Are Freelander's brillant

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Yes, they're amazing

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Yes, they're fntasic

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Freelander's rule

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • I just wanted to vote yes

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Yes and bob option - he's ***

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Yes and Warmmers is trolling our fred

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Hippo

Hippo

Lord Hippo
Unfortunaltley we have a troll on this fred who's causing trouble. Not the first time.
Can you please ignore him and continue posting yer measurements.
Please don't reply to him or any of his posts on this fred. There is important Freelandering to be done and we need peeps to post results.
Thank you.

This fred started out as a serious fred. Problem is the troll appeared and we all started arguing with it. It's true I didn't post the reasoning behind what we were doing and why. I thought the fred would go oft the rails if I did. That happened anyway. The good news is I have enough info to continue with what we're doing.

I would like peeps to measure their Freelander 1 wheels and post up the results on this ere fred. What I want to know is the difference in ride height front to rear. Measuring from the centre of the wheel to the ground is too difficult to be precise as our wheels don't have a centre marker. The betterer option is to measure from one side of the centre wheel trim to the ground, as shown in the pic below in blue.

Rules of measuring:
  • Must be a Freelander 1
  • All 4 wheels must be on level ground.
  • Measured wheels need to be at the same air pressure (check/adjust before measuring)
  • Need to measure while on level solid ground
  • Use the same reference point on both measured wheels
  • Need to provide measurements for 1 front and 1 rear wheel on the same Freelander
  • Freelander wheels/tyres need to be the same make/model/size
  • I don't care what the tread depth wear is as long as the wear on both measured wheels is similar
  • Measurements from Freelanders without significant extra load only (boot full of logs/engines etc)
My eggsample results below:

Front 344mm
Rear 353mm
Tyre size 215/65R16
Engine = v6
Result = 353 - 344 = 9mm

C1JVlNI.jpg

DSCN5735 C1JVlNI
 
Last edited:
Interesting - I will measure mine tomorrow. I would do it now but the garage floor slopes a lot.

I can tell you though that even at correct pressures the front reading is likely to be lower than the rear - my front tyres always appear slightly "flatter" with a more pronounced bulge at the bottom than the rears presumeably due to the weight of the engine, plus mine is a commercial so no rear seats, therefor I would guess lighter at the back than a 4-seater.
 
dave21478 said:
Interesting - I will measure mine tomorrow. I would do it now but the garage floor slopes a lot.

I can tell you though that even at correct pressures the front reading is likely to be lower than the rear - my front tyres always appear slightly "flatter" with a more pronounced bulge at the bottom than the rears presumeably due to the weight of the engine, plus mine is a commercial so no rear seats, therefor I would guess lighter at the back than a 4-seater.
Click to expand...
Yep agreed. I eggspect front to be lower but would like to see figures from a wide range of vehicles. Results will be interesting.
 
( .. trashed / edited .. )
i'll post when i've done the measurements
 
Last edited:
Just measured mine. I haven't checked pressures lately, they look OK and I have the pleasure of running 2WD so its not so important. I will do though and update if necessary.

Front: both 350mm
Rear: 351mm & 352mm
Tyres: GT Radial MaxMilers 195R15 (80 profile) at 39PSI
Setup = 5 door L Series with 1/2 a tank of diesel and a bit of fishing gear (not much) in the back.
Result = 351.5 - 350 = 1.5mm
 
ok....

2001 td4 3-door commercial.
225/70/16 Insa Turbo Rangers at correct pressure. 1/2 tank of dizzle.

Front - 380mm
rear - 390mm
10mm higher at the back.
 
Interesting info. The wheel center is about 32mm in radius, so...

Hippo's data: 344mm - 32mm = 312mm, therefore 9mm = 2.9% difference.
Dave21478's data: 380mm - 32mm = 348mm, therefore 10mm = 2.9% difference.

So, with the IRD "undergearing" the rear axle at 0.8%, its actually "overgearing" it by 2.1%.

