under our own steam)
Say you have the choice of either rim size, the Madigan line is your goal, and safety is more important than dollars in your pocket, which option would you choose?
The bit about rims being 6 or 6.5 inches came from here,
http://www.tirecraft.com/commercial/MichXZLspecs.htm
it is old info, but sadly there is bugger all new information published on the net. I rang the local Michelin distributor today and he couldn't even find 16 inch 255/100XZL tyres in his books.
The other task to prepare for the Madigan line is to do a full rebuild of the camper and try to make it a lot lighter. Currently I am sitting at about 5.5 tonne when kitted out for a long trip so the truck needs to go on a diet...
whatcharterboat
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
There ya go. It definitely says 6.00 or 6.50 for the 9.00R16 and I had a good look at a 255/100R16 today and I noticed it also had 9.00 R16 stamped on it so I quess it's talking about the same thing. Actually this may be old info. They used to do an older 9.00R16 and an 11.00R16 which is also noted on that table which makes me think this. We have one of the old Michelin 11.00R16's at work.
Anyway , to me they certainly look much more at home on a 7.00 than the standard 6.00. Have another look at the wheels on the grey bus we are finishing off at the moment.
The tyre also said suitable for "DOT and highway use in North America and Australia". I wonder what happens with the rest of the world???
That big bluey/grey motorhome (heaps of pics already here) we built is very close to max GVM and it's done 4 fairly serious desert crossings now. The present owner says the weight doesn't bother him and I've been it up some really steep stuff and the weight pushing down on the luggy tyres gives alot of traction. He runs XML's but is looking at going over to 19.5" Bridgestones due to the cost. If you can get them you are looking at $1200 each. I know there were some floating around for the $800 mark awhile back but not anymore and with the economy I think tyres are one thing that will certainly go up. BTW that truck has a very healthy power output to handle the XML's too.
Also as Mickldo said awhile ago, you only have to look at how the FG's go on Fraser Island (with SRWs and close to max GVM), and how they just charge on past barely cracking a sweat while "mere mortals" struggle in conventional 4x4s with Snatch straps and shovels.
Anyway a diet is always good. If not for any other reason than to give you the ability to carry more fuel and water.
Mate, I'm a real fan of the performance of the Michelins, even on a standard non-turbo FG637 but maybe you should have a good look at the Bridgestone (305 wide) with some heavy duty 19.5" rims given your weight. The stronger rims are probably a safer option if you are up at that weight and want to go with single rear wheels.
Michael, your truck is a "standard non-turbo FG637", isn't it?