Gap tool question

[Jwestpro]

However, it doesn't ride softer, it rides harder as the spring pressures (air pressure) is higher. .

I'll try different descriptive wording: "body roll" increases with lift. I have compared this at length. -20, 0, +20, +50. At -20 there is less roll and also due to camber, less of the annoying cornering DTC nanny. However at +20, there is most definitely more body sway, waddling, when swerve type turning, etc thus "softer". Even though the air pressure may be higher, it's also filling more space and the resulting compression has more range. Conversely when running at -20mm, there is a lot less air column height to compress the remaining air. I'm thinking it compresses to a higher pressure quicker due to less volume.

Anyway, I think it's ideal to roll 80 mph for hours and hours at factory neutral with less work on the compressor, more responsive handling, intended joint angles, etc. that all adds up for people like me whose 80% mileage is highway on long trips.

If my intention was more like 50%+ trail time, it would probably be a different vehicle entirely LOL

 

[Victory_Overland]

I

I'll try different descriptive wording: "body roll" increases with lift. I have compared this at length. -20, 0, +20, +50. At -20 there is less roll and also due to camber, less of the annoying cornering DTC nanny. However at +20, there is most definitely more body sway, waddling, when swerve type turning, etc thus "softer". Even though the air pressure may be higher, it's also filling more space and the resulting compression has more range. Conversely when running at -20mm, there is a lot less air column height to compress the remaining air. I'm thinking it compresses to a higher pressure quicker due to less volume.

Anyway, I think it's ideal to roll 80 mph for hours and hours at factory neutral with less work on the compressor, more responsive handling, intended joint angles, etc. that all adds up for people like me whose 80% mileage is highway on long trips.

If my intention was more like 50%+ trail time, it would probably be a different vehicle entirely LOL

Not sure that is actually correct. Without longer lowers the track width is the same. The benefit of the upper control arm is the angle change for the upper ball joint relieving binding, bump steer, and premature wear on the upper ball joints and bushings. The upper joint looses travel when lifted so the upper ball joint takes all of the load at max extension and stop to stop steering. The spherical upper ball joint alleviates binding and over travel with high angle bearings and sleeves. It does provide a bit more room for camber adjustment hence relieving some of the bump steer problems as well.

The expooverland guys just did a piece on this exact thing with their ICON kits. Hence the recommendation for upper control arms for any lift more than 2.5" and do not go further due to cv angles and sway bar issues.

I'm no expert on this by any means, just have a friend in the desert truck fab business and he's explained our Landy issues with IFS all around vs Yotas with only upper control arm issues up front.

If I knew angle of the taper bolt inside the knuckle it would be fairly easy to build upper arms. I don't want to have to ream out my hubs and steering knuckles if it's a non-standard angle.

Anyone have a ball joint laying around that's no longer in use?

 

[Jwestpro]

I

Not sure that is actually correct. Without longer lowers the track width is the same.

None of that UCA info is relevant to the track width. Basic geometry dictates that as you raise the vehicle, the wheels are drawn inward but this is also very obvious just to the eye and even more if you make some marks on the ground, roll forward and then back into place with it raised to offroad height.

The only way the track width would remain more or less equal is if the LCA were in negative rise to start with, then moving them through neutral to resulting same angle lower. The wheel hub moves in an arc basically. In fact you can see the camber go totally opposite when it's fully raised vs very leaned in camber when fully lowered - which of course helps to tuck the rear wheels into the fender liner even higher than the actual outer fender flare edge.

I think you read something incorrectly - the same thing would apply to longer lowers, the track width would change throughout the suspension height range.

However, rolling highway speeds at -20mm, widens the track a tiny bit due to flattening the suspension linkages (upper and lower control arms).

Now, I'll have to measure all this crap cause I'm curious for real numbers

 

[Victory_Overland]

None of that UCA info is relevant to the track width. Basic geometry dictates that as you raise the vehicle, the wheels are drawn inward but this is also very obvious just to the eye and even more if you make some marks on the ground, roll forward and then back into place with it raised to offroad height.

The only way the track width would remain more or less equal is if the LCA were in negative rise to start with, then moving them through neutral to resulting same angle lower. The wheel hub moves in an arc basically. In fact you can see the camber go totally opposite when it's fully raised vs very leaned in camber when fully lowered - which of course helps to tuck the rear wheels into the fender liner even higher than the actual outer fender flare edge.

I think you read something incorrectly - the same thing would apply to longer lowers, the track width would change throughout the suspension height range.

However, rolling highway speeds at -20mm, widens the track a tiny bit due to flattening the suspension linkages (upper and lower control arms).

Now, I'll have to measure all this crap cause I'm curious for real numbers

Totally agree. All I'm saying is we have upper ball joint binding problems with any further lift on the LR IFS system..........very similar to every other IFS I guess. No doubt that track width changes with suspension travel, I personally do not want anymore width otherwise we have tuck problems as you pointed out.

I would however like the option to use other coilover options and UCA (front and back) with spherical bearings and high-angle mis-alignment spacers for longevity and performance. I also do not want anything more than 2.5"-3" of "suspension" lift so I can maintain the CV angles at droop. Also, I do not believe that CV angles at full compression are an issue but they are at droop (Please correct me if I am wrong on this). So, having a longer travel shock such as the OME BP-51, FOX, KING, etc. is ideal instead of lift spacers and other items that do not create any further suspension travel. Droop can be supported by limit straps to maintain CV angles. I have not forgotten about longer and ideally quick-disconnect sway bar links as to not limit suspension travel while off-road.

I guess anything can be done with money and time! My wish is to convert to coil with option of height, travel, and rebound/compression and keep the fantastic traction control the LR3/4 are known for. Right now, we can go to coil but do not have the option to change suspension performance other than standard or HD springs which generally are good in one place and horrible in another.

