OK, do I need heavy duty rear springs?

Great to see & hear that you're liking your new suspension Ratbag :biggrin:

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
Sorry, I forgot to add today's photo to my post a couple of doors up ...

I think I'm a bit out of it ATM. It's been a pretty full-on couple of days for a number of unrelated reasons.
 
Today was the acid test. Hitched up the trailer with it having the same weight distribution as when I did the test run last Monday - i.e. about 80 Kgs on the ball. This was over the maximum for the N/A 2.5L Fox (75 Kgs), but equal to the maximum for the 2.5L XT (80 Kgs) (see Page 8-18 of the Oz Owner's Manual for the MY06 - it's bloody hard to find this figure!!).

The rear suspension dropped to around 415 mm from wheel arch to wheel centre (from 425 mm). Spec is 440 mm +12/-24, i.e. from 426 to 452 mm (no trailer attached ... ). I expect that just fitting the tow bar assembly pulls the rear of the car down a bit. It does weigh rather a lot!

After a brief run down to Rickett's Point, I measured again - still 415 mm.
I took the two 10L fuel Jerry cans out of the front tool box and put them right at the back of the trailer bed. Removed some very light weight packing to the front of the trailer to make room for them. They weigh 10 Kgs each (full). I bounced the tow hitch with my full weight to get it to settle, and measured again - 415 mm.

IOW, the weight distribution in the trailer is all but irrelevant with the new rear springs/struts fitted to Roo2. This is an enormous improvement IMO.

When I got home, I measured again at the curb side with the trailer connected. Still 415 mm (both sides).

Took the trailer off and measured again. Now 425 mm (before the new springs/struts were fitted, this measurement was only 400 mm, well under spec of 440 mm +12/-24 mms).

Weighed the ball weight of the trailer (actually the jockey wheel, which will be slightly lighter than the ball weight, but easier and less dangerous for me).
With the two small Jerry cans at the rear of the trailer, the ball weight has now dropped to around 50 Kgs, well within spec for the ball weight for this car.

When the trailer is "properly" loaded, I expect the ball weight to drop to around 40 Kgs maximum.

A couple of comparative photos:

Two years ago with nothing in the trailer, no fuel or water Jerry cans, no tool box:

E-30_JAK_2012-_5027485_Ew.jpg


Last week with the stuffed rear springs (with loaded trailer):

E-30_JAK_2014-_4282419_Ew.jpg


With the new springs today (with loaded trailer):

E-30_JAK_2014-_5032465_E.JPG


Depending on how things go, there may be some 1" lift blocks in my future, but the above seems more than acceptable to me for the present. If I do go that way, I would probably put the blocks all round to preserve the car's attitude to the road, and leave the front springs/struts stock. An extra inch at the rear would give an unladen wheel arch to wheel centre measurement of 450 mm - i.e. still within normal spec of 440 mm +12/-24). I would expect this measurement with the trailer attached to be 440 mm - i.e. exactly specified height for a standard Forester.

Far from feeling harsher or firmer, the car now seems better connected with the road than ever, even before the rear suspension effectively collapsed. There is slightly more body roll. I put this down to the fact that there was no component able to roll with the stuffed springs ... :poke: :lol:.

New and old spring/strut assemblies are exactly the same unladen length - 715 mm. The new ones have seven complete coils, the old OEM ones had six complete coils.
 
G'day RB,
The new ones have seven complete coils, the old OEM ones had six complete coils.
The reason for the difference with the self levelling spring having less coils is because unlike a traditional spring/strut setup, the self levelling strut took all the weight not the spring which is why when the strut fails the rear of the car sags.
Out of interest what was the condition of the self levelling struts when they were removed. One of mine I could pull and push the piston up and down with no resistance !!

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Gidday HC

Yeah, the SLS system does take some of the load, but it is pumped up by the movement of the suspension as one drives along. That is, if it's not stuffed ... :iconwink: :lol:.

Shock absorbers (struts, whatever ... ) are not meant to take any of the load of the vehicle, merely control the otherwise unrestrained movement of the spring.

