Pajero Owners Club of South Africa

Hi, found this on a similar discussion on 4x4 community. Don't know if figures are accurate, hope it helps.

"How does this shock length compare to the OE ones?

Bennie, that is the $1,000,000 question. I have compiled the following information, mainly from the Aussie Pajero forum (http://www2.pajeroclub.com.au/forum/) and its (now defunct) predecessor:

Original shocks:
Front: Open 473mm, Closed 336mm, Stroke 137mm
Rear: Open 576mm, Closed 352mm, Stroke 224mm

Old Man Emu shocks:
Front (N1295): Open 472mm, Closed 327mm, Stroke 145mm
Rear (N152): Open 576mm, Closed 345mm, Stroke 231mm

Now here are Bennie's figures from Ironman:
Front: Open 470mm, Closed 350mm, Stroke 120mm
Rear: Open 575mm, Closed 350mm, Stroke 225mm

New figures from Ironman
Front: Open 470mm, Closed 325mm, Stroke 145mm
Rear: Open 575mm, Closed 350mm, Stroke 225mm


What I deduce from that lot is that:

Both at the front and in the back the OME shocks will limit the droop travel in exactly the same way as the factory shocks, because the open length is practically identical. Although they have a shorter closed length, the bump travel will be limited by the bump stop and the extra travel available will not be used.There is no way that OME shocks will enable greater total wheel travel than the originals. This is what Jur also found when he compared the OMEs with originals (He reported that earlier in this thread).
In the front the Ironman shocks have a slightly shorter open length and (rather alarmingly) a significantly longer closed length (Bennie, I wonder if they made a typo). There is no way that they will increase wheel travel over the originals. In fact, one should make very sure that the shock does not become the bump stop >:D. Ironman seems to have provided the wrong figures originally. With the new numbers, the Ironman will still have a slightly shorter opne length and also a shorter closed length, so they will probably limit droop travel very slightly and have similar bump travel to the originals.
At the back, the Ironman shocks are practically identical to the originals, so travel will be the same.I am also pretty sure that the Bilstein shocks for the Pajero have the same open and closed lengths as the originals. I have heard a rumour that Monroe Australia (http://www.monroe.com.au/default.asp) has Gas Magnum TDT shocks (Front 16-0506+, Rear 16-0471+) for the Gen 3 that have a significantly longer stroke, but I don't have the open/closed lengths, so I don't know if the longer stroke would translate into an increase of wheel travel.

Koni also have manually adjustable shocks for the Gen 3 (82-2505 at the front and 82-2506 at the rear), but I am not sure what their specs are.

The only thing that is certain is that so far we don't know of any aftermarket shocks that will yield increased wheel travel over the originals.

Just looking at the travel data it is easy to think that this would have a big role to play in articulation whereas in real life it would only come in to play in extreme cases like lifting the vehicle on a two poster lift and disconnecting the anti roll bar.

What has a more direct influence is the springs that you have fitted. The OME has a softer beginning and becomes harder as it compresses, fitted to an empty vehicle the vehicle would stand about 50mm higher than with standard springs. Once loaded it would sag less than the similarly loaded vehicle with standard springs. Shocks will have no effect on this and the same results will be had without the shocks fitted, driving would be a different and interesting story

Unless you start playing with coil over shocks the travel length would not be affected only the frequency of the travel would be affected by the shocks

HBannink wrote:Just looking at the travel data it is easy to think that this would have a big role to play in articulation whereas in real life it would only come in to play in extreme cases like lifting the vehicle on a two poster lift and disconnecting the anti roll bar.

The shock open lengths do play a rather important role in the wheel travel on the Gen 3.

By definition, the wheel travel is the length of wheel stroke from the maximum bump position to the maximum rebound position. In the case of the Gen 3, the maximum bump position is determined by rubber bump stops, but the maximum rebound position is determined by the length of the shocks. This applies both at the front and at the rear.

When both wheels on one axle hit a bump or a dip together, all of the suspension travel can be accessed, depending only on the severity of the bump or dip.

Normally we are actually more interested in the ability of the vehicle to cross-axle, commonly referred to as "flex".

Now it is true that the maximum travel that will practically result when cross-axleing the vehicle will be limited also by the anti-roll bars. In the case of the Gen 3, the front anti-roll bar is so stiff that the suspension will not reach the bump stops when cross-axled; it rather lifts a wheel.

At the rear the suspension is flexed to the bump stops when cross axled, even with the anti-roll bar connected.

HBannink wrote:What has a more direct influence is the springs that you have fitted. The OME has a softer beginning and becomes harder as it compresses, fitted to an empty vehicle the vehicle would stand about 50mm higher than with standard springs. Once loaded it would sag less than the similarly loaded vehicle with standard springs. Shocks will have no effect on this and the same results will be had without the shocks fitted, driving would be a different and interesting story

The original Gen 3 coils are also progressive. The aftermarket coils lead to a higher ride height position by virtue of the fact that they are stiffer than the originals.

Deflecting the wheel to the bump stop requires the coil spring to be compressed and this will require more force when the coil spring is stiffer, all other things (e.g anti-roll bar) being equal. This means that the vehicle would become more prone to lift a wheel rather than to flex.

When the wheel is allowed to drop to the maximum rebound position, the coil spring (any coil spring of at least the standard length) will see to it that all available travel is used in that direction. The amount of travel is then limited by the length of the shock.

The bottom line is that with stiffer aftermarket springs and shocks with the same open length you end up with a suspension that will experience less bump travel (remember that it will rather lift wheels than flex) and the same rebound travel under the same circumstances (be they hitting a two wheel bump, a one wheel bump or cross axleing) as the standard suspension. The only way that a stiffer aftermarket suspension can have the same or more flex as the standard setup is if the shocks have greater open length and I don't personally know of such shocks for the Gen 3.

