Evoque Owners Club banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi.

I am so excited , because Today I swapped the rear shocks to new ones, and I took my change to lift the Evoque !

No major modification was required, but a bit extensive labor - one full day.

I used steel spacers nicely manufactured , 40 mm front, 50 mm rear .

So the chasis is raised , by exactly this much - better clearance. All the angles are better : approach , departure, breakover, plus the wading depth, ruts depth improved.

I was a bit afraid how it will end up , as with magnetic damping , the computer may have gone mad.
But nothig like this , yet. Looks like all working , looking good, car raised.
Tomorrow I am measuring wheels allignment and fixing it probably.

I could be telling more about the setup later, after I tested it more, and used the car more off and on road.
I am very curious about the handling on tarmac.

T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,503 Posts
Hi TMort, Sounds like a good job

Photos please, when you can.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
Hi Tom, sounds interesting, if not what I would do personally, So you've spaced down the complete strut assembly by 50mm from the chassis?


So have you revised the bump stops to suit the new suspension travel with respect to the Diffs and driveshaft angles at full droop? 50mm height sounds like quite a lot more reach for the driveshafts and dynamic measuring system sensors etc? I guess you saw enough tolerance in everything to reach at full droop when on the jack.


Don't think it will have affected the computer as the sensors will be looking at frequency and delta's.


Pics would be great!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yes, that is exaclty what I did - the complete strut assambly i.e. the McPherson is spaced down at each wheel by 40 mm front and 50 mm rear.
You don't need to release the springs to do the job, spacers go on top. And you mount them like you normally screw in the struts to the chasis.
Souds easy, but it's not. It happen to be the need to disassemble the wheel hubs at front, to be able to manouver it all together with the spacers on top - back to the position. Then connect the suspension arms, etc. At rear end similar thing, arms unscrewed and then all moved up. But I was replacing the shocks , so the spring was released too in the meantime.

The suspenstion travel is similar , because you don't change the length of the struts nor the springs. At full drop, noticed when being jacked up, the front lower arms do not touch lower chasing (don't know the name for it , but you now, the steel frame of the lower body). Unlike when the struts were off - the front arms rested on the frame. So there is space at full drop. The issue was to correctly set up the links of the stabilizer rod. The position of the stabilizer rod slightly changed, so the rod links at full drop touch the suspension arms. But when you sag the suspension down, when the car is on its wheels , there is plenty of room there , with the standard links. I was thinking of replacing them with a different length links , but it was not needed at the end . When you think of it, if one wheel is comletely off the ground , the other is pushed down, so the stabilizer pulls the other wheel that is in the air even more up. This will prevent the link touching the lower suspension arm.

And for the dynamic suspension measuring system - there are these little links to measure the position of the arms . But there is enough tolerance there . And I also think they measure the position via the delta only. Because look , the starting position changes with each and different car load. So I agree with you. Therefore, it works well with the arms streched now.
I will be observing it all as tests continue, and I consider changing the lengths of those measuring links or stabilizer links, if needed. But for now , all looks good as stock, and no computer messages pop up .

And I already tested it in some heavy terrain - could not resist obvioulsy.
Rides good, traction control works , engages, as it was before.

Yes , will send picture when I have them .

T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Here some pictures.

At first as it was BEFORE the lift, to compare:

on even surface:


uneven:


and heavy loaded:


I don't like how the wheel arch was completely filled at rear when under the load, or on uneven surfce.
It looked like there was no space left.
This has changed.

T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
AFTER the lift :







Sorry, don't have similar photos.
Will make them more under similar circumstances.

I find it better now, how it should be - for my usage.

T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,086 Posts
Now all you need are sidesteps or a ladder ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veteran and XZ4

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
Thanks for the pics, looks a little odd, but i've looked at mine for 7 years, Maybe get some all terrain tyres! I bet the ground clearance is better for off-roading though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Now all you need are sidesteps or a ladder ?
It's not that bad. That is still a baby RR, and I am still a grown up man.

And now, the "Easy entry and exit" feature comes in handy, which slides the seat down before you get in.
And the wife sits always low . And the little lady is carried by me into the car.
Wife likes the way you feel it when sitting in the car. I also do.

Thanks for the pics, looks a little odd, but i've looked at mine for 7 years, Maybe get some all terrain tyres! I bet the ground clearance is better for off-roading though!
The ground clearance makes a huge difference for offroading. Especially, when you need to drive behind bigger monsters, that leave out impassable ruts , both in snow and mud.
These are AT tyres, