Suspension Database

[BBBJU]

While the valving of the first gen struts was ok, the real question is if the very low rebound in the first gen rear shocks has been increased to a magnitude that is appropriate for off-road handling, otherwise you'll end up with a pogo stick in a loaded Prado!

Ah, thank you for pointing that out, that was not an issue I had thought of. I'll see if Koni will provide any numbers on the compression+rebound of the shock.

Picking out suspension for the car is taking a surprising amount of effort - nothing seems quite right for the job!

[Whitey]

Hey Brad,

These lengths are an improvement over the first gen RAIDS, but the strut open length is still shortish, and the shock closed length is longish, and you'll prolly want to space your rear bumpstops a little.

While the valving of the first gen struts was ok, the real question is if the very low rebound in the first gen rear shocks has been increased to a magnitude that is appropriate for off-road handling, otherwise you'll end up with a pogo stick in a loaded Prado!

Best

Mark

[BBBJU]

Hi,

Koni apparently have some new shocks which they say is suitable for a Prado with a raised suspension. They include an adjustable rebound feature and are serviceable. Details below:

· Front Part No: 88-1712SP2 Max/Min: 560/432 mm
· Rear Part No: 90-5404L/RSP2 Max/Min: 617/391 mm


I am considering getting these for my car as part of a 40mm lift. Does anyone have any experience with them? How is the off-road performance? The Max/Min specs for the front suspension seems a little short in travel. Any opinions?

Cheers,
Brad

[Reno1986]

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry to ask but how may I download the table to my computer?

Thanks a lot

Reno

[photoprado]

Front struts

MR59-50221 old 427-560mm (Prado 120) same
MR59-50700 427-570mm (Prado 150) new 427-555mm

Really? The 120 MRR's are longer than the 150's now?

Doesn't sound right (or good)

[Whitey]

Hey amts,

Here are some revisions to the Dobinsons old GS59- and new MR59- series struts and shocks;

Front struts

GS59-221 old 427-548mm new 427-540mm
GS59-700 old 427-548mm (Prado 150 spec) new 432-555mm
GS59-220 old 435-560mm (Hilux strut) new 430-558mm

MR59-50221 old 427-560mm (Prado 120) same
MR59-50700 427-570mm (Prado 150) new 427-555mm


Rear shocks

GS59-637 old 350-582mm new 348-581mm
GS59-701 old 362-585mm new 362-605mm
GS59-682 380-630mm (80 series shock) same
GS59-687 407-680mm (80 series 4" shock) same

MR59-50701 362-605mm same
MR59-60701 376-605mm same
MR59-60682 old xxx-630mm (missing a closed length) new 390–620mm (some were supplied slightly longer around 400-630mm)

Best

Mark

[Whitey]

Hey Peter,

Cripes, 5 years that's been sitting around already, I wonder how many years beforehand as well?

Kinda silly that ARB don't fix this, as some after market sellers base their strut lengths off the 543mm open length and sell them as 3" lift kits!

Best

Mark

[Peterpilot]

Thanks Mark, it'll be interesting to see what the actual measurements are, or if someone else has already done this

For the OME front strut I get 440 closed and 570 open. Just measured one up, center of bottom eye to base of top pin.

Mick

As you can see by this old post from page 1, the discrepancy in ARBs measuring method has been there since at least 2011, unfortunately they don't seem to listen. Rest assured that the OME Sport 90000 has in fact been measured at 570mm open and 440mm closed length as per the measured data in the database.

[Perroux's]

Hey,

I don't believe the lengths are correct. There's a few issues, i) the shroud on OME struts is mounted much lower than the bush flange, ii) the newer 90000 series strut is used to describe a few different old strut part numbers, and iii) the revised 90000 series strut uses shorter lengths (I believe).

The old strut part code for the 120 used to be N140S, and the open length quoted in the catalogue used to be 543mm, but this was incorrect and measured to the shroud rather than the bottom bush washer on the shaft flange. The real open length was 570mm, as reflected in the 100mm of droop that you could get running this strut under 2" of lift.

This should have been corrected by the 2015 catalogue, as the correct lengths were emailed to ARB head office by an ARB sales rep...he did it in front of my eyeballs. However, having just perused the 2015 catalogue, I see that the error is still there.

