Springs: retention or cones?

[sevenrover]

P76RANGIE,
Oh, sorry, they are 747 and 748. And they aren't on the website because it hasn't been updated for several years now. Bill, and ARB North America get along very well, so he had them make some 3" springs, which work flawlessly...

[p76rangie]

People do a lot of things just because someone else did it. I have been out in vehicles with cones and know what they are like. The people that have put them in to see what they are like have all pulled them back out again.
300BHP you keep on posting things as proof that cones are good. All I reply is that your proof does not prove anything. The photos you posted either show set-up shots to show off their cones, or relatively striaght forward terrain, or cars leaning a lot more than they should be.

You have made your point now and there is no need to keep on posting things and then having to justify what you have posted.

[01001010]

Yeah I think that those who are interested should just go out and test either set-up and make up their mind.

[p76rangie]

Seven Rover, chased up ARB (head office and manufacturing plant located here in Melboune) about the springs 747 and 748. The were a special run only done for your mates in the US. They could not give me any specs on them, so it is a bit difficult to comment on them. But it was a once off batch and they do not make them or stock them anymore.

[sevenrover]

Yeah, that is because GBR is awesome.. hands down

[Classicrovergirl]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Seven Rover, chased up ARB (head office and manufacturing plant located here in Melboune) about the springs 747 and 748. The were a special run only done for your mates in the US. They could not give me any specs on them, so it is a bit difficult to comment on them. But it was a once off batch and they do not make them or stock them anymore.

They were actually only done for Great Basin Rovers. We have the exclusive for another year and change and they will be offered to other ARB distributors after that time. It is a true 3" lift. It also was not a one time batch. If you have any more question you should call ARB North America and ask for Chris Wood. He can give you all the information you need. Or feel free to call us, GBR and ask for Bill he can give you specs and information you need.

[p76rangie]

I only passed on what was stated by ARB's international head Office.

[p76rangie]

If you wanted a 3 inch lift on a standard range rover classic with OME springs, 761's in the front and either 764's or 781's in the rear will give you that lift. 764's will be slightly below 3 inches and 781's slightly above. If you have a winch and bull bar on the front you would go for 758's in the front.

[asolo3j]

I just bought the spring retianers from EE. Seems that some who run cones will eventually switch to retainers, and those on retianers like it enought to keep them. Why do it twice when I can do it once and do it right. I can't wait to put them on.

[300bhp/ton]

Originally Posted by asolo3j

I just bought the spring retianers from EE. Seems that some who run cones will eventually switch to retainers, and those on retianers like it enought to keep them. Why do it twice when I can do it once and do it right. I can't wait to put them on.

Curious but how does it retain the spring? And are you using longer than stock springs?

Any chance you could post a pic?

[SCSL]

Pic one is the the EE retainer.
Pic two is a standard aftermarket retainer, field damaged.
I can tell you from personal experience the EE retainers are bomb-proof. I mangled several pairs of rectangular retainers before upgrading to these pancake-style retainers and haven't had any issues. They are so well made that my 3rd row roll cage points (8-point cage, so I suppose points 5 & 6) terminate at the retainer, and are welded right to them on top of the spring perch.

[p76rangie]

I am not sure what you are doing with your suspension to warrant retainers that solid. With the correct length springs and shocks you should not need them.

[SCSL]

Damage tends to happen on the rocks, and deep moguls. I've seen this happen even in very well-designed suspensions, including on the personal rigs of some of the more well-known LR engineers in the US. I haven't yet seen this type of damage here on the east coast, but plenty in Colo.

[300bhp/ton]

Gonna guess that's a US (or maybe Oz) thing.

But I do agree with p76rangie.

I simply don't see the need for such heavy duty retainers. I hate to think of the stress being applied to the mountings/chassis rails.

I run retained springs, but with nothing more than the stock upper seat and a small jubilee clip. And this is just to prevent the spring flopping out under maximum articulation. The shock and bump stop limit the travel, but as a bump stop is rubber it is in theory possible to pop the springs out if not attached.

I guess on that setup you are physically 'stretching' the springs past their relaxed state. Personally I don't see the sense in that. IMO three solutions present temself:

1. Adjust the shock travel and bump stops to match the spring length, this will limit articulation.

2. Run a longer spring to match the shock bump stop and articulation amount. This may raise the vehicle unless you run a soft or dual stage spring.

3. Run a dislocatoin cone. As long as the articulation isn't extreme (which I doubt else it would probably have ripped the spring/chassis apart) simply run a dislocation cone, under most conditions the spring will remain seated, if during maximum articulation (dictated by the shocks/bump stops) the spring runs the risk of falling out the cone simply prevents it flopping to the side and relocates once again.

I don't think cones would offer any creater potential (maybe a tad more articulation) but they certainly would reduce the stresses being placed on so many components.

[John C]

I don't think I'll ever go to retainers.... anyway, I wonder how many people running retainers are also running lockers???