Front strut failures

[littleriver]

Sorry bad wording
Triton challenger is the same but different to the Pajero

Triton front - pajero rear possibly

...

[old Jack]

From my research rear coils and shockers from Gen 2 Pajero's and PA Challengers will physically fit the PB/PC Challenger, but spring rates and free lengths are slightly different on coils as are shocker compressed and extended lengths but this in brand dependent.

OJ.

[Kingbrown]

OJ,
It's not obvious from your picture, but does the lower spring support of your Bilstein shock have an angled recess like the oem shocks (ie where the bottom end of the coil sits) ?

My Ultimate shocks have the recess. The spring isn't ground flat either.

In the absence of either a recess or a ground coil , there would sure to be an off-axis pressure appled to the assembly.

The resilient material between the spring and top hat helps to reduce this effect at the top end.

[old Jack]

OJ,
It's not obvious from your picture, but does the lower spring support of your Bilstein shock have an angled recess like the oem shocks (ie where the bottom end of the coil sits) ?

My Ultimate shocks have the recess. The spring isn't ground flat either.

In the absence of either a recess or a ground coil , there would sure to be an off-axis pressure appled to the assembly.

The resilient material between the spring and top hat helps to reduce this effect at the top end.

Hi KB, thanks for your thoughts.

Yes Ultimate springs are made by Lovells and they are not ground flat at the top end so rely on the urethane/rubber topcoat bush to take up the even end of the coil.

Bilstein lower seat is designed for the spring wind end with a 17mm offset but the Lovells coils are 19mm in diameter. Does this 2mm matter? I do not know yet until I pull the strut out.



There is a very good chance there is not a single cause to this issue but a combination of situations.

OJ.

[old Jack]

Here are 3 photos of R/H struts which I have drawn lines along the shaft of the shockers and the body of the shocker, my take is they should be parallel however Griff (who is a professional photographer) says photos can play tricks on our brains, so I am working on a way to measure and compare the angles of the shocker body to the shaft .

Does anyone else see that the shaft lines and the shocker body line are not parallel or is just my old eyes? I can see this in all 3 photos below.

OJ's Lovells Bilstein at full extension.

Griff's King Bilstein at full extension.

900 canoe's Old Man Emu at normal ride height.

Note that all 3 appear to have flexed shocker shafts but the Lovells/Bilstein is flex in the opposite direction to the Kings/Bilstein and the OME.

OJ.

[Kingbrown]

To my eyes, the most apparent difference in OJ's struts as compared to the others is the pitch of the bottom turn of the coil.
OJ's seem to flatten out whereas the others spiral onto the lower seat at the same rate as the rest of the coil.

Also, OJ's bottom turn of coil necks in more quickly than the others, which may cause more deflection than the other struts.

[old Jack]

Thanks for the observation KB.
How do compare to your Ultimate coil that are also made by Lovell's?

OJ.

[wasarangie]

Ultimate at full droop.

OJ, note the coil end location. A fair difference yours to mine. I spent sometime talking to Toyota techs about what they had found issues with. Coil end location was all they mentioned. over 100,000 klm without issue here.

[coughy]

oj just looking at your pic and the one that wasarangie just put up it looks like your spring isnt sitting square to the base if you know what i mean

looks as tho yours the narrower end so the bottom of the spring is sitting ofset and the spring it self doesnt look right in the seated position looks like it is putting sideways push on the shock

and the smaller end doesnt get narrow like the others as in look at yours it only has buy the looks of it 1 and a half coils then gets bigger were as the others have 2 or even 3 coils then gets bigger
imo i think it is a design fault of the coils putting to much lateral movement on the strut where as the others with the extra coils dont allow this movement

[Kingbrown]

Snap !
Looks very much like mine Wasarangie.
I have sent OJ some pictures.

Something else I noticed with the OEM struts (removed from the vehicle) is that the top hat does not sit square to the axis of the strut. The way Mits have constructed the tower seems to match the latent position of the top hat, which is cocked upwards by the tip of the top turn of the coil.
So, if an aftermarket strut has the spring sitting in a position that causes the tophat to not match the tower, would this place some aff-axis stress on the strut ?

[old Jack]

Thanks guys, this is the sort of info and opinions I am looking for.
Collectively we will solve the riddle and come up with a solution.

cheers, OJ.

[old Jack]

Snap !
Looks very much like mine Wasarangie.
I have sent OJ some pictures.

Something else I noticed with the OEM struts (removed from the vehicle) is that the top hat does not sit square to the axis of the strut. The way Mits have constructed the tower seems to match the latent position of the top hat, which is cocked upwards by the tip of the top turn of the coil.
So, if an aftermarket strut has the spring sitting in a position that causes the tophat to not match the tower, would this place some aff-axis stress on the strut ?

This comment got me thinking KB. When I was an apprentice the engineers would say "if in doubt check the manual" so I did. I found that there is a particular way that the top hat must be fitted in relation to the strut body, it uses the wheel speed sensor loom bracket and the step-down of the lower spring mount as references. Problem is the Bilstein struts do not have a fixed position lower spring mount and this can be positioned anywhere which means the position of the top end of the coil can also go anywhere in relation to the topcoat upper spring seat. I have added some references in "red"to indicate the outboard stud of the topcoat mount and the relative position of the speed sensor loom bracket. So based on this information the lower mount step-down should face forward on the lefthand side and rearwards on the righthand side.

Does this line up with the standard factory struts you have? (mine went to another forum member years ago so I cannot check this out myself)

Have I got this correct? Thoughts ?



OJ.

[old Jack]

Ok based on the above I have closely looked at all the photos posted and those I have received via email, and all struts have the lower spring seat step-down either facing forwards or rearwards including my struts. The Ultimate struts of Wasa and KB have the step-down orientated 180 degrees different to the Bilstein and OME.

I can see in all the photo's that the middle section of the struts where the shaft enters the strut body, are flexed away from the step-down side of the lower coil seat. This is best seen by the close proximity of the rubber dust boot in relation to the inner face of the coil winds, it appears the dust boot is not sitting centrally within the coil.

Can anyone else see this?

OJ.

[Kingbrown]

Hi OJ,

I see the same in relation to the way that the mid section is offset (to the side that's opposite to the bottom seat recess).

I've looked at my old oem struts and they are oriented exactly as shown in your diagram.

[4wd26]

https://www2.pajeroclub.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=307315&postcount=12

interesting what you find on the forum

more useful stuff to follow- obviously its not the colour of the springs causing premature failures of the Bilstien shocks on Tritons and challengers.