Lift kit for Gen.4

Not wanting to dispute how your vehicle performed. But I'd need some convincing that the front anti-roll bar is that limiting

Dug up some notes from testing I did a few years back, when I was considering making a swaybar quick - disconnect for my gen3. Lifted a rear wheel on one side with a forklift until the front wheel on the same side came off the ground. Dropped back down until the front wheel just touched the ground, and measured the distance between the bottom of the rear wheel and the ground. (Vice versa for front axle). Did this with and without swaybar fitted.
This is what I found:

Rear axle went from 410 to 500mm - 75mm (3.5") increase in articulation.

Front axles went from 375 to 480mm - 105mm (4") increase in articulation with swaybar removed. 

Did have a King Springs 40mm lift kit installed during this test.
I drove it afterwards with the sway bar removed, was pleasantly suprised at how much better it was to drive so abandoned the swaybar quick-disconnect idea, put the swaybar in the back of the shed and it's never been on the vehicle since. 
I drive "defensively" and try not to be in a rush to get anywhere so I've never even felt remotely unsafe driving it like this. Of course, I can't in good faith recommend others doing the same as everyone's situation is different. 
​​​​

yakuza wrote:

It sure is limiting roll and flex.
And also keep your car on track on the road. Please do not recommend to remove it for road use. With a well loaded car, pulling a trailer or worse, a roof load, there could be very unpleasant surprises in the handling.
Wild body roll in 90kmh is not fun.
Or if you have to do a sudden double evasive manouver. (swedish moose test)

As said above. It can’t be limiting as in a physical block or restriction, else a longer shock would not provide more travel. Which they do. Ultimately there will be a limit based on the physical length of the bar/links. But this is not the case for a stock setup.

I suspect it is more a case of resistance however. Not sure how to put this into words. But the arb is slowing the roll and would require more force in order to roll the same amount as without it.

Ultimately if someone wants to do a side by side test with and without in stock suspension it may prove different results. I’d guess I’d sum it up that the stock arb makes it less willing to flex rather than prevents flex. A stiffer arb could alter this result.

On a similar note. I fitted longer shocks to my p38 Range Rover. Despite having anti roll bars still fitted, it also increased its articulation by doing this.

As for removing an arb. It depends. Not saying you should. But Land Rover Defenders right up until 2016 did not have any arb’s on certain specs. Discovery 1’s and Range Rover classics also both were available without any anti roll bars.

Many thanks for the input guys, but we are getting a wee bit off topic. 300 bhpton mentions that he fitted a kit but not the maker. I would be interested in what he thinks of it?

Roger

Roger Fairclough wrote:

Many thanks for the input guys, but we are getting a wee bit off topic. 300 bhpton mentions that he fitted a kit but not the maker. I would be interested in what he thinks of it?

Roger

I have the Black Raptor Premium 2” lift from JimnyBits. Only fitted 2 weekends back. It has adjustable shocks.

With regards to the kit you are looking at. I think they are Bilstein B6 shocks. I have something similar on a 90. And they generally have a good reputation. I’d guess that kit might be more on the firmer/sportier side of things. But I would assume it is a nice quality kit for a smaller lift.

That said. I really liked the look of the Old Man Emu kit. Which I think is about £200 cheaper and is also 40mm. I was very tempted by this kit. But ultimately wanted something offering more off road flex. The Old Man Emu kit is meant to be good on road too. But I’ve not been in either, so couldn’t say how they compare directly.

I am impressed with the adjustable shocks on the Black Raptor kit. I’m still fine tuning them. But I’m amazed that considering it is 2” taller it rides and handles better than stock. Not sure if they offer a standard height kit with these shocks, not looked. I’ve also not yet had chance to try it off road. But it should offer quite a bit more flex. I’ve done some RTI ramp tests with the stock suspension. So it’ll be interesting to see what improvements I get. Will hopefully test it this weekend.

In terms of improvement. It isn’t night and day different. But it is a marked improvement. I think a lot of this is because the Jimny is a narrow track, short wheelbase vehicle with relatively high centre of gravity. So some thing shocks and springs just won’t impact or solve.

But the vehicle feels a lot more planted and stable, has lost the side to side wobble it had developed under high speed cornering. And rides most road imperfections better. Although rough tarmac where puddles have been is not overly different. I suspect the biggest benefit is the ability to adjust the shocks and see the difference. But does require some effort to do this. On the softest setting the car felt very floaty and uncontrolled in terms of damping. It didn’t ride any better either, just under damped. I’ve had them as far as the mid setting and this is a little too firm and bouncy IMO. But on smooth roads worked really well and transformed how it leans in the corners, keeping it very very flat. Thus far I’m about midway between which seems a nice balance of controlled damping and still improved handling.

Roger Fairclough wrote:

Good morning all.

Jimny Style have come up with a 40mm lift kit for the Gen.4. This kit uses H & R progressive springs with Bilstein shocks, all parts stated as being matched to improve on road performance.
I know that H & R and Bilstein are highly rated companies but has anyone got comments as to the kit itself?

Cheers

Roger 

Apologies for hijacking your thread. 

The H&R springs and Bilstein shock setup appears to be quite popular here in South Africa. I haven't heard anything bad about them. The guys that have them installed are quite happy with them.

Hughes wrote:

Not wanting to dispute how your vehicle performed. But I'd need some convincing that the front anti-roll bar is that limiting

Dug up some notes from testing I did a few years back, when I was considering making a swaybar quick - disconnect for my gen3. Lifted a rear wheel on one side with a forklift until the front wheel on the same side came off the ground. Dropped back down until the front wheel just touched the ground, and measured the distance between the bottom of the rear wheel and the ground. (Vice versa for front axle). Did this with and without swaybar fitted.
This is what I found:

Rear axle went from 410 to 500mm - 75mm (3.5") increase in articulation.

Front axles went from 375 to 480mm - 105mm (4") increase in articulation with swaybar removed. 

Did have a King Springs 40mm lift kit installed during this test.
I drove it afterwards with the sway bar removed, was pleasantly suprised at how much better it was to drive so abandoned the swaybar quick-disconnect idea, put the swaybar in the back of the shed and it's never been on the vehicle since. 

I drive "defensively" and try not to be in a rush to get anywhere so I've never even felt remotely unsafe driving it like this. Of course, I can't in good faith recommend others doing the same as everyone's situation is different. 
​​​​

I won't be removing the ARB on mine, but might fit an aftermarket disconnectable one.

I think the Gen 4 must be quite similar as standard to the Gen 3. Completely stock I got these figures:

Jimny - front 14” - RTI = 462
Jimny rear 17.5” - RTI = 578

Your modded figures are:

Front RTI = 624
Rear RTI = 650

So pretty good gains over stock.

Most people only RTI score on the front wheel, i.e. driving up forwards. For the record a JK Wrangler Rubicon scores 640 for the LWB and 830 for the SWB model. I believe the new JL does slightly better.