Looks like it may be best to run a 4WD Freelander on my MaxMilers which are designed to run at 39PSI and therefore keep the axles running at the same gearing :)
 
Last edited:
2006 TD4 commercial
one 16 kilo dog 'n aprox. 34 litres of diesel in back

tyres:
michelin latitude hp
225/55 H 17
new with 8mm tread @ 75,000 miles
current tread :
5mm front / 6mm rear @ 109,000 miles

psi @ last check
32.5 psi front
30.5 psi rear
sept. 10th morning in shade @ 15c temp

measurement according to 'hippo's specification

after 15 miles driving .. the 15 minutes in shade while i took dog for a run in nearby field
ground: concrete slabs layby .. slight downhill incline .. but Not enough to roll vehicle with handbrake 'off'
front: 351 mm / 35 psi / tyre temp 20.4c
rear : 354 mm / 32.5 psi / tyre temp. 16.2c

drove onwards to supermarket .. parked in permanent shade .. level tarmac ..
took dog for an hours walk 'n frizbee chase .. returned and measured tyres
front : 351 mm / 32 psi / tyre temp 12.2c
rear : 354 mm / 30 psi / tyre temp 12.2c

i used 1 metre long steel ruler with level indicator ..
and 1 short steel ruler with level indicator ..
long ruler laid vertical against tyre wall .. short one horizontal from 'hippo's hub point to vertical ruler

given there was eff all difference .. even allowing for 1mm possible error .. between hot psi and cold psi
didn't go as far as to lower the front to 30psi to match the rear .. cause the difference would have been miniscule

vcu turnip test continues to be the same since observing the vcu temp compared to the ambient temp.
measured after 'straight' and 'twisty roads' runs ( 10c above ambient / 15c above ambient .. respectively )
no other signs what-so-ever that the vcu is 'stiffening' .. vehicle driven 50 miles almost daily ..
original vcu ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~
here endeth the statement :)
doginboot.jpg
 
Last edited:
@GrumpyGel I think yer figures are wrong. They can't both be 2.9%
@hd3 thanks for yer input but tyres need to be the same pressure front/rear to confirm the "working radius" of the wheel, which includes the flat section of tyre on the floor.
 
but tyres need to be the same pressure front/rear to confirm the "working radius" of the wheel, which includes the flat section of tyre on the floor.
Click to expand...

ok .. will do
 
Hippo said:
@GrumpyGel I think yer figures are wrong. They can't both be 2.9%
@hd3 thanks for yer input but tyres need to be the same pressure front/rear to confirm the "working radius" of the wheel, which includes the flat section of tyre on the floor.
Click to expand...
Sorry, missed a 0 out - Dave's had a bigger difference on bigger tyres that equated to the same 2.9%.
 
Interesting fred, are you trying to see if the front wheels normally spin faster by a couple of percent from the factory?
 
Bit of a pointless exercise unless every car measured has the same tyre wear and pressures. What outcome are you trying to achieve?
 
The actual numbers arent important, The percentage difference between front and rear is what he is aiming for, I think. So if he can get a large enough sample size to iron out any outlying data from folk running weird / wrong tyre setups he should end up with a reliable average figure for cars running evenly worn tyres that will let him calculate...... I dunno what. Axle speed difference anyway, and combined with known figures for drive ratio difference front to rear perhaps VCU slip rate?
 
Possibly to see if the average tyre difference compensates for the tiny difference in front and rear axle speeds?
What was the calculated difference between the two axles before and after they did the modifications?
 
dave21478 said:
The actual numbers arent important, The percentage difference between front and rear is what he is aiming for, I think. So if he can get a large enough sample size to iron out any outlying data from folk running weird / wrong tyre setups he should end up with a reliable average figure for cars running evenly worn tyres that will let him calculate...... I dunno what. Axle speed difference anyway, and combined with known figures for drive ratio difference front to rear perhaps VCU slip rate?
Click to expand...
Your thinking on the right lines. I'm after the "working radius" of peeps tyres, front to rear. Difference in mm, but knowing the reference point of x-y=mm also gives a loading comparison. The relaxed radius of a tyre is measued when it's pumped up but not fitted. When fitted there's a flat at the bottom. The distance from the middle to the top of the tyre will be greater than the distance from the middle to the floor, due to the flat. It's this distance I call the "working radius" as I don't know if there's a propper name for it.
 
Hippo said:
It's well known blue ones are betterer, and results will confirm this.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to achieve by doing this exercise that is all i ask? Every car will measure differently subject to tyre wear and pressure so i don't quite know what result you are hoping to extrapolate. ;);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Rear wheel bearings or diff
Replies
11
Views
1K
Nodge68
Nodge68
andyfreelandy
Other New Project starting today
Replies
3
Views
638
Alibro
Alibro
H
Freelander 2 whining
Replies
2
Views
446
HWel
H
N
Rear diff issues
Replies
5
Views
808
niko-h
N
F
rear wheel bearing question
Replies
3
Views
996
frenchdave
F