ArchM suspension

mydmax
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:36 pm

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by mydmax »

Although the earlier Dmax is different with torsion bars. the lower arm on the new ones, being the only adjustment for camber caster settings has normal rubber bushings with an internal sleeve, so too the 09 models. That sleeve which is what the lower control arm bolts pass through and closes the gap and try to crush the tube. In doing so it clamps the bushings steel inner tube locking it there all it's life.

If the lower arm bolts are not released in their clamping pressure, having to force down the lower arm after ball joint unbolting, means all the movement is taken by twisting the rubber bush innards. It isn't designed to have the bush rubber between the inner and outer of the two arm bushes stressed so far. The arm will try and spring back if the rubber is tensioned by effectively twisting the rubber inside.
Releasing the lower bolts so the inner of the bushes are freed, allows the arm to drop down for suspension work. Don't tighten the lower inner bolts with the arm held down, as in droop position, as it will clamp the inner bushes. That will mean the rubber will be highly stressed when just sitting on suspension. SO, only tighten the inner arm bolts after the weight of the vehicle is again on the strut. That way the lower inner bushes are effectively neutral as they were when fitted.

I have seen people twist rubber bushes for other work and successfully fit the new suspension parts but rip the bush rubbers and later the whole thing has to be removed because the rubber disintegrates becasue it was torn when the service work was done.

Same should be done for rear spring front eyes where the bush has an inner and outer sleeve with the rubber bonded between.
Danno
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:23 am
Location: Darwin... sort of.

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Danno »

Deano74 wrote:
mydmax wrote:
My last Dmax was a 2009 model with torsion front end so im not fimiliar with coil over front end removal. Looks like 4 bolts up underneath and the ball joint nut need to be removed at a quick glance and the whole arm will swing down correct? Not sure what rubber bushes you are talking about is the ones where the arm bolts onto the chasis?
Remove the 4 bolts at the top of the strut unit and the big one at the bottom, then remove the 4 small nuts securing the upper ball joint and the arm will swing free and allow you wrestle the strut out, you may have to disconnect the sway bar as well from both sides first, replacement is simply reversal although you will probably need someone to help get the upper ball joint back in.
Cheers
Dan
Moderator
Google search trick- site:newd-max.net search term here
http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1684
Build thread http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=549
Deano74

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Deano74 »

Danno wrote:
Deano74 wrote:
mydmax wrote:
My last Dmax was a 2009 model with torsion front end so im not fimiliar with coil over front end removal. Looks like 4 bolts up underneath and the ball joint nut need to be removed at a quick glance and the whole arm will swing down correct? Not sure what rubber bushes you are talking about is the ones where the arm bolts onto the chasis?
Remove the 4 bolts at the top of the strut unit and the big one at the bottom, then remove the 4 small nuts securing the upper ball joint and the arm will swing free and allow you wrestle the strut out, you may have to disconnect the sway bar as well from both sides first, replacement is simply reversal although you will probably need someone to help get the upper ball joint back in.
Thanks Dan, advice taken onboard.
I ended up buying a bilstein kit. Hopefully its good as the reviews. I went for 300kg EFS leafs hopefully the right choice as i was thinking about getting 450kg jobs. Cant believe how pathetic the standard suspension is the rear has dropped alot with the exrra weight. I would post pics once its installed but struggling to upload pics.
Cheers
Last edited by Deano74 on Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Danno
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:23 am
Location: Darwin... sort of.

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Danno »

In forgot to mention...leave the bottom bolt of the strut loose and tension it up with the weight of the vehicle on it...do not skip this step! it's very important and will stop the bottom bush of the strut self destructing at an early age.
Cheers
Dan
Moderator
Google search trick- site:newd-max.net search term here
http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1684
Build thread http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=549
Deano74

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Deano74 »

Danno wrote:In forgot to mention...leave the bottom bolt of the strut loose and tension it up with the weight of the vehicle on it...do not skip this step! it's very important and will stop the bottom bush of the strut self destructing at an early age.
Thanks mate. Maybe this is why that bush flogged out on my last Dmax. I would have tightened it while on the jack. It wore out and i replaced it.
Thanks mate
Deano74

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Deano74 »

