80 series Slinky/ICON Long Travel Suspension officially coming to the U.S.A. (2 Viewers)

[SmokingRocks]

The PO did a crappy cheap job on the suspenssion. I want to say they are 850M? I believe they are a 2.5" lift heavy load spring then the PO added a spacer front and rear to get closer to a 3.5-4" lift. Its back door for sure... But he also had some really crappy shocks on it that only allowed about 1" of down travel so the rig rode like a bucking bronco.

I replaced the shocks with L's and its much better, but now the springs are slack at full drop. My tires hit the wheel wells on full compression (only happens when going way fast over way bumpiness) I realize thats not ideal but meh.

 

[Delancy]

My springs are completely slack when fully dropped.

Which is an issue that these coils should (operative) rectify, more so than only bucket retention.

When there's no downward force on the corner (tire) that's drooped, it's pointless, serves no purpose beyond a ramp queen.

Retainers are a fail.

You might as well limit the corner, via strap, before the coil can become dislodged, before cobbling up retainers, because the additional wheel travel does nothing, if there's no weight to aid traction.

The way the front and rear 80 suspension works, the rigidity of the front axle forces the rear's compliance. If a front corner has no traction at the bottom of the axle's droop, it's doubly screwing traction, because it's now lessened it's ability to impart any force to the rear of the chassis.

In theory, the dual rate (or coil with flexible spacer, as I see it) coil should, not only retain the coil, but also push down on the corner at the extension of wheel travel, which is the bigger benefit.

In plain English everyone can understand .

It's better to have shorter, stiffer than long and floppy.

 

[Delancy]

The PO did a crappy cheap job on the suspenssion.

Don't blame the PO, as it's not entirely their fault.

Instead, fault the companies marketing lift suspensions for the 80, because they're about 65% complete, yet marketed as holistic, and do not perform much more than gaining ground clearance at the chassis.

What it sounds like is the PO reached that point where they realized the 80 suspension offerings all suck, because a 2 1/2" lift coil, spaced (again, with expandable coil rungs), and the Ls travel are about the extent of what one can hope for, before going to a custom shock.

Said it before, but the best way to set up an 80 to perform is mount 39s on stock suspension links, cut anything that gets in the way of out, decent custom coil and corresponding custom shock, and wheel it comfortably while driving comfortably.

 

[SmokingRocks]

Good information thank you. I will say that I am pleased with my Landcruiser ability to flex and because of its Flex it Wheels very well.

However I do know that it is a problem that needs to be addressed, the Springs aren't Slack enough to fully unseat themselves. They just barely at the point where they are fully Slack. But I completely understand your point about traction. Therefore I am certainly interested in better springs as I don't want to limit my articulation.

Oh hell yes I can blame the PO! He cut corners on absolutely everything he touched! Still pulling Chinese crap parts and butt connectors off of her. If my car was a dog the ASPCA would have taken it from him years ago! Someone needs to take his tools away from him before he defiles the 100 that I was told he bought!

 

[GW Nugget]

I agree with @Delancy in regards to a tire that still has downward force to the ground rather than zero to minute downward force has better traction.

To be more exact with the front Slinky coils. With a taller free height than a 850J, the Slinky will still have 160 lbs. of downward force to the ground at full exstension of a long travel shock, rather than a freely hanging tire with a zero to minute downward force of an almost fully exstended 850J. This result will always have a better chance of more traction on the ground.

Spring spec reference:
Front Slinky = 24" free height.
OME 850 = 19.48"/19.88"
OME 850J = 20.27"/20.67"

With a OME L shock fully exstened, the 850J coil is just about ready to release from the perch or bucket, meaning it has a minute amount of downward force left to push down to the ground.

 

[Box Rocket]

Just spent some time on the phone with Justin at Redline. As most of you know Redline will be the US distributor for the Autocraft Slinky suspension kits. Justin said they'll be posting pre-order information for these kits next week on Redline's website and probably here on MUD also. Sounds like kits will be available in the next few weeks-month.

Here's the info I've got so far. There will be a Slinky Intermediate kit (Stage1) that will include coils, 2" smooth body Icon (autocraft spec) shocks, sway bar spacers, bumpstop spacers. Coil options from what I was told will be 50mm, 70mm 75mm. The "Ultimate Touring" coils are a higher spring rate for heavier loaded 80s. I don't have details on the Stage 2-3 kits and how those differ but the Stage 4 is essentially the same as the other kits but include 2.5" CDC piggyback reservoir (with adjustment knob) Icon shocks.

I'm really looking forward to trying these out. Crossing my fingers that they are here in time for Cruise Moab.

