[ronancosgrove]

Hi guys,

I've been considering a 50mm lift kit for my 1983 1.0 Sierra. The existing leaf springs are flat or even worse, the might actually curve downward!

Everything on my car is stock standard at this stage so no modifications done yet. My question is: exactly what new kit do I need to do this 50mm lift.

I've seen lots of lift kits on eBay some of which include only the leaf springs and u-bolts, others include leaf springs u-bolts and shocks. Others even include all that and schackles!

If I only purchase the leaf springs and u-bolts, will I be able to install them without changing the shocks, considering that the existing shows are standard and the new leaf springs are for a 50mm lift.

I understand this might be a bit of a stupid question but I'd appreciate your advice on exactly what I'll need to buy.

Cheers.

Here's the 3 different kits I've considered from eBay:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/132008912036

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/131926147741

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/401193105476

[Asho]

You will need to get new shocks for the 50mms lift, as the standard shocks will be 50mms to short. The shackles and U-bolts shouldn't need to be changed, but the new springs might be wider (I doubt it ).

Also I wouldn't recommend buying cheap springs as your guaranteed to get a bad/ hard ride with cheap springs. Old man Emus are expensive I will admit, and they don't like getting dents, but are the best for ride (besides total custom job).

[Gwagensteve]

Asho wrote:

You will need to get new shocks for the 50mms lift, as the standard shocks will be 50mms to short. The shackles and U-bolts shouldn't need to be changed, but the new springs might be wider (I doubt it ).

There is no such thing as a shock for a 50mm lift.
Most aftermarket shocks are slightly longer compressed and slightly longer extended and have slightly less travel than standard. For th shock to provide uninhibited travel for the new springs which wiill have more free camber they'd need to be much longer than the comproessed length permitted by the standard mounts. It's more important that the new shock has increased valving to adequately control the increased spring rate lifted springs provide.

u bolts are supposed to be single use and are unique to the 1.0 litre car as it has smaller diameter axlehousings than the 1.3 car. They are often not long enough for lift springs if all leaves are retained in the pack.

Steve.

[ronancosgrove]

Thanks for the info Asho & Steve. I'll have a look at OME springs but will probably buy cheaper ones. I'm not really too concerned with ride quality. The springs at present look like they're inverted so apart from some ride quality improvement, I just want the car to sit a bit higher than currently does as there is barely enough room for 235/75/R15 tyres which I just bought. I doubt the ride quality could get much worse that the current situation.

Thanks again fellows.

[alien]

Gwagensteve wrote:

u bolts

From 1983, they'll probably have to be cut off!

[ronancosgrove]

Thanks for the info lads.

Yes indeed, they might need to be cut off!

RC

[got_bar_work]

Spring lift wont make any more room for tires. Only body lift,bumpstop spacer or cutting makes more room

[Gwagensteve]

got_bar_work wrote:

Spring lift wont make any more room for tires. Only body lift,bumpstop spacer or cutting makes more room

This. The message is always the same.

A spring lift just resets the rest position of the suspension higher. When in use, the axles can move into the same position they could with the factory springs, so no more room has been created by the suspension lift, only the rest position has changed when the car is parked in the driveway.

The primary reasons for suspension lift are to retain factory height when laden, and to provide increased compression suspension travel before bottoming. This increases the speed you can travel in rough terrain. The other perceived benefits are marginal (improved ground clearance - because diff clearance is far more important than chassis clearance, and lift also raises centre of gravity) largely false (improved wheel travel - almost never happens) or totally false (fits bigger tyres)

A 1.0 litre car is marginally lighter than a 1.3 car. Any aftermarket spring designed for a 1.3 is likely to provide slightly higher than the implied lift, and correspondingly a harsher ride. Ride quality in a leaf sierra can be quite good - there's certainly no reason to disregard it when choosing to replace the suspension - it's the #1 reason you'd want to replace it.

It's common in cars of your age for the shackles to be badly corroded or even cracked. They have a press fit design and this often wears badly. It's not a bad idea to replace the shackles.

My preference is Old Man Emu (OME) for springs. They seem to be the softest riding. I believe there are two load ratings for the rear, make sure you go with the lighter rating.

OME shocks are well valved for a Sierra and contribute to the softer ride this kit offers. Many aftermarket sierra shocks are excessively stiff. Leaf spring sierras barely need shocks at all.

As an aside, 1.0 sierras left the factory with front springs basically flat. There seems to be a belief that this is bad or wrong. Flat springs ride much better than arched springs. the TTB Ford F350 left the factory with inverted front springs. Spring camber is a design parameter, adding arch isn't automatically good.

Steve.

[ronancosgrove]

Ah! All food for thought.
Thanks for the info.

[ZUZUKI]

I absolutely understand the theory of why 'lifted springs alone don't allow for larger tyre fitment' - but in practice, it can / does (maybe / probably only in a handful of applications?).
Note - all coils in the Vitara / Grand Vitara range.

