Spring over axle for lift?

[series3dc]

Just curious on thoughts if this would work on a series with stock springs. Seems like it might make the ride of the stock springs more compliant while giving a customizable lift. I would think it would also add to your load carrying capacity instead of reducing it like parabolics. Thoughts?
http://www.gearinstalls.com/dc.htm

Thanks,
Scott

[Partsman]

I never thought of doing this to my Rover, but it's the set up I have on my old home made trailer, coils over leafs. It definitely increases the carry capacity. However, I did notice that when the coils were added on, the trailer bounces around a bit more when I hit bumps, don't know how it would effect the control of steering on a Landy.

[Ncrover725]

I did it on a CJ-8 Scrambler a long time ago and it actually was ok. It had a little more sway but not much else was that different.

[disco2hse]

You will open yourself up for a serious round of modification and fabrication.

Read this thread on LR4x4 (http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=58420&st=0&p=512117&hl=+spring%20+over%20+axle&fromsearch=1&#entry512117) and take their advice about searching and reading further on that forum.

Just to help you out, use this lmgtfy link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aforums.lr4x4.com+%22spring+over+axle%22+ %22soa%22).

[disco2hse]

Ooops. Sorry. I read what you wrote in your subject line, not what you linked to, which is quite a different thing.

Have no idea how that would affect the geometry on the Land Rover. What I can say though is that it is a hell of a hard way to get around having the springs reset, which can be done in a weekend. Then after your springs are reset, you can feel assured that your vehicle is still safe and not likely to throw you into a ditch off the edge of a cliff.

Those links are useful reading in any case.

[Lalo88DK]

Not mine.
This Danish Land-Rover has springs over axles. Standard Land-Rover leafsprings are really rigid, so I don't think you need the coils. This 88" also features a 3.5 Rover V8, but haven't seen it for years.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-rFfURLC49u8/SU4KF_3_XII/AAAAAAAAISY/bWP-wgupyRA/s400/LA2008%2520012.JPG

[disco2hse]

Can't tell what is going on under there. Whether it is SOA, helper springs, full coil replacement, full coil replacement with coilovers, or a big body lift.

Don't like the thought of the pressure on the UJs in a 88 unless it has had wedges inserted to rotate the diffs, especially with a 3.5. There's not a lot of room under that bonnet, so I wonder if it has the original gearbox or an LT95 or something else.

Any more info on it?

[Lalo88DK]

It's the original chassis with parabolic springs, with no helper springs, no coil replacement, and no coilovers, I cant' remember if he made a body lift.
It's been very well made, but it wasn't easy.

He did change prop-shafts and angled the axles. But I cant remember what gearbox he uses.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mR86PuI_Q54/T2wO1u7BicI/AAAAAAAAQ90/aCjX8duzmkA/s640/LA2008%2520014.JPG

[disco2hse]

Thanks. Much clearer.

That is SOA. Read the links I posted earlier about issues related to that approach. I'll bet those stubby little prop shafts bind up unless he has a cardan on the rear prop.

[o2batsea]

Parabolics.

[I Leak Oil]

Looks like that truck has longer springs on the front as well. I think that is a common swap when doing a spring over, along with using a flatter rear leaf spring (like a chevy pick up or jeep yj).

[LR Max]

Spring over will give you better ride and better off road capability. This will be a completely custom setup so if you aren't handy with the wrenches and welder, you are going to have a problem.

You will probably need to work with the driveshafts some. However I've always considered the stock driveshafts to be adequate, so this is a personal opinion. I can't imagine going SOA and NOT having to notch the frame front and rear. However you'll have to look at it.

Research "Trac-bar". Shortened for "traction bar". Basically, with a spring over axle suspension you can have whats called "axle wrap". This is when the axle rotates about its axis. As you can imagine, suspension and driveshafts can get very upset with you about this. So you install a traction bar to prevent this.

The front might have "bump steer" issues. Basically, as the suspension flexes, the front suspension cycles and to keep the wheels pointed forward the position of the steering links has to change. And thus, the steering wheel moves even though the tires continue straight. While this may seem like a major geometry issue (can be), it is more of a nuisance than anything else. A pitman arm with more drop can rectify this problem.

