[Eggie]

Hi all,

just asking for some knowledge on where I could find lifted suspension, or if any other cars have compatible suspension that I could use. also wanting to ask what other cars have the same wheel nut pattern as the Sierra I believe it’s 5x5.

Cheers.

[Gwagensteve]

PCD is 5 on 5.5" (5X 139.7) it is shared with Jeep CJ, early F150, early Daihatsu, Lada Niva, international scout, early Kia Sportage. It is now pretty much redundant as large centre bore PCD's aren't required anymore. Note you have an SJ80, which runs different offset to a leaf sprung Sierra (25P rather than 5P) Vitara fitment is the best choice of rims.


There are two fairly readily available suspension kits available for the SJ80. One is an eBay special, a mix of Ultima shocks and king springs. It offers 2" of lift and is nothing special- the shocks are of average quality. The other is the 4X4art 4" kit from turkey. Lots of people seem to talk this kit up but I'm not convinced it's well resolved and in any case, 4" is far too much lift. It basically requires welding and I don't believe that lift height could be engineered in Australia, so the car will not be legal.

There is no readily available or bolt in "alternative" suspension. Some people have removed the coil and shock mount from the front of a jimmy and welded that to the SJ80 chassis in order to eliminate the "strut" design Suzuki used. Obviously this is a fairly significant modification with legal ramifications. (chassis welding) I have heard of someone using a strut from something else but again, it required custom work. It is possible to have front shocks modified to fit the coil seat (I have experience with this) but it requires a small diameter shock to be used which limits choices, in the car I was involved with this was a custom valved Koni shock.

My first question is what do you want the lift to achieve? If it's room for bigger tyres, that's not the purpose of a suspension lift and it's a fallacy. The biggest tyre that fits the car is the biggest tyre that fits with the suspension fully compressed, (axles on the bumpstops) and fully flexed. A suspension lift doesn't change those points, it just changes the rest position of the suspension. Once the vehicle is in motion, the axles will move through the same arc of motion they moved with the standard springs.

A suspension lift can assist with ground clearance at the sills of chassis and approach and departure angles, it can assist in increased speed over the ground through reducing bottoming out, and, if the springs have a higher spring rate as they almost always do, can assist in load carrying by preventing excessive suspension bottoming when laden. That doesn't mean the car can carry more weight, just that it won't sag as much while doing it.

In the case of the SJ80 specifically, it's an example of some very rushed/cheap engineering to convert a leaf spring car to coil springs, purely to make the car ride and handle more like a road car, which is how most Sierras are used in their home market. Some heavy compromises were introduced as a result of retaining the majority of the chassis of the leaf sprung car. Notably, the front strut design, and the rear springs being set so far inboard. Also, whilst radius arms are easy to package, cheap and simple, they have some negative traits, mostly, high roll stiffness and bushing bind, which aren't an issue in standard form, used on road, but off road these issues become dominant in the behaviour of the vehicle.

Why am I typing all this? Because the compromises engineered into the SJ80 suspension makes it a minefield. Putting in lift springs, which are almost always stiffer (higher rate) reduces wheel travel, and makes the front suspension unload when climbing. suspension lift reduces caster, which is already inadequate in an SJ80 because Suzuki was trying to make the steering light at parking speeds. You can't use offset caster bushes as they are urethane (stiffer) so they increase roll stiffness even more leading to more wheel lifting, and they crack the axle brackets. On the car I worked on, we re drilled the brackets on the axle to roll the axle backwards to increase caster. This required the original holes to be plated over (a welding job) it did help no end though in improving tracking at speed.

More information about your intended use/what you want the lift to achieve would be helpful. If you're running the car heavy (near GVM) the basic eBay 2" lift will restore compression travel and help level the car for general touring use. If you wish to run larger tyres, you'll need to resolve how to do that ( body lift/bumpstop spacing, guard work and most importantly gearing) irrespective of the car's ride height. If you are looking to improve off road behaviour, particularly when climbing, you'll really need to look at eliminating the front strut design with, perhaps, jimmy parts, and increasing rear roll stiffness with a swaybar. lowering front roll stiffness further isn't really possible without significant fabrication, so raising rear roll stiffness will have a similar effect even if it reduces apparent flex. Rear flex has very little (positive) effect on vehicle behaviour when off road, what the front end is doing is far more important.

