I realized that I had omitted to qualify my opening statement with "in relation to Centre of Gravity for the vehicle"
I reckon that T3 does in fact have some good suspension design attributes. I'm sure I read in some old VW blurb that the 2wd was designed to have a negative roll centre?
I suppose that the C.O.G. cold be below the roll centre on a 2wd 'velle or panel van and would be desirable for stable cornering and good road manners. It's certainly respectable for a wide-track brick with such a short wheelbase (just over 8 foot in old money) which should be much more twitchy than it really is at speed and I'm talking illegal mph in this case (naughty boy)
Helluva lot better than an original Range Rover with no ARB's, but that never fell over on me even when rolling so much it ground the door mirrors off on the tarmac
Maybe a high-top syncro camper or one with a roof tent/Westy and rack would actually benefit from a suspension lift. The higher COG could be brought closer to the roll centre with steeper wishbone angles but...lots of tyre scrub and track variation under bump/droop which you'd only really notice over fast bumps or humpback bridges taken too quickly
What I was really asking was:
Who has actually bothered to give this any serious thought before changing springs, adding extra spring packers or applying "Elastoplast" solutions like UCA spacers just to stop balljoints going out of working range? Suspension geometry is a very complicated subject and I'm just a curious enthusiast (don't quote me on that...) Even taking accurate measurements from a vehicle to produce working drawings of what
should be going on would be a lot of work.
What's got me going recently is this alternative rhd PAS rack I'm considering; I was initially only worried about not spoiling the Ackermann steering!
1985 Oettinger 3.2 Caravelle RHD syncro twin slider. SA Microbus bumpers, duplex winch system, ARC 7X15 period alloys