It does seem to me that what Pedders told me about the replacements is borne out in practice. The new rear is very slightly firmer, barely noticeable. Because it is working as designed (instead of being stuffed ... ), the road contact is greatly improved.

The fact that the wheel arch/wheel centre doesn't change to any (roughly) measurable extent whether there is 80 Kgs on the ball or 50 Kgs indicates to me that the new rear end is behaving as I had hoped it would.

Of course, driving with a high ball weight is not a good practice IMNSHO, because it will eventually ruin the rear suspension of the car ... again.

I have bought some s/h bathroom scales to carry with me. I aim to have the ball weight (actually jockey wheel weight) between 40 to 50 Kgs. 40 Kgs is more than sufficient IMO. Just moving the 2x 10L Jerry cans to the rear of the trailer instead of in the front tool box, the ball weight has dropped from 80 Kgs to 50 Kgs. Much more sensible. They weigh 10 Kgs each (full). Doing this made zero difference to the ride height of the car at the rear. So it appears that the new springs and struts were the answer.

I am happy with that.
Rear ride height without the trailer is 425 mm.
Rear ride height with the trailer is 415 mm.
With 1" lift blocks, this would increase to 440-450 mm, just within the upper limit of the vehicle spec (440 mm +12/-24 mms).
 
Ratbag - great to see this has worked for you, and thanks for posting up pics, measurements etc - makes it so much easier to assess my own similar issue.
 
You're welcome, TG.

I shall see how well the solution that I have chosen works out over the coming months. I don't want or need some kind of off-road monster, just a car that will take me reliably and safely where I want to go. Being "brave" when expeditioning is just plain foolhardy at my age, or any other time, for that matter ... :poke:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of interest what was the condition of the self levelling struts when they were removed. One of mine I could pull and push the piston up and down with no resistance !!

Cheers

When my original front shocks came out at 210, 000. 90,000 of my ownership you could push them down like a feather and they wouldn't even come up. Lol
Putting new ones in changed everything about how it rode and handled.
 
G'day RB,
where did you get this spec from?
I just measured my wheel arch height to centre of hub.

Spec is F = 437 mm; R = 440 mm.

Mine is F = 434 mm; R = 400 mm - and that's just sitting at the curb, without even a spare wheel in the boot!
Cheers
 
OEM specification for suspension height for SG Forester

Just an update, Folks

I just parked our SG more or less level and measured it as per Richard's instructions in the link given in the post above.

Fronts are both 435 mm and rears both 432 mm. The car is sitting down a touch in the rear, as I have some stuff in the cargo area, and the secondary battery behind the P/S seat.

OEM Specs for the N/A SG per Richard's post are:

F: 437 +12/-24 and R: 440 +12/-24

So mine is currently sitting about -2 mm at the front and -8 mm at the rear below the OEM specified mid-point for ride height. If one could remove the tow bar assembly from mine, I suspect that it would be a bit above spec at the rear. That thing must weigh at least 50-80 Kgs ... Rated to tow 1,800 Kgs with a ball weight of 180 Kgs!! Far exceeds the towing capacity and ball weight for the car.

After some 9 months with the new Pedders rear suspension, I am a happy camper ... :) :ebiggrin:.
 
Interestingly, with the new roo bar (+ light bar and aerial - the total increase in weight over the OEM bar is about 20-21 Kgs), the car seems to handle more 'nicely'. Just around the suburbs mind, going to the shops and such like.

I don't even know how to adequately describe it. More like my '93 Impreza than before.

It just seems to be more square on the road at the front. I know that F:R weight distribution can quite dramatically affect handling, but hadn't really turned my mind to the effect of putting a further 20 Kgs at the very front of the car.

Anyway, I'm just pleased that the handling appears more certain rather than less.

I'm also coming to like the look of the new front better ... :biggrin:. Even better is the improvement in approach angle/s.

Now I only need to re-attach the inner mudguard linings. After all, there is a lot of stuff hiding behind the front bumper ... e.g.

E-510_JAK_2015-_6208263_Ew.jpg


E-510_JAK_2015-_6198252_Ew.jpg
 
Back
Top