All of that being so, I suspect the latest incarnation of the 90000 series strut is in fact a lower open length than its N140S predecessor.

ARB have changed their policy with respect to long open length struts...also the reason the BP51 gear is all short travel. They are being cautious about CV's these days.

Unfortunately I'm away, and I don't have access to an ARB store to check the latest 90000 strut lengths.

Hopefully someone else with the latest 90000 series strut can chime in and help out with some measurements!

Best

Mark

Thanks Mark, it'll be interesting to see what the actual measurements are, or if someone else has already done this

[Perroux's]

Whilst waiting for AMTS and Whitey to come along I'll say that those measurements from the 9000 strut aren't correct.

They should read Open 570, Closed 440 with 130 of travel. I recall it having somthing to do with how they were originally incorrectly measured.

Rest assured the 9000 strut is more that up to the task of controlling the front of a 120, combined with up to 50mm lift they're a great strut.

That's good to know 120D4D as I've put the deposit down for the order, so I'll update when received with actual measurements (late next week).. I'm hoping for c.+30mm against catalog/advertised measurements which would correlate to your above measurements for the 90000

[Whitey]

Hey,

I don't believe the lengths are correct. There's a few issues, i) the shroud on OME struts is mounted much lower than the bush flange, ii) the newer 90000 series strut is used to describe a few different old strut part numbers, and iii) the revised 90000 series strut uses shorter lengths (I believe).

The old strut part code for the 120 used to be N140S, and the open length quoted in the catalogue used to be 543mm, but this was incorrect and measured to the shroud rather than the bottom bush washer on the shaft flange. The real open length was 570mm, as reflected in the 100mm of droop that you could get running this strut under 2" of lift.

This should have been corrected by the 2015 catalogue, as the correct lengths were emailed to ARB head office by an ARB sales rep...he did it in front of my eyeballs. However, having just perused the 2015 catalogue, I see that the error is still there.

All of that being so, I suspect the latest incarnation of the 90000 series strut is in fact a lower open length than its N140S predecessor.

ARB have changed their policy with respect to long open length struts...also the reason the BP51 gear is all short travel. They are being cautious about CV's these days.

Unfortunately I'm away, and I don't have access to an ARB store to check the latest 90000 strut lengths.

Hopefully someone else with the latest 90000 series strut can chime in and help out with some measurements!

Best

Mark

[120D4D]

Whilst waiting for AMTS and Whitey to come along I'll say that those measurements from the 9000 strut aren't correct.

They should read Open 570, Closed 440 with 130 of travel. I recall it having somthing to do with how they were originally incorrectly measured.

Rest assured the 9000 strut is more that up to the task of controlling the front of a 120, combined with up to 50mm lift they're a great strut.

[Perroux's]

Has anyone installed the OME 2885 (coils) and 90000 (struts) and 60004 (shocks) in their Grande? I'm looking at upgrading at the moment from the TEMS to OME with factory airbags and amts airbag spacer, which if OME's site is correct, will provide me with a c.25mm front and c.40mm rear lift against the standard TEMS. However when looking at the open length for both the front strut and rear shock against the factory there is minimal difference ie.

Factory TEMS (vice versa GXL)
Open 540(f) 575(r)
Close 420(f) 386(f)
Travel 120(f) 189(r)

OME Sport Nitro
Open 543(f) 580(r)
Close 413(f) 356 (r)
Travel 130(f) 224(r)

Difference OME:TEMS
open +3(f) +5(r)
closed -7(f) -30(r)
travel -10(f) -35(r)

Considering this, it seems that I'll be replacing factory gear with OME which is essentially the same length? I called ARB and they've confirmed that the measurements are correct, and that the additional height is achieved from the springs (versus shock length). ARB say that the resting height is higher than factory and they don't have any issues with topping or bottoming out (even with the significantly less travel ....) This doesn't seem right? Has anyone else installed similar or have any differing measurements for the OME open position?

Any all feedback welcome!

[1coolbanana]

Maybe the word droop is just a touchy subject for some

[Peterpilot]

"Droop" is easier than "suspension down travel", I guess. Unfortunately, droop also sounds like something you need to take drugs to remedy.