REAR END SAG GU
Submitted: Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 11:40
ThreadID:
13208
Views:
2453
Replies:
6
FollowUps:
14
This Thread has been Archived
10 Para (Qld)
Well just got the extra fuel tank fitted for the reserve and also the rack on the top and then loaded the Patrol and found that we were back down to 795mm ( rim to guard ) when we started at was at 805mm after fitting OME 981 to the rear last year,
well what do you know when ARB were contacted there is a now a new coil out it is still same number OME981 but this one is 21mm and the old one was 19mm the new one i am told is for those with rear bars fitted, now why could they just not do that in the first place my rear bar went on when i first bought the truck,
Well once i found that out it was of again to ARB to have the new OME981 coil fitted while i was there also had Polyairs bags fitted just in case Patrol now sit at 805 at the rear and 800 at the front loaded and drives just great, by the way went to another ARB dealer to get it fitted.
Reply By: Member - Rick (S.A.) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 14:11
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 14:11
10 para
Unbeleivable list of accessories. Can't imagine why it sagged...........
Do you know Mitsubishi still make Canter 4wd trucks with a 6 t payload?
LOL
AnswerID:
60436
Follow Up By: 10 Para (Qld) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:49
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:49
Hi Rick, note you have a similar truck what is you fuel like, i am now getting 5.16k to the litre with the 4.8, and yes we have quite a lot on but only 2 small people to carry.
Regards
FollowupID:
322028
Follow Up By: Diesel Do - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:38
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:38
You're right. She's getting fit, though she prefers to take the bus these days...
From what I've read on this
forum more than 50mm lift might not be legal, and I'm trying to work out what the lift on mine really is.
Was told when I fitted it that it would settle over time, but I've gone from Alice to Darwin/Cobourg/Boroloola and back to
Adelaide loaded to the hilt and towing a boat, and it hasn't budged. Link below is the
suspension kit. If anyone can shed light I'd really appreciate it.
http://www.offroad4x4.com.au/patrol_gu.htm
Thanks,
FollowupID:
322045
Follow Up By: Member -Bob & Lex (Sydney) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 17:22
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 17:22
I thought I had it all but you leave me for dead.
FollowupID:
322052
Follow Up By: 10 Para (Qld) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:16
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:16
Hi i did not mention the Inverter, how's the KK going there are a good unit nearly got one myself but wanted a few things that were not on the KK went to see them at the factory and asked them to do them and they said that they would be in the 2004 model but i could not wait that long.
Regards
FollowupID:
322077
Follow Up By: Member -Bob & Lex (Sydney) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:21
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:21
The KK is great, I like the new model to but Lex won't let me update.
FollowupID:
322079
Follow Up By: Member - Rick (S.A.) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:22
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:22
G’day Para
With roofrack loaded, 3.3 t all up weight, at 100 to 105 kph = 20 litres per 100km.
Empty, cruise control on = 17 to 18 L/100km
Anything over 105 kph = very thirsty – haven’t measured for two or three years because it frightened me so much I don’t/won’t drive any faster than 105 kph
4 x 4 tracks/slow work/sandy beaches = 25 l/100km or more
Cheers
FollowupID:
322080
Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:26
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:26
Rick have you had that beast of your's over a weighbridge? All those accessories with a full load of fuel on board must take you awful close to GVM. By the way does that new park brake on the rear wheels in the 4.8 hold OK - I've heard it is nowhere near as good on the big inclines as the one on the drive train.
Cheers
Pete
FollowupID:
322082
Follow Up By: Patrol22 (Queanbeyan - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:27
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:27
oops that should have been directed to 10 para
FollowupID:
322083
Follow Up By: 10 Para (Qld) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:34
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:34
Hi Patrol always got the trailer to stop me
FollowupID:
322084
Reply By: Diesel Do - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:30
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:30
10 Para I must be measuring incorrectly. On mine from the top of rim to bottom of guard is 375 front 400 rear.
On the same subject, can anyone tell me what the unladen height of a standard GU ST TD is from the ground (or wheel rim - whichever is normally used) to the bottom of the wheel arch (front and rear)? Owing to a bunch of circumstances that I don't want to get into here - unless you want to know - I had to replace my
suspension while on a trip. Supposed to be 50mm lift, but looks much more.
Now on my 98 Patrol the height is 940 front and 975 rear unladen with half a tank of fuel. Ground to bottom of wheel arch. Standard steel wheels, tyres are 265 70 R16 at 36lb.
Thanks.
AnswerID:
60450
Follow Up By: 10 Para (Qld) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:51
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:51
Diesel i have measured just as the boys at ARB do from the bottom of the rim to the guard not sure if that is right or not but just good to keep records.
Regards
FollowupID:
322029
Follow Up By: Diesel Do - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:05
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:05
thanks Para,
Just for interest, BOTTOM of the rim to bottom of wheel arch on mine is 840 (rear). Didn't measure original - regret that now. Might have to take a visit to the showroom with my tape measure unless someone else already knows...
FollowupID:
322035
Follow Up By: 10 Para (Qld) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:20
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 16:20
Yeah i was the same but did get a measure when half was done last year and i also went to the local dealer show room to
check on such things in fact they got bloody sick of me as i never bought the truck from them i got it from another dealer on the other side of
Brisbane who was $9000.00 cheaper so they are pretty p off with me to say the least, anyway that's life also foiund out that these guy's who sell these trucks know nothing about them, i have learnt more on this
forum that any dealer could have told me, my you do seem high my handbrake would want extra steps for that hight and that would be more weight round & round we go.
Regards
FollowupID:
322038
Reply By: Member -Bob & Lex (Sydney) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 17:31
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 17:31
Out of curiosity just checked mine ground to wheel arch 930 front, 940 rear, stnd wheels & tyres 50mm lift & with gear fitted in rig photo.
AnswerID:
60470
Follow Up By: Willem - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 18:54
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 18:54
My old dear has a different set up with guards etc. She is fully fuelled and packed ready for a trip tomorrow with trailer hooked up. 1000mm at rear ground to inside wheel arch and 1150mm at front, ground to top of inside wheel arch. No lift kit and sitting level.
Cheers
FollowupID:
322072
Reply By: Member - AndrewPatrol - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 18:44
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 18:44
The industry standard seems to be to measure from the bottom of the wheel rim to the wheel guard directly above. that way the tyre and pressure doesn't make any difference to the measurement.
AnswerID:
60480
Follow Up By: Member - Hugh (WA) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 23:00
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 23:00
Hi Andrew,
I've just had new springs fitted and the measurement everyone was quoting me was axle centre to top of wheel arch, including Nissan for std values (555mm F, 560mm R).
The principle is exactly the same i.e. take out tyre variable. Just the first time I've heard of rim to guard measurement. I suppose this could vary depending on the rim size, etc. Subtract rim dia/2 gives the axle centre to guard measurement.
Regards,
Hugh
FollowupID:
322110
Reply By: Baz (NSW) - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:20
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 20:20
Looking at the list of accessories and a camper that weighs more than a tonne, you need to go down to your local truck dealer and get a cummings deisel and some truck air bag suspention fitted, LOL.
Baz.
AnswerID:
60493
Reply By: Michael_FNQ - Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 23:11
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 23:11
You probably should have fitted the OME984 coils there is no load carrying difference between the old OME981 coils and the new ones, just a design spec change. Probably would not need the polyairs with 984's and they also have a bigger stagger left to right and would suit your extra weight on the RHS.
AnswerID:
60538