Ahhhhhhh to wish...lol :smiley_drive:

 

[zelatore]

I've long argued that the current coil conversions just don't cut it for me. All of them I've seen, even the +2" kits, barely reach stock height with any load, much less give you the height of rods and air.

However, if a true coilover kit came to market, particularly if paired with improved arms....well, I might be swayed.

JWest, keep us posted on your KM2 developments.

 

[Victory_Overland]

I've long argued that the current coil conversions just don't cut it for me. All of them I've seen, even the +2" kits, barely reach stock height with any load, much less give you the height of rods and air.

However, if a true coilover kit came to market, particularly if paired with improved arms....well, I might be swayed.

JWest, keep us posted on your KM2 developments.

AMEN!

 

[Ray_G]

I've long argued that the current coil conversions just don't cut it for me. All of them I've seen, even the +2" kits, barely reach stock height with any load, much less give you the height of rods and air.

However, if a true coilover kit came to market, particularly if paired with improved arms....well, I might be swayed.

JWest, keep us posted on your KM2 developments.

Odd. That hasn't been my experience. Even loaded the sag isn't that bad, and if one takes but a moment to figure out how much they plan on carrying then you have all the info you need to build the truck right. Not the easy button of EAS mind you...but not a button at all; just works. All the time.

But I'm clearly not an airbag purist, and think we don't spend enough time parsing out application of the truck in specific environments.
r-
Ray

 

[Jwestpro]

My LR3 weight varies by season and troupe of trip. I'd have to source super HD springs to even consider it. I'm doubting yours ever weighs >8000 lbs?

Currently, if I go back to springs, it'll include a whole different vehicle badge as well

 

[Jwestpro]

JWest, keep us posted on your KM2 developments.

Only real issue right now is frame rub at full lock turn but I forget which side. Why the hell don't these have an adjustable steering stop like disco 1 & 2 ?! Stupid, just more proof they were on the road to total neutering starting in 2005. :/

This frame rub is just at the end of a full lock turn so it means this tire is just wide and tall enough to cause it. The almost same diameter but much narrower KM2 could not touch the frame. However, better yet, that 255/80-17 KM2 was also on just a 7" wide wheel that sits further away as well.

If I could accept that narrow tire was truly appropriate, it would be much easier to fit into all scenarios of turning and articulation.

 

[Derel1cte]

None of that UCA info is relevant to the track width. Basic geometry dictates that as you raise the vehicle, the wheels are drawn inward but this is also very obvious just to the eye and even more if you make some marks on the ground, roll forward and then back into place with it raised to offroad height.

The only way the track width would remain more or less equal is if the LCA were in negative rise to start with, then moving them through neutral to resulting same angle lower. The wheel hub moves in an arc basically. In fact you can see the camber go totally opposite when it's fully raised vs very leaned in camber when fully lowered - which of course helps to tuck the rear wheels into the fender liner even higher than the actual outer fender flare edge.

I think you read something incorrectly - the same thing would apply to longer lowers, the track width would change throughout the suspension height range.

However, rolling highway speeds at -20mm, widens the track a tiny bit due to flattening the suspension linkages (upper and lower control arms).

Now, I'll have to measure all this crap cause I'm curious for real numbers

I also have 3/4" hub centric spacers so this is probably why I needed to do more mods to my wheel wells than would normally be required by a 31.5" tire at stock height. The resulting extra ~30-40mm of overall track width are probably helping a lot with my stability at highway speed. I also made sure to get an alignment after I was done messing with my suspension and wheels. I really don't even notice that it's lifted vs stock as far as handling.

 

[NCLRbear]

Well the reason I posted this was to see if I could get a quick answer as to what height I should run at everyday. I don't want to be a "poser" I just want to find the right height to run at everyday so that my tires don't rub. I've done some trimming but I guess ill just answer my own question by slowly dialing in the ride height until it doesn't rub.

 

[NCLRbear]

There is no height that your tires won't rub. The rubbing comes from the wheels articulating up into the wheel arch (e.g. Whenever you go over a bump). Your ride height won't change the limit of upward travel, so no matter what height you run at, you will get rubbing if you go over a large enough bump or if you go around a corner fast enough and load the wheels on one side enough that they're pushed up into the arches. You can minimize the rubbing by running an increased ride height because that means you need a larger bump to push that wheel over the now increased range of travel.

I have 275/65r18s and run about +42mm all the time. I still get rubbing. The rubbing is more or less non-existent in the front passenger side wheel well. It is extremely minimal in the front driver's side and rear driver's side wheel well. It is more significant in the rear passenger side wheel well, but still not to the point where I'm convinced it was necessary to reroute the coolant hoses.

I can run at factory height and likely wouldn't get much more rubbing. I mostly run at the increased height because: 1) I'm tall and it's a nice height for me to get in and out of, but mostly 2) I think it's a good gap aesthetically at that height between the truck and the wheels. The larger tires make it look a bit funny if you run at factory height IMHO.

thank you

 

[Victory_Overland]

I can run at factory height and likely wouldn't get much more rubbing. I mostly run at the increased height because: 1) I'm tall and it's a nice height for me to get in and out of, but mostly 2) I think it's a good gap aesthetically at that height between the truck and the wheels. The larger tires make it look a bit funny if you run at factory height IMHO.

Have any side profile pics you'd care to publish on your normal configuration? I'd like to compare the tire sizes to what I'm looking at.

 

[Victory_Overland]

I'll try to snap a couple of pics in the driveway at "stock height" and +42mm when I have a sec.

Thanks, much appreciated!