[Beery]

Have you ever fitted a sway bar to an sj80, Gwagen?

I've seen you mention it before and it makes sense. Me and a mate were chatting about it on our last trip and he seems keen to implement one as his car really does behave terribly on climbs.

Any suggestions on what to use? I've got some WT and NT front sway bars here I figured might be a good start as to not be crazy stiff. I haven't had a decent look under the car yet though, so No idea if they're suitable as far as packaging goes.

[Gwagensteve]

No I haven't. It's a long time since we've had an SJ80 in the club who an owner was interested in playing with - it's more Jimny's which don't seem quite as bad. I've certainly encouraged anyone building link suspension with inboard rear springs on a Sierra to run a swaybar. JD used an NB(?) MX-5 bar on top of the chassis in the gap where the chassis sweeps down in the front of the rear wheel arch. The ideal bar would probably be from a 1.0 Sierra LWB Styleside. These run in front of the rear axle forwards to the chassis, although the SJ80 shocks might be in the way. Jonno runs one of these on his car but is reluctant to use it off road because his car has a lot of travel and low roll stiffness which risks breaking the bar. As it's unobtainiun and he uses it to improve road manners it's probably wise call.

A NT or WT front bar mounted under the fuel tank might work, kind of like the rear of a discovery/defender with swaybars. I actually looked at running a defender rear swaybar on my car but it was going to foul the tyres (when I was running the Krawlers) I would have room now but with outboard shocks and springs I don't suffer from excessive body roll and the car balances very well so I don't need it now.

[Beery]

Gwagensteve wrote:

No I haven't. It's a long time since we've had an SJ80 in the club who an owner was interested in playing with

He's kind of at that point too. It's on 31's with 4.9's and is rear locked, and that's basically its limit, there's not really much point going any further with it as it's all a bit of a dead end without major work, but a sway bar could be the ticket to at least get it more driveable. It should be more capable than what it is I think, but it constantly just lifts front wheels and flops over on stuff that's really not that difficult.

thanks for the suggestions, I'll do a post if we go through with it. I'm pretty interested to see what the outcome would be.

[Gwagensteve]

That’s exactly the setup of the car I worked on. Same thing with it off road.

[Red89]

Beery wrote:

Gwagensteve wrote:

No I haven't. It's a long time since we've had an SJ80 in the club who an owner was interested in playing with

He's kind of at that point too. It's on 31's with 4.9's and is rear locked, and that's basically its limit, there's not really much point going any further with it as it's all a bit of a dead end without major work, but a sway bar could be the ticket to at least get it more driveable. It should be more capable than what it is I think, but it constantly just lifts front wheels and flops over on stuff that's really not that difficult.

thanks for the suggestions, I'll do a post if we go through with it. I'm pretty interested to see what the outcome would be.

Beery, have a look at the late 90s Swift gti front sway bars, I used to have one on the rear of my buggy that I got off a wreck. It would handle 16 inches of airshock travel but would also sit nice and flat when cornering at speed.

Attachment:

Screenshot_20230523_094836_Google.jpg

Attachment:

Screenshot_20230523_095915_Facebook.jpg

[Gwagensteve]

That looks like it would be easy to package.

[Beery]

Thanks Red89, I'll keep it in mind.

[Red89]

Beery wrote:

Thanks Red89, I'll keep it in mind.

No worries. The standard Swift swaybar is the exact same shape as well just a thinner bar, so it is another lighter weight option that flexes just as much. From memory the GTi is 16mm and the standard is 12mm.

[Eggie]

Gwagensteve wrote:

PCD is 5 on 5.5" (5X 139.7) it is shared with Jeep CJ, early F150, early Daihatsu, Lada Niva, international scout, early Kia Sportage. It is now pretty much redundant as large centre bore PCD's aren't required anymore. Note you have an SJ80, which runs different offset to a leaf sprung Sierra (25P rather than 5P) Vitara fitment is the best choice of rims.