Got the kit in. The front only went up 30-35mm. The back went up 70mm. I went for 300kg constant leafs. Its a bit down in the front a bit dissapointed. It has a rake of 40-45mm from ground to sill front to back. But it is amazing the difference in drive quality. Drives unreal now. Im hoping the leafs settle down say 15mm would sit good. Apparently these bilstein struts are slightly height adjustable by spinning the spring. Either the front has to go up or back down.
mydmax
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:36 pm

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by mydmax »

If the front is now 30 to 35 higher and 70 mm higher at the rear that is the way mine was when lifted. If you ever carry weight in the rear and go through wash outs or dips, especially if towing a van of some sort, you will be extremely pleased to NOT have it bottom to the bump stops and beyond. Having these vehicle sit level or near to, with no load is not much use. Maybe the look is important to some, but the look matters little when used in trying areas.

With mine heavy loaded and towing a loaded Tvan with belly tank fitted it doesn’t bottom out and stress the chassis past it’s limits. I like that.
Deano74

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Deano74 »

mydmax wrote:If the front is now 30 to 35 higher and 70 mm higher at the rear that is the way mine was when lifted. If you ever carry weight in the rear and go through wash outs or dips, especially if towing a van of some sort, you will be extremely pleased to NOT have it bottom to the bump stops and beyond. Having these vehicle sit level or near to, with no load is not much use. Maybe the look is important to some, but the look matters little when used in trying areas.

With mine heavy loaded and towing a loaded Tvan with belly tank fitted it doesn’t bottom out and stress the chassis past it’s limits. I like that.
Yes i fully get what you are saying. Definitely not all about looks and i dont want it level. Just that too much rake isnt a good thing i dont think. 10-15mm is ideal from what im reading for best overall performance out of your car braking etc. Anyone have 200kg kg springs that want to swap for 300kg jobs? Would like to know gaurd to centre of hub on the front of some lifted colorado/dmaxs!
Attachments
20180819_160255_resized.jpg
mydmax
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:36 pm

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by mydmax »

Deano
I like the attitude of yours, it looks sensible to me for load use. You do have a tray after all and it will carry loads I presume.

You would hardly notice 10 to 15 mm difference, and where would you start to measure it from as a reference point anyway. The only place you can measure is under the flat chassis sections relative to the ground plane.
Having a forward slope to the tray is a definite advantage in that it keeps gear to the front by natural forces.
I can't see how the braking is affected and how there is a such a rule as 10 to 15mm. The weight will be downward in the same spots and the ABS doesn't know it is slightly higher at the rear. Not sure who or what the reading material is but hardly meaningful in my view.
There are plenty of modded road cars with as much rake to front and they brake well because the brakes haven't been altered, neither are yours.
Having that initial height at the rear only reduces the caster a small amount but with a load it becomes near OE anyway.
After I reset my rear springs the 50mm bump stop clearance became 120mm and that sagged with load/use and time.
Danno
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:23 am
Location: Darwin... sort of.

Re: ArchM suspension

Post by Danno »

Deano74 wrote:Got the kit in. The front only went up 30-35mm. The back went up 70mm. I went for 300kg constant leafs. Its a bit down in the front a bit dissapointed. It has a rake of 40-45mm from ground to sill front to back. But it is amazing the difference in drive quality. Drives unreal now. Im hoping the leafs settle down say 15mm would sit good. Apparently these bilstein struts are slightly height adjustable by spinning the spring. Either the front has to go up or back down.
You can if need be remove one of the leafs which will lower it a bit and soften it but you will start possum spotting if you put anything in the back, I used to do it and put the leaf back in when we went travelling but mine were 450's and removing one leaf reduced them to their 300kg spec but my car was raised 55mm on the front (wouldn't advise this you may not get the resulting negative camber out of it) so it wasn't as raked.

My car did nearly 80000k's travelling at 3200 gvm with a Tvan behind for most of that and at the end the Dobinson springs had sagged around 10mm...so don't expect the springs to "settle" very much as all springs these days are scragged to minimise this.
Cheers
Dan
Moderator
Google search trick- site:newd-max.net search term here
http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1684
Build thread http://www.newd-max.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=549
Post Reply