SQ625 GV - std 3month old car, fitted 225/70R16 BFG A/T - went (heavily laden) to the Younghusband Peninsula (SA, mouth of the Murray River) & was soon belting the rear wheel arch seams with my tent peg hammer, to stop the seams taking more chunks out of my tyres!
Tyres still hit with this mod, but not so hard.
Shortly after, fitted lifted OME springs & shocks / struts (but NOTHING else) & had only the very occasional light touch rubbing.
Eventually & subsequently upped the tyre size a little to 225/75R16 - BFG A/Ts & then Cooper Discover ST Maxx in the same size, still on the original OME springs, by this stage 8 years old (they are still in the car, but the shocks/ struts have been changed - new set of OME's) - continue to have only slight rubbing, regardless of how heavy car is loaded (still have rear mudflaps on), only really when hitting a dip at speed, when the car comes down on the rear axle evenly.

I think two things happen: 1) the 'pivot point' of the suspension cycling starts further away from the car, so even though links, bumpstops etc are all in the original locations, the tyre is able to travel in a slightly lower arc, which aids clearance.
2) the increased spring rate (to acheive the lift) means the car spends less time near or on the bumpstops, or when it does hit the bumpstop, its not compressing it as hard.

In this case, my experience has been that "yes, lifted springs alone, can make a larger tyre fit" - certainly much more so than that larger tyre did on standard springs.

Let the debate continue to rage!
Rgs, Michael

[Zook_Fan]

1) The instant centre will be in a different location at ride height which is maybe the arc you are talking about? But the tyres cannot follow a different path from standard unless the link lengths are changed. It has to pivot around these points, that's how physics works. If you are talking about the front in a 2.5L GV you are physically changing the link lengths by changing the struts which gives an extension of the stock arc, not a new one.

2) To achieve a lift you need a greater preload on a vehicle, not necessarily an increased spring rate, however most "lift kits" do increase spring rate as it is the cheaper option. While you spend less time near or on the bumpstops that does not mean that you will not get there and by the same token that you won't compress it as hard, ignoring a suspension system that was so oversprung it is not possible for the suspension to work properly.

On your GV you changed your springs that gave a static increase in ride height however you also changed the struts. If the collapsed length of the strut/shock was even slightly longer you would be bottoming the shock out before the bumpstops came into contact, giving you tyre clearance at the expense of damaging shocks.

[ZUZUKI]

I agree my experience with my car doesn't sit well with suspension theory, however, sometimes theory & real world practice can act a little apart from each other.
1) A variation in Instant centre sounds like what I'm thinking is going on. If you took the springs out of the car, then yes, the wheel / tyre combo would follow the same arc / path & end up in the same place every time - until something wears out or breaks. But having a longer &/or stiffer spring surely influences the arc of travel?
The front has never been an issue (other than tyre rub on the chassis), but it has had an alloy TJM bar fitted from basically new, so I don't what clearances would have been like with the standard bumper.
2) I'm not sure what preload is in this context. It does still hit the bumpstops occasionally & does still rub occasionally (mostly just forward of the door shut line on the rear) - but noting like it did with the original suspension.
The rear springs are OME 961 - nothing radical. I'm pretty sure ARB/OME don't offer kits that compromise shock life by being the (compressed) limit of travel, rather than the bumpstops.

As part of the fitment, the installer takes measurements (1/11/2000, at 16,746km) - rim to guard
Front L/H - stock 676mm, after fitting, 696mm (=+20mm), after 500km (actually 1512km, 14/11/2000) 691mm (= +15mm over stock)
Front R/H - (no.s in the same order) 672mm, 691mm = +19, 684mm = +14mm over stock.
Rear L/H - 663mm, 697mm = +34mm, 684mm = +21mm over stock.
Rear R/H - 648mm (seems like an awful lot of lean), 685mm = +37mm, 684mm = +36mm over stock.
This is with the alloy bar, 88litre custom long range replacement tank & custom heavy duty square hitch tow bar fitted.

Rgs, Michael.

P.S - sorry to the OP for the hijack.

[fordem]

With a link suspension a longer/stiffer spring will not significantly alter the arc of travel, it will simply change the rest position along that arc - you have however also changed the shock and that can influence the beginning and end points of the arc.

Based on the notes I have on hand the OME N105 (rear shocks) that I fitted were 35mm longer compressed, than the shocks I removed (Monroe Adventure D7644) and 40mm longer, extended. Whilst I don't know the compressed & extended lengths of the OE Suzuki shock, experience with Monroe Adventure shocks on other vehicles suggest that their product adheres very closely to the OE lengths.

I do agree with you that OME are unlikely to offer a spring & shock combination that would compromise shock life, so what is most likely happening is that they (OME) have already determined that the compressed end point of the arc of travel (which is going to be determined by the bumpstop) allows for the additional compressed length of their shock.

The extended end point of the arc of travel is in this case, dictated by the extended length of the shock so that will change.