There are two fairly readily available suspension kits available for the SJ80. One is an eBay special, a mix of Ultima shocks and king springs. It offers 2" of lift and is nothing special- the shocks are of average quality. The other is the 4X4art 4" kit from turkey. Lots of people seem to talk this kit up but I'm not convinced it's well resolved and in any case, 4" is far too much lift. It basically requires welding and I don't believe that lift height could be engineered in Australia, so the car will not be legal.

There is no readily available or bolt in "alternative" suspension. Some people have removed the coil and shock mount from the front of a jimmy and welded that to the SJ80 chassis in order to eliminate the "strut" design Suzuki used. Obviously this is a fairly significant modification with legal ramifications. (chassis welding) I have heard of someone using a strut from something else but again, it required custom work. It is possible to have front shocks modified to fit the coil seat (I have experience with this) but it requires a small diameter shock to be used which limits choices, in the car I was involved with this was a custom valved Koni shock.

My first question is what do you want the lift to achieve? If it's room for bigger tyres, that's not the purpose of a suspension lift and it's a fallacy. The biggest tyre that fits the car is the biggest tyre that fits with the suspension fully compressed, (axles on the bumpstops) and fully flexed. A suspension lift doesn't change those points, it just changes the rest position of the suspension. Once the vehicle is in motion, the axles will move through the same arc of motion they moved with the standard springs.

A suspension lift can assist with ground clearance at the sills of chassis and approach and departure angles, it can assist in increased speed over the ground through reducing bottoming out, and, if the springs have a higher spring rate as they almost always do, can assist in load carrying by preventing excessive suspension bottoming when laden. That doesn't mean the car can carry more weight, just that it won't sag as much while doing it.

In the case of the SJ80 specifically, it's an example of some very rushed/cheap engineering to convert a leaf spring car to coil springs, purely to make the car ride and handle more like a road car, which is how most Sierras are used in their home market. Some heavy compromises were introduced as a result of retaining the majority of the chassis of the leaf sprung car. Notably, the front strut design, and the rear springs being set so far inboard. Also, whilst radius arms are easy to package, cheap and simple, they have some negative traits, mostly, high roll stiffness and bushing bind, which aren't an issue in standard form, used on road, but off road these issues become dominant in the behaviour of the vehicle.

Why am I typing all this? Because the compromises engineered into the SJ80 suspension makes it a minefield. Putting in lift springs, which are almost always stiffer (higher rate) reduces wheel travel, and makes the front suspension unload when climbing. suspension lift reduces caster, which is already inadequate in an SJ80 because Suzuki was trying to make the steering light at parking speeds. You can't use offset caster bushes as they are urethane (stiffer) so they increase roll stiffness even more leading to more wheel lifting, and they crack the axle brackets. On the car I worked on, we re drilled the brackets on the axle to roll the axle backwards to increase caster. This required the original holes to be plated over (a welding job) it did help no end though in improving tracking at speed.

More information about your intended use/what you want the lift to achieve would be helpful. If you're running the car heavy (near GVM) the basic eBay 2" lift will restore compression travel and help level the car for general touring use. If you wish to run larger tyres, you'll need to resolve how to do that ( body lift/bumpstop spacing, guard work and most importantly gearing) irrespective of the car's ride height. If you are looking to improve off road behaviour, particularly when climbing, you'll really need to look at eliminating the front strut design with, perhaps, jimmy parts, and increasing rear roll stiffness with a swaybar. lowering front roll stiffness further isn't really possible without significant fabrication, so raising rear roll stiffness will have a similar effect even if it reduces apparent flex. Rear flex has very little (positive) effect on vehicle behaviour when off road, what the front end is doing is far more important.

Cheers for the information, I’d go for a body lift since it’s cheaper and seems easier to install, but the oem suspension on the sj80 is average at best and since it’s 30 years old and it’s on its way out, so I might end up doing something with the suspension.

