• Advertisement

is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

For all suspension modifications

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby JJCarEnthusiast » Mon May 25, 2009 12:17 pm

oh ok i thought that leaf springs are about lengths hehehe :D
JJCarEnthusiast
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 1:03 pm
Age: 15
Country: Philippines
City: Cagayan de Oro City
Vehicle: Isuzu MU '92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby geeves » Mon May 25, 2009 6:53 pm

They have to be a length and curvature that allows them to fit the hangers/shackles. The lift springs are longer to allow for the greater curvature. The width,thickness and number of springs is also important. Generaly the more leaves for a given thickness the better the spring will work but you used to be able to get a spring for landrovers called a parabolic that gave incredible articulation with only a single leaf. Unfortunately the ride was rubbish with drivers teeth falling out all by themselves.
Sanding your knuckles before starting work can help. That way you cant skin them
User avatar
geeves
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8962
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Rangiora
Age: 63
Country: NZ
City: Rangiora
Vehicle: 94 bighorn 4jg2
2013 Subaru XV

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby JJCarEnthusiast » Mon May 25, 2009 11:24 pm

yeah that's what i thought, longer leafs for higher degree of curve.
JJCarEnthusiast
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 1:03 pm
Age: 15
Country: Philippines
City: Cagayan de Oro City
Vehicle: Isuzu MU '92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby JJCarEnthusiast » Mon May 25, 2009 11:40 pm

btw in the first page you said that your stock shackles measures 4", but i measured mine at 5" i think the previous owner of my truck had replaced stock shackles to longer ones when the leaf springs sagged to cope up with the lost curvature. my shackle looks like just fabricated but i have no idea how does the original shackle of MU looks like.

does it look like this? or something similar?
Image
JJCarEnthusiast
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 1:03 pm
Age: 15
Country: Philippines
City: Cagayan de Oro City
Vehicle: Isuzu MU '92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby geeves » Tue May 26, 2009 8:48 am

Yes but the sides should be straight. The mounting points on the car are the same size as the spring
Sanding your knuckles before starting work can help. That way you cant skin them
User avatar
geeves
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8962
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Rangiora
Age: 63
Country: NZ
City: Rangiora
Vehicle: 94 bighorn 4jg2
2013 Subaru XV

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby pig75 » Tue May 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Here are my standard and extended shackles off a MU
ex1.jpg

ex2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
92 MU, 91 MU ute, 90 MU, 96 Wizard, 14 MUX,2019 Dmax LSU
Australia's loudest MU
MY SITE MY YouTube SPL 152.3dB
If beef is in beef mince, What is in pet mince?
User avatar
pig75
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 7:38 am
Location: Proston
Age: 50
Country: Australia
City: QLD
Vehicle: 90MU, 91MU ute & 92MU, 96 Wizard, 2014 MUX LST 2019 Dmax LSU

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby JJCarEnthusiast » Tue May 26, 2009 6:37 pm

ok mine is still original :D maybe i just got it wrong when measuring. i measured from the top of the steel to bottom :oops:
JJCarEnthusiast
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 1:03 pm
Age: 15
Country: Philippines
City: Cagayan de Oro City
Vehicle: Isuzu MU '92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby geeves » Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:28 am

Should measure pin center to pin center. We had guessed how you had measured as it would be the above result
Sanding your knuckles before starting work can help. That way you cant skin them
User avatar
geeves
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8962
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Rangiora
Age: 63
Country: NZ
City: Rangiora
Vehicle: 94 bighorn 4jg2
2013 Subaru XV

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby Clarkside » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:53 pm

once i get the leaf springs with the 2 inch lift in them will i also have to replace the shocks or will they have enough travel in them to cope with the lift?
Clarkside
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 11:54 am
Age: 26
Country: Australia
City: Ettalong Beach
Vehicle: Isuzu MU 2.8TD 92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby mulover » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:07 am

They will have enough travel, as your springs used to reach that far. It would be wise to have a play and disconnect the shocks and check them all the same. Generally its up ward movement that controls how long your shocks can be.
Oh how i miss my mu, the lux is just not the same :(
User avatar
mulover
Isuzu Master
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:03 am
Age: 27
Country: Australia
City: Mackay
Vehicle: 1990 toyota hilux single cab 2.8

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby Clarkside » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:27 pm

I know they will have enough travel to be returned to their original position if i put stock springs back on,but im looking to buy the springs with the 2 inch lift already in them to save me fabricating some extended shackles.I was wondering if the shocks will be able to support the new 2 inch lifted springs or would i have to purchase some new shocks to allow for travel?...cheers.
Clarkside
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 11:54 am
Age: 26
Country: Australia
City: Ettalong Beach
Vehicle: Isuzu MU 2.8TD 92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby geeves » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:41 pm

should be ok. Mine were but the easy check is to disconect the bottom of the shock with the wheel lifted by jacking up the chassis after changing the spring. You are unlikly to damage the shock if its a little short but it will reduce travel. Shocks are fairly cheap
Sanding your knuckles before starting work can help. That way you cant skin them
User avatar
geeves
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8962
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Rangiora
Age: 63
Country: NZ
City: Rangiora
Vehicle: 94 bighorn 4jg2
2013 Subaru XV