 

[Delancy]

because of its Flex it Wheels very well.

No. It's because it's a Land Cruiser that it wheels well.

Beyond the perception of flex improving, the only real gain current 'off the shelf' products afford is the ability to run larger tires, most detracting in other mannerism that negate even that gain.

Not completely relevant, but I would pit a stock suspended 80 on 39s, cut to accommodate, against any known combination of components, everyday, because none address every aspect of the vehicle's dynamics, the way originally engineered.

The common perception that there's gains in opening up wheels travel or increasing flex, based within the confines of the OE platform, are wrong.

I'm not advocating suspension abstinence, but saying that there are fundamentals to suspension design that are completely overlooked by suppliers, because consumers demand cheap products, inherent to which half assed performance is synonymous. Some disregard even the basics, i.e. OME Ls, which cannot continually withstand topping, as they will on an OE 80.

This tirade could continue on, but as it relates to coils, a synopsis:

Down travel should be limited to a precise point where the coil is still sprung and imparting downward force. By allowing a floppy corner, it not only affects traction on the opposing corner, but, because of the way the 80 suspension works, changes the weight bias between the front and rear axles, the latter designed to be compliant to and forced to move by the front.

I know 15% of viewers might read my drivel, 10% may understand, (D'English. It's like a whole 'nother language) and that 0% will impact Darren and Justin's endeavors (anyone else think it's damn strange that Christo isn't in on this?), so stated without guilt.

I, like many, have disregarded detracting input, read only what I wanted to hear, 'overbuilt' or overspent with the goal of reaching crawling zen, on more than one vehicle. At the end of it, be that a realization that throwing hundred dollar bills couldn't fix it, or when having the vehicle righted from its top from a highway shoulder, everytime I asked myself what I gained, I couldn't honestly think of anything, too caught up questioning what I screwed up, then tried to fix, which screwed up more.

(A wiseman (joekatana) once told me I had a distinct way of creating, then finding the problem within every 'solution', which resonates continually, because it was spot on.)

FINALLY, the synopsis:

Slinky coils are a solution to a problem, with their own problems that'll perpetuate into eternity working within the confines of the OE 80.

There's no way to package a coil in the OE buckets, capable of expanding to the open distance and still maintaining downward force, without the coil binding long before bump. This noted after lengthy exchanges with a custom coil producer, that had 4 OE coils on hand to estimate corner weights, precise expanded/compressed measurements, based on the OE vehicle weight (or coil, more precisely).

In closing, after many failures and no successes, I'm still of a mind that thinks the 'best' 80 suspension is the OE configuration* and the 'best' way to build a wheeling 80 is mounting 39s on said suspension, cutting everything that impedes travel out.

*(I said best 80 suspension, not best generally, and not best in the hands of a true suspension guru, at an expense of +$20k)

 

[SmokingRocks]

I get what you are saying and agree with you, I would continue to state that my rig wheels far better now than it did when I bought it from the PO. Most of that can be attributed to Mr. ARB, toyo 35"s and yes I will say more down travel. The OME L's had a solid 3.5 maybe even 4" more length than the PO's shock choice so if the spring is slack at the end of that delta then that is certainly a 'dead zone'. But I argue that for the other 3" of additional travel gained before the 'dead zone' performance was also gained. Should I have it limited in its current state? technically sure. but I have never failed to get up an obstacle that I have tried yet and I know that this is not the permanent setup so I don't care to do this right now.

It is not my plan to leave it as is, rather I intend to legitimize the whole set up over time. Bump stops at the correct height, limiting straps (if needed) at the correct length, springs of the correct size and height.

 

[LFD2037]

No. It's because it's a Land Cruiser that it wheels well.

Beyond the perception of flex improving, the only real gain current 'off the shelf' products afford is the ability to run larger tires, most detracting in other mannerism that negate even that gain.

Not completely relevant, but I would pit a stock suspended 80 on 39s, cut to accommodate, against any known combination of components, everyday, because none address every aspect of the vehicle's dynamics, the way originally engineered.

The common perception that there's gains in opening up wheels travel or increasing flex, based within the confines of the OE platform, are wrong.

I'm not advocating suspension abstinence, but saying that there are fundamentals to suspension design that are completely overlooked by suppliers, because consumers demand cheap products, inherent to which half assed performance is synonymous. Some disregard even the basics, i.e. OME Ls, which cannot continually withstand topping, as they will on an OE 80.

This tirade could continue on, but as it relates to coils, a synopsis:

Down travel should be limited to a precise point where the coil is still sprung and imparting downward force. By allowing a floppy corner, it not only affects traction on the opposing corner, but, because of the way the 80 suspension works, changes the weight bias between the front and rear axles, the latter designed to be compliant to and forced to move by the front.