[Eggie]

Gwagensteve wrote:

PCD is 5 on 5.5" (5X 139.7) it is shared with Jeep CJ, early F150, early Daihatsu, Lada Niva, international scout, early Kia Sportage. It is now pretty much redundant as large centre bore PCD's aren't required anymore. Note you have an SJ80, which runs different offset to a leaf sprung Sierra (25P rather than 5P) Vitara fitment is the best choice of rims.


There are two fairly readily available suspension kits available for the SJ80. One is an eBay special, a mix of Ultima shocks and king springs. It offers 2" of lift and is nothing special- the shocks are of average quality. The other is the 4X4art 4" kit from turkey. Lots of people seem to talk this kit up but I'm not convinced it's well resolved and in any case, 4" is far too much lift. It basically requires welding and I don't believe that lift height could be engineered in Australia, so the car will not be legal.

There is no readily available or bolt in "alternative" suspension. Some people have removed the coil and shock mount from the front of a jimmy and welded that to the SJ80 chassis in order to eliminate the "strut" design Suzuki used. Obviously this is a fairly significant modification with legal ramifications. (chassis welding) I have heard of someone using a strut from something else but again, it required custom work. It is possible to have front shocks modified to fit the coil seat (I have experience with this) but it requires a small diameter shock to be used which limits choices, in the car I was involved with this was a custom valved Koni shock.

My first question is what do you want the lift to achieve? If it's room for bigger tyres, that's not the purpose of a suspension lift and it's a fallacy. The biggest tyre that fits the car is the biggest tyre that fits with the suspension fully compressed, (axles on the bumpstops) and fully flexed. A suspension lift doesn't change those points, it just changes the rest position of the suspension. Once the vehicle is in motion, the axles will move through the same arc of motion they moved with the standard springs.

A suspension lift can assist with ground clearance at the sills of chassis and approach and departure angles, it can assist in increased speed over the ground through reducing bottoming out, and, if the springs have a higher spring rate as they almost always do, can assist in load carrying by preventing excessive suspension bottoming when laden. That doesn't mean the car can carry more weight, just that it won't sag as much while doing it.

In the case of the SJ80 specifically, it's an example of some very rushed/cheap engineering to convert a leaf spring car to coil springs, purely to make the car ride and handle more like a road car, which is how most Sierras are used in their home market. Some heavy compromises were introduced as a result of retaining the majority of the chassis of the leaf sprung car. Notably, the front strut design, and the rear springs being set so far inboard. Also, whilst radius arms are easy to package, cheap and simple, they have some negative traits, mostly, high roll stiffness and bushing bind, which aren't an issue in standard form, used on road, but off road these issues become dominant in the behaviour of the vehicle.

Why am I typing all this? Because the compromises engineered into the SJ80 suspension makes it a minefield. Putting in lift springs, which are almost always stiffer (higher rate) reduces wheel travel, and makes the front suspension unload when climbing. suspension lift reduces caster, which is already inadequate in an SJ80 because Suzuki was trying to make the steering light at parking speeds. You can't use offset caster bushes as they are urethane (stiffer) so they increase roll stiffness even more leading to more wheel lifting, and they crack the axle brackets. On the car I worked on, we re drilled the brackets on the axle to roll the axle backwards to increase caster. This required the original holes to be plated over (a welding job) it did help no end though in improving tracking at speed.

More information about your intended use/what you want the lift to achieve would be helpful. If you're running the car heavy (near GVM) the basic eBay 2" lift will restore compression travel and help level the car for general touring use. If you wish to run larger tyres, you'll need to resolve how to do that ( body lift/bumpstop spacing, guard work and most importantly gearing) irrespective of the car's ride height. If you are looking to improve off road behaviour, particularly when climbing, you'll really need to look at eliminating the front strut design with, perhaps, jimmy parts, and increasing rear roll stiffness with a swaybar. lowering front roll stiffness further isn't really possible without significant fabrication, so raising rear roll stiffness will have a similar effect even if it reduces apparent flex. Rear flex has very little (positive) effect on vehicle behaviour when off road, what the front end is doing is far more important.

Cheers for the information, I’d go for a body lift since it’s cheaper and seems easier to install, but the oem suspension on the sj80 is average at best and since it’s 30 years old and it’s on its way out, so I might end up doing something with the suspension.