Club 80-90 Forums

MOT was a month ago; one boot (front outer) was done and i have done about 1000 miles since. Took the bash plate off to try to look at why its touching something on a right hand turn but could not help but notice this......

Offside rear Inner



Nearside rear Inner



Front offside outer - Not split but looks too compressed to me.



Front nearside outer - new boot been on a month and has pulled off; its that new material and to be honest is not flexible enough in my opinion.



Im inclined to have the lot done again and see if they last through the long drive we have planned for July; any more nonsense and there may be a set on Andreas springs and trailmaster dampers going cheap some time soon I need reliabilty more than i need height.

Andreas Lidl's research came down in favour of the oem boot on IG16 for rear inners. Is that part 431 498 103c ? and which are the preferred front outers now?

Those plastic boots are sposed to be glued on on the syncros...and if it has a stainless clip I bet it wasn't done up tight enough either..

mark, the part number of the rear boots i got from vw is 443 498 201B (from my invoice) £25 per boot, but they really are light leagues better than the GKN ones. I have a lot of faith that they will be fine. Your front outer look a lot more bunched up than mine, but i think the material they are made from is pretty long lasting
when you look at the pics on the Andreas boot thread, it looks like he's used the GKN boots, not the VW ones
also i'd change all four rears and not just the split ones

i personally think a lot of it is down to poorer quality rubber from gkn rather than the springs. Lots of vans are running similar ride heights with no issues

Looks like body lift is the next must have accessory

Reliability has got to be key, especially for those of us who venture a little way out in a Syncro. What is the total lift of the Andreas spring from center of the wheel to the under side of the arch out of interest?

Jed

mine is 52cm rear and 51.5cm front. Measured to metal arch not rubber trim

Id say the market for silly things like front shock extenders and little piston rod spacers will be drying up soon.

Sounds good...body lift is a better option...but what about the back?

what do you actually gain from a body lift other than a big gap between tyre and arch? you don't actually gain ground clearance do you?
If you look at the above pics, you can see where the rear boots have deteriorated (cracks) just poor rubber in my opinion

Yes and no...the body is higher so attack and departure angles are better, also the sills are higher so less chance of squashing them...the subframe and worse of all the gearbox is stillin danger of hitting something of course...but drive line angles are retained in factory posisitions so no cv issues...body lift and sensible springs is optimised I guess...landrover etc are lumbered with the diff in the axle so syncro beats that issue at least, but then lacks articulation...unimog will be better!

lloydy wrote:mine is 52cm rear and 51.5cm front. Measured to metal arch not rubber trim

Not outrageously high then, I think my Westy isnt that far behind that when empty.

Jed

thats what confuses me, all the vitals still being low down. To be honest though, my raise is more for looks than anything else....

jed the spread wrote:

lloydy wrote:mine is 52cm rear and 51.5cm front. Measured to metal arch not rubber trim

Not outrageously high then, I think my Westy isnt that far behind that when empty.

Jed

thats with mine empty too

http://www.gmb-mount.de/shop.htm?http:/ ... okw~inhalt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just found this link for a body lift, not expensive at all?

How come you don't hear of many body lifts especially if accompanied by a suspension lift?

Seems worthwhile...but...if its such a great thing why didn't SDP just make the front subframe a bit higher? Is such a lofty perch really needed? Who has massive problems with grounding out and would 10 mm cure those issues?

A unimog has all these issues sorted but is very slow and thirsty...

It's all a compromise, what SDP and VW thought was acceptable with regard to the COG of the vehicle, roll centres, weight transfer under braking and acceleration, predictable safe handling and blah blah we've done this all before.
As max'n'cad observes, body lift keeps the drivetrain and suspension box:standard, so factory roll centres are unaffected for safest handling but the COG will be raised, so handling will still be compromised to some degree.
It's a big job, since at the front you have to cut off the upper wishbone mounts and move the whole lot down by the same amount as the drop on engine and transaxle mounts. You also have to drop the rear swingarm mounts down to preserve the andgles The potential to get it all out of line and make the van "crab" or any number of nasty things is considerable. IMHO.
But...the resulting increase in arch clearance means you could run bigger diameter tyres and gain a bit on approach/depart angles (assuming the engine can pull the increased gearing) and so gain more ground clearance that way.
Or you could try travelling lighter, let the wagon sit up at the correct height and all of which has precious little to do with poor quality CV boot rubber.

Nighty night