I know 15% of viewers might read my drivel, 10% may understand, (D'English. It's like a whole 'nother language) and that 0% will impact Darren and Justin's endeavors (anyone else think it's damn strange that Christo isn't in on this?), so stated without guilt.

I, like many, have disregarded detracting input, read only what I wanted to hear, 'overbuilt' or overspent with the goal of reaching crawling zen, on more than one vehicle. At the end of it, be that a realization that throwing hundred dollar bills couldn't fix it, or when having the vehicle righted from its top from a highway shoulder, everytime I asked myself what I gained, I couldn't honestly think of anything, too caught up questioning what I screwed up, then tried to fix, which screwed up more.

(A wiseman (joekatana) once told me I had a distinct way of creating, then finding the problem within every 'solution', which resonates continually, because it was spot on.)

FINALLY, the synopsis:

Slinky coils are a solution to a problem, with their own problems that'll perpetuate into eternity working within the confines of the OE 80.

There's no way to package a coil in the OE buckets, capable of expanding to the open distance and still maintaining downward force, without the coil binding long before bump. This noted after lengthy exchanges with a custom coil producer, that had 4 OE coils on hand to estimate corner weights, precise expanded/compressed measurements, based on the OE vehicle weight (or coil, more precisely).

In closing, after many failures and no successes, I'm still of a mind that thinks the 'best' 80 suspension is the OE configuration* and the 'best' way to build a wheeling 80 is mounting 39s on said suspension, cutting everything that impedes travel out.

*(I said best 80 suspension, not best generally, and not best in the hands of a true suspension guru, at an expense of +$20k)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're not an author or writer/editor for a rag mag, you need to be. Eloquently stated post, once again. (No homo)

 

[FZJohnny]

Interesting! I'll be looking for feedback as to how these kits perform!
I was thinking of going 850J/863 with L's but may stand on the big pedal an see what transpires here first!!!!!

 

[GW Nugget]

Here's the info I've got so far. There will be a Slinky Intermediate kit (Stage1) that will include coils, 2" smooth body Icon (autocraft spec) shocks, sway bar spacers, bumpstop spacers. Coil options from what I was told will be 50mm, 70mm 75mm.

Cool, Justin didn't say anything to me other than a 70mm coil. Good to know. I'm going with a 75mm/3" front & 50mm rear then.



I just want make sure that every one knows that what happen with Delancy's situation was not AutoCraft Slinkies.
His story is completely documented here on mud. I've read hundreds of pages from Delancy & just now barely have begun to understand what he eloquently writes.
The coils where a progressive rate spring rather than a dual rate from another manufacture in AUS that was said to be a 4" spring but ended lifting his 80 to be 5" to 6" of lift. That is way to tall & throws all the original 80 series geometry completely out of wack & in my mind becomes very dangerous to drive. My personal belief is not to go over a 3" suspension lift. I believe this is why AutoCraft does not offer anything past a 75mm lift. I'm very sure that others will disagree & that's OK to have a different opinion.

Nugget AKA Gary

 

[4rings5cyls]

Awesome news. My only question is how different are the autocraft spec icon 2" shocks from icon's off the shelf 2" shocks?

 

[Box Rocket]

Well....that escalated quickly.
I think keeping things in perspective might help here. We're not talking about a purpose built race suspension, nor are we dealing with a vehicle that is even remotely designed for hardcore crawling and massive flex without serious modification.
Every suspension is going to have strengths and weaknesses, even the OEM design, that's why 90% of us here move away from the factory suspension. The argument can surely be made that the factory suspension is well suited to control overall vehicle dynamics. But ride quality isn't the best. Consistently people remarks about improved ride after adding aftermarket suspension. Suspension travel is severely limited by factory length shocks resulting is a greater need for lockers just to maintain forward progress. Even with 39" tires the undercarriage is lower resulting in getting hung up on obstacles more often and greater risk to drivetrain damage. Even if we suppose that the factory setup with 39s is preferred in terms of suspension, how many owners would be willing to chop huge pieces of bodywork off their trucks? Very few. Manufacturers would be on the fast track to bankruptcy if that's what they supplied to consumers.
The fact that Christo isn't in on this doesn't surprise me at all. He has his own line of suspension parts, and why offer a competing product that takes sales away from his own? He'd have lower margins than what he likely gets from selling his own proprietary product. Seems reasonable to me. You could say, well if the slinky suspension is so good why isn't ARB USA or Ironman etc going after it? Same reason, they have their own product. Redline does not have their own line of suspension parts so adding a line like this that they will have some exclusive rights to seems smart to me.
I don't intend any of this to be argumentative, and I understand the principles mentioned by Delancy and don't necessarily disagree. Bottom line is that there will be trade offs regardless, and don't forget cost can be one of those. For me and many others here the goal is to find components with the best performance, the fewest trade offs for our individual needs all at a reasonable cost.
I don't know yet if the slinkies will be the perfect thing yet since I haven't got it yet, but from seeing how well it works on Woodys truck I'm confidently optimistic and look forward to being able to make a comparison to my current OME J/L setup.