You REALLY have to route your brake lines smart to make sure they don't get jammed up/caught in a tire or something. You will need long brake lines. Just go ahead and accept this. But unlike a coiler vehicle, there really isn't anything to tether the line to. So you have this long, flimsy brake line hanging out, just waiting to get caught on something. People tend to zip tie the line to a shock or use little springs to retract them when the suspension isn't flexed. It really isn't a big deal...until you rip out a line.

But overall spring over is better off road than spring under. On road, if done right, shouldn't be a problem. Currently I'm thinking of flat leafs in a spring over setup for my rear (3 link + panhard for the front). SOA is cheap and provides good performance.

[yorker]

Just curious on thoughts if this would work on a series with stock springs. Seems like it might make the ride of the stock springs more compliant while giving a customizable lift. I would think it would also add to your load carrying capacity instead of reducing it like parabolics. Thoughts?
http://www.gearinstalls.com/dc.htm

Thanks,
Scott

What you have linked to is more of a "helper spring". Traditionally SOA is where you put the entire leaf spring on top of the axle vs. beneath:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Rick%20Lambs%20lightweight/Frontendsmall.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Rick%20Lambs%20lightweight/Frontendsteeringdetailsmall.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Rick%20Lambs%20lightweight/Steeringboxsmall.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Guy%20Fawkes%202011/100_1814.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Guy%20Fawkes%202011/100_1800.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Guy%20Fawkes%202011/100_1799.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/Guy%20Fawkes%202011/100_1792.jpg

[disco2hse]

Thanks for the photos. They give some indication of the amount of work required to achieve SOA. Others take the coiler route, and in these parts people get old Rangie classics with their superior 100" chassis and put a series body on it.

Just thought I'd mention that in some parts of the world, those modifications are not legal or need certification. The adaptation used to be fairly common here about 30 years ago. Since then, better solutions have been created. In some cases including the removal of springs altogether.

The trend with competition/winch challenge trucks here is not to raise the vehicle but lower its COG. Articulation is more important than diff clearance inmost cases and in those where it is critical people fit portals and use larger diameter tyres (36"-40" seems normal at the moment).

[series3dc]

Thanks for all of the replies and info. I meant to state spring over leaf conversion. The spring over axle gives too much lift for what I am trying to achieve. I only want about 4 inches and it is my understanding the SOA gives about a 7" lift. I am planning on doing it on a 1962 109. It is cheap enough to try and I can always switch to parabolics if I decide I do not like it. I've just heard of the parabolic sagging and uneven problems and also do not think they will give me enough lift even with extended shackles.
Thanks

[yorker]

Thanks for all of the replies and info. I meant to state spring over leaf conversion. The spring over axle gives too much lift for what I am trying to achieve. I only want about 4 inches and it is my understanding the SOA gives about a 7" lift. I am planning on doing it on a 1962 109. It is cheap enough to try and I can always switch to parabolics if I decide I do not like it. I've just heard of the parabolic sagging and uneven problems and also do not think they will give me enough lift even with extended shackles.
Thanks

SOA doesn't have to give you that much lift, Ideally the way it is accomplished is with dearched springs, and in the case of a Land Rover with longer springs. This gives you FAR greater articulation with a modest lift. Usually you alter the front so you can use rear springs on it. If you wanted even better articulation you could look beyond the Land Rover parts bin for longer leaf springs. Land Rover front springs are very short and stiff and do not allow for much articulation. SOA can be a very economical and well performing modification if you plan it out well to begin with.

Parabolics will give you a slight lift initially but so will any new springs, it usually settles out over time. Longer spring shackles will mess with your pinion and caster angles. Why are you looking for lift? A 109 can be fitted with 9.00 16 tires as is, there is plenty of room under there, it works better with a military/1 ton chassis but you can do it on a standard 109 chassis too. that is a ~35" tire with no lift. Your real problem is the pixie stick axle shafts.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l119/sepp45/oneton-1.jpg

[disco2hse]

Yep. What he said ^^.

And, the addition of helper springs is normally only advocated when you need to carry extra heavy loads or hauling heavy trailers. These days air bags are a better solution that provide greater carrying capacity and are height adjustable (which springs are not).