The suspension sales guys often claim that their aftermarket products will lead to greater wheel travel and this claim is repeated by many owners, but these claims are very seldomly backed up by actual before and after measurements.

Many moons ago I conducted some flex measurements on my (then standard) Gen 3 (See Here ) and learnt a lot about how the Gen 3 suspension operates. I also determined that disconnecting the anti-roll bars could land you 15% more flex.

Later when I fitted the Ironman suspension to my Gen 3, I did some more of the same measurements and found that the flex was now 8.5% worse than standard (comparing set-ups with all anti-roll bars connected)...

This is not intended to be a negative reflection on Ironman (although I am not their greatest fan), but is typical of what one would see with any of the aftermarket lifted suspensions, in my opinion.

Thanks for your comments Henk and Gerrit. I have read a lot of your posts and feel priviledged to tap into your knowledge and experience with pajeros.

I hav eseriously considered EFS after reading about them. But at the moment my heart is back woth OME. Best quotes so far Ironman (incl. fitment and alignment) = R9500. EFS (incl fitment) = R10500. OME (incl fitment) =R11500.

Henk I believe you use and recommend OME. Gerrit, you have Ironman. What would you two fit in my position ? If I do go with OME, would it be unwise (hard ride, other factor?) to do all round heavy duty shocks and coils ? (No aftermarkted bumper - still not sure if I will get one. Probably would I happen to damage mine somehow. Have Dual battery and bashplates. Three kids, 4th on the way - so the trailor will only get bigger !)

Wessel wrote:Henk I believe you use and recommend OME. Gerrit, you have Ironman. What would you two fit in my position ?

I can not really fault the Ironman coils, but I was not happy at all with the durability of the shocks or the shock mounting bushes on the front shocks. My feeling would be that I would rather opt for OME if doing it all again, given the current price difference between the two brands. I have no experience of EFS.

Wessel wrote:If I do go with OME, would it be unwise (hard ride, other factor?) to do all round heavy duty shocks and coils ? (No aftermarkted bumper - still not sure if I will get one.

Ironman only has one spec of coils and it is quite a heavy duty coil that gives a lot of lift. The ride comfort did deteriorate, but not so much that I found it difficult to live with.

The only way that a stiffer aftermarket suspension can have the same or more flex as the standard setup is if the shocks have greater open length and I don't personally know of such shocks for the Gen 3.

Gerrit, apparently the TJM Gold Series front shocks have an open length of 480mm which is only 7mm more than the KYB open length but due to the suspension geometry this results in approximately 15mm extra travel at the front wheels. I don't have information for the TJM rear shocks so cannot comment on them.

but I was not happy at all with the durability of the shocks or the shock mounting bushes on the front shocks

Besides the well documented noises were there any other problems with the mounting bushes. The reason I ask is that I am having my TJM front shocks replaced under warranty due to the fact that the lower bushes are collapsing / deteriorating. They have not collapsed completely but I would rather have the issue seen to whilst under warranty than wait until it's too late.

Cheers
Bruce

Wessel, personally I will go for OME but have a look at this post by Cats. He has had both systems and I think his approach on this is unbiased and fair, mine on the other hand might be looking through yellow tinted glasses

https://www.pajeroclub.co.za/forum/view ... =28&t=2028

Biggish wrote:Gerrit, apparently the TJM Gold Series front shocks have an open length of 480mm which is only 7mm more than the KYB open length but due to the suspension geometry this results in approximately 15mm extra travel at the front wheels.

Interesting. One disadvantage with longer travel shocks that I forgot to mention is that they do allow the CVs on the side shaft to run at greater angles than the original design intended.

Biggish wrote:Besides the well documented noises were there any other problems with the mounting bushes. The reason I ask is that I am having my TJM front shocks replaced under warranty due to the fact that the lower bushes are collapsing / deteriorating. They have not collapsed completely but I would rather have the issue seen to whilst under warranty than wait until it's too late.

My Ironman front shocks did around 36000 km (if I remember correctly) and then the mounting bushes were completely shot (extruded out of the housings). Ironman supplied me with new mounting bushes under warranty and assured me that they were of a new type that would not have the same problem as the old ones, but unfortunately they also failed after doing about the same mileage as their predecessors .

On vehicles such as the Pajero Gen 3 (and also the current Hilux/Fortuner and the Prados) the front suspension uses a coil-over-shock design, which means that the weight of the vehicle is supported by that shock mounting bush in the front. The bush therefore experiences much greater loads than would be the case on a mounting that only has to handle the damper loads. It seems that some of the aftermarket suspension manufacturers are battling to produce bushes that are durable and refined in these appllications.

On vehicles such as the Pajero Gen 3 (and also the current Hilux/Fortuner and the Prados) the front suspension uses a coil-over-shock design, which means that the weight of the vehicle is supported by that shock mounting bush in the front. The bush therefore experiences much greater loads than would be the case on a mounting that only has to handle the damper loads. It seems that some of the aftermarket suspension manufacturers are battling to produce bushes that are durable and refined in these appllications.

Interesting & it makes perfect sense. If the replacement TJM's don't last then I will revert to original KYB struts. They are replacing the entire front struts as the bushes are bonded into them and apparently not replacement items on their own.

Cheers
Bruce

Hi all,

Had my OME installed yesterday and can't wait to see vehicle. Johann from first alignment however phoned and said my 4 adjusting cam bolts (I think..) are rusted in so badly and alignment is bad.

He recommended going to Mitsu to try and replace bolts.

Any advice on removing these bolts ?