Carry on.

 

[Box Rocket]

Awesome news. My only question is how different are the autocraft spec icon 2" shocks from icon's off the shelf 2" shocks?

From what I have been told by Darren and Justin is that all of the Icon shock options offered with the slinkies are tuned/valved specifically to Darren's specs for this setup. So they're not just an off the shelf option.

 

[GW Nugget]

Awesome news. My only question is how different are the autocraft spec icon 2" shocks from icon's off the shelf 2" shocks?

The AutoCraft spec ICON shocks are longer because they are made for the taller Slinky coil to keep it simple. 28" compaired to the ICON 26.5"
This is a quote from Darren in the newest 80 shock thread.

The only 2.0s I have used that I would recommend are the ICON stage 1's, 670mm [26.5"] long, front and rear, valved nicely, suit a vehicle up to around 7000# .

Best bang for your buck 2.0 set up IMHO.

The other "OE" style 2.0 manufacturers I have tried all are acceptable for an elderly gentleman who wants "factory ride" on a stock truck, which also sucks.

2.5's are a whole new ballgame, and valved correctly work extremely well on an 80, especially a heavy 80.

For a 2-3" lift, I would save longer for these with CDC over any 2.0.
91-97 Land Cruiser [80 Series] Performance Shocks System Stage 3

Add CDC from the ICONS, which uses a second piston in the resi, and valve stack, rather than a pintle style adjuster which ups line pressures massively, and you can tune to suit more or less weight, and the way the valving works, the ride is more like 15-20 psi in the tyres on the sharp road bumps, but really soaks up the big stuff. The hose coming manifolded off the body also helps, with the full valving of the shock in the last part of the up travel making for a built in bump zone inside the shock.

It will sit flatter, nose dive alot less, be smooth on the bumpy stuff, and give the bump stops a good rest on the big stuff if you drive it like its stolen.

We have used, had custom made, imported, and built pretty much every major brand of shock from our shop, OE, Pre runner, and Race series, and after beginning to use the Icons, we went to Icon only, because of the way they work, the product, and the ability to make what we want for our market as well.

Icon make alot of custom stuff for us, for our market, mainly Cruisers, our slinky long travels with tapered wire, sway bar links, spacers etc as a bolt in, uses a 12" stroke front and rear, to suit trucks up to 9500# in a 28" front and 29" rear ext length with install kit.

One of those moments where you meet with companies, try products, and end up being able to sell what you do because its the best you can get, rather than all you can get.

I have just installed custom coil overs and bypasses in mine, took a friend for a hell ride last night, with jumps, spoon drains at 45 degree angle turning off the road, at 50 mph, rough train line service road potholed wheel tracks etc, after getting it dialled in.

I think he liked it.

He has stage 1 icons in his 80.

They flex ok too.

 

[Box Rocket]

Cool, Justin didn't say anything to me other than a 70mm coil. Good to know. I'm going with a 75mm/3" then.



I just want make sure that every one knows that what happen with Delancy's situation was not AutoCraft Slinkies.
His story is completely documented here on mud. I've read hundreds of pages from Delancy & just now barely have begun to understand what he eloquently writes.
The coils where a progressive rate spring rather than a dual rate from another manufacture in AUS that was said to be a 4" spring but ended lifting his 80 to be 5" to 6" of lift. That is way to tall & throws all the original 80 series geometry completely out of wack & in my mind becomes very dangerous to drive. My personal belief is not to go over a 3" suspension lift. I believe this is why AutoCraft does not offer anything past a 75mm lift. I'm very sure that others will disagree & that's OK to have a different opinion.

Nugget AKA Gary

I agree completely. Delanceys setup was too tall and clearly not engineered in a way to control truck like it should have. Just to be clear, my last post ( the long one) isn't meant to contradict anything Delancy said. They are excellent points he makes and he's right, very few people understand suspension and the average person is just after a certain amount of lift to achieve a certain look and to fit a tire of their choice.