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby Clarkside » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:49 pm

just getting back to mulovers post helping me lift the front so it sits level.you were saying to unbolt one end of the sway bar while doing this.where abouts would i find this bolt to un do it? cheers >clarkside
Clarkside
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 11:54 am
Age: 26
Country: Australia
City: Ettalong Beach
Vehicle: Isuzu MU 2.8TD 92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby mulover » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:53 pm

Its on the bottom A-arm. Its got a nut and bushes either side of the arm, so be careful when you undo it as the bushes can fall off and go everywhere.
Oh how i miss my mu, the lux is just not the same :(
User avatar
mulover
Isuzu Master
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:03 am
Age: 27
Country: Australia
City: Mackay
Vehicle: 1990 toyota hilux single cab 2.8

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby geeves » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:23 pm

also be carefull when undoing it. If the last person to adjust your suspension got it wrong this nut might be under tension. It could help to slightly raise the side of the car you chose to undo. By this I only mean put the jack under the jacking point the raise so the jacking point is lifted an inch or 2. Dont lift the wheel off the ground.
Sanding your knuckles before starting work can help. That way you cant skin them
User avatar
geeves
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8962
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Rangiora
Age: 63
Country: NZ
City: Rangiora
Vehicle: 94 bighorn 4jg2
2013 Subaru XV

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby Clarkside » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:53 am

ok cheers fellas,ill give it a go on the weekend......i love this site!
Clarkside
Isuzu Baby
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 11:54 am
Age: 26
Country: Australia
City: Ettalong Beach
Vehicle: Isuzu MU 2.8TD 92

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby turnturn » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:14 pm

As a bit of a guide to shock length here is one of my replies to a topic in the old forum which has some lengths and part numbers relating to Rancho shocks.

"Rancho's part numbers for shocks that I bought for my Mu 5-6 years ago were -
Front RS 9214
Rear RS 9118

Current listings off Rancho site for the Mu are -
Front RS 999214
Rear RS 999008

While the specs for the fronts are the same between old and new part numbers I'm not sure the of reason for the change in the rear.

RS9118 were -
Compressed 14.25"
Extended 22.125"
Stroke 7.875"

RS 999008 are -
Compressed 13.875"
Extended 21.5"
Stroke 7.625"

I notice that RS 999118 are available and are the same spec as the RS 9118. From memory (and it is failing) I got the 118's because of the extra extension. It would probably pay to have a bit of a measure up and check that the longer compressed size is OK on your Mu. I'm pretty sure that the bump stop not the shock absorber is the limiting factor on my rear wheel compression."
User avatar
turnturn
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 4:26 pm
Age: 57
Country: New Zealand
City: Dunedin
Vehicle: 1992 Isuzu Mu 2.8 Manual (UCS55)
Snorkle, Intercooled
1993 Isuzu Mu 2.8 Manual (UCS55)
Spare Parts/Donor
1994 Isuzu Mu 3.1 Manual (UCS69)
Snorkle, Intercooled
1996 Isuzu Mu 3.1 Manual (UCS69)
Completely Standard

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby mulover » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:18 am

They are the same ones I used, except the new part numbers you have listed have an extra 9 in front, guess thats how they up date thier part numbers. The front ones are a touch longer than standard ones hen compressed, but I've cut my bump stops in half and had no problems so far. I know your not supposed to use them upside down, but I'd recommend getting them with the eye on the shaft end to give more clearance around the tie rods.
Oh how i miss my mu, the lux is just not the same :(
User avatar
mulover
Isuzu Master
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:03 am
Age: 27
Country: Australia
City: Mackay
Vehicle: 1990 toyota hilux single cab 2.8

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby turnturn » Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:08 pm

Mulover, I think that the extra 9 may be to do with how many positions of adjustment they have?
My shocks are only 5 position.
Might just about be getting due for some new ones. I think I've done about 140,000ks on those shocks!
Nearly 180,000ks all up for me in the MU. That's about 4.5 times around the equator.
User avatar
turnturn
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 4:26 pm
Age: 57
Country: New Zealand
City: Dunedin
Vehicle: 1992 Isuzu Mu 2.8 Manual (UCS55)
Snorkle, Intercooled
1993 Isuzu Mu 2.8 Manual (UCS55)
Spare Parts/Donor
1994 Isuzu Mu 3.1 Manual (UCS69)
Snorkle, Intercooled
1996 Isuzu Mu 3.1 Manual (UCS69)
Completely Standard

Re: is my computation correct? (extending shackles)

Postby mulover » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:26 pm

Could be, Although mine are 9 way adjustables(99008)??? They are a great shock and I will never use anything else, I think they are well worth the extra dollars you pay for them.
Oh how i miss my mu, the lux is just not the same :(
User avatar
mulover
Isuzu Master
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:03 am
Age: 27
Country: Australia
City: Mackay
Vehicle: 1990 toyota hilux single cab 2.8

PreviousNext

Return to Suspension

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests