View Single Post
  #17  
Old 06-16-2007, 01:40 AM
Nay's Avatar
Nay Nay is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 842
Default

Christo, I think you are seeing it right. It's not a large progressive aspect. I don't have pics of the final springs, though. I didn't take them because I didn't have OME to lay them side by side anymore.

I don't know the final spring rates even though I know where it started, which was a direct comp to OME medium. I can say the rear was increased and if we can say all spring rates are equal, which is probably a bad assumption, then this should be pretty close to OME J front to rear, OME J being 220/250. The FOR rear are something in the 10-15% range stiffer than the fronts, but I was never that close to it to know final rates. The coil design is quite different - there are less winds compared to OME and I'd guess given coil prices a different alloy composite.

I do agree that the use of Bilstein shocks is a part of the feel. These don't feel much different to me to the 255/70 valved 5100's I've run before on my XJ with an increased spring rate. I probably had 10 suspension iterations on the XJ before settling into a slightly higher spring rate (ZJ coils up front) and Bilstein 5100's. That result has been pretty much duplicated on my 80 so I'm satisfied that it is a consistent approach that plays well as a general suspension design for lifted 4x4's.

The biggest problem for every lift between your 4" kit and OME medium is a predictable caster result without vibes. We can talk springs all day long, but caster is that tail that wags the dog and you just can't take bets on doing anything but staying at 2" up front or explicitly designing for a front DC. For anybody looking at 35's that's got to be a top 1 or 2 question.
Reply With Quote