 

[Mieser]

....In closing, after many failures and no successes, I'm still of a mind that thinks the 'best' 80 suspension is the OE configuration* and the 'best' way to build a wheeling 80 is mounting 39s on said suspension, cutting everything that impedes travel out.

Great post.

I am taking the LONG way around towards that on my new build. I am using a completely stock 1996 LX450 chassis with a 40" tire and am building a custom FJ45-esk pickup body to set on top. By changing the body to something different, along with changing the position of things slightly, I was able to fit the larger tires at full bump. I went as far as to pull all the rubber bumpstops along with the coils so I could mock everything up with the suspension compressed as much as possible.

The J80 chassis is pretty interesting. It has a few annoying things, like how far the rear lower control arm brackets hang down. Overall the chassis is very well built. The 112" wheelbase should work well. The packaging is very well done from the factory with minimal wasted space at bump. Interestingly, with 17x9 wheel and 3.75" backspacing, a 40x13.5 tire will clear the radius are at full lock with the factory steering stop setting. I think that is something about 35 degrees of steering angle. There is even a little extra space for more angle if anything is left in the steering box and Birfields.

Overall, I think people over-emphasize the importance of large amounts of articulation, especially uneven amounts of travel. I think it is best to have about a 50/50 balance of uptravel/downtravel from ride height. For something about this size, a 10-11" shock should be just fine. It appears that the J80 chassis should be capable of using that in the stock form. There seems to be a little extra shock length available on the front and rear suspension, even with the chassis at full metal bump. I doubt the radius arms will allow much more shock than that to be used on articulation...especially with the front radius arms and sway bars still attached.

As far as springs. I agree that you don't want the suspension to ever be completely unloaded. It is best if the suspension maintains at least 1-2" of pre-load on the springs at full extension. I believe the stock suspension has at least that. As mentioned, there is only so much space to package a coil in the stock mounts. You are limited by what can physically can fit at full bump before it blocks out. In general you want the lightest spring that will do the job. If you drastically change the weight of the vehicle, yes, you need a higher spring rate. The main issue is that you basically need the vehicle to stay the same weight.....

Belly clearance. There is always the option of tucking everything up inside the frame in order to gain more clearance. By doing something like that you don't have to lift the vehicle, but you gain more clearance where it is needed. Just because people have been doing something one way forever ( lift to fit tires ) doesn't make it right or wrong. I made sure when building this new car that the belly was completely flat to the frame. This is a common mod in a lot of other circles. I just haven't seen it done much on J80 type stuff.

I have been really impressed with what is happening in with the Jeep JKU crowd. They aftermarket has been bringing some VERY nice shock/spring/bump options to the market in the 0-3" lift range. Overall, the trend isn't about quantity of travel, but rather the QUALITY of the limited amount of travel available in the stock type suspension. It is amazing how fast some of those setups can run in the desert.

That is my general plan on this new car. I will see what stock feels like with a decent amount of weight reduction. Then I will move onto bigger shocks, bumps, straps, etc.....

Sorry that ended up being a book.
Cheers.

 

[silverhorse]

Very Interested! I bought a set of Kings from OZ only to find out once they got here that they had changed from progressive to linear.. So my never used Kings will be going up for adoption!

 

[BVCOTaco]

I am building a 97 Collectors Edition to replace my 96. I might have to put a call in to Redline and check out this lift. i am only planning on running 315s so the 75mm should cover me there.

 

[nukegoat]

Which is an issue that these coils should (operative) rectify, more so than only bucket retention.

When there's no downward force on the corner (tire) that's drooped, it's pointless, serves no purpose beyond a ramp queen.

Retainers are a fail.

You might as well limit the corner, via strap, before the coil can become dislodged, before cobbling up retainers, because the additional wheel travel does nothing, if there's no weight to aid traction.

The way the front and rear 80 suspension works, the rigidity of the front axle forces the rear's compliance. If a front corner has no traction at the bottom of the axle's droop, it's doubly screwing traction, because it's now lessened it's ability to impart any force to the rear of the chassis.

In theory, the dual rate (or coil with flexible spacer, as I see it) coil should, not only retain the coil, but also push down on the corner at the extension of wheel travel, which is the bigger benefit.

In plain English everyone can understand .

It's better to have shorter, stiffer than long and floppy.

Not really true. Ignoring the weight of the axle and tire (which is still something) you need to consider weight transfer and the fact that the shock still provides some damping. Why should you care? Well, rather than three wheeling it and then abruptly landing on a dangling tire you can generally have more control as you descend. Maybe not relevant for most people but it sure doesn't hurt when you're tipsy.

In any case you can argue it's marginal but I'd rather have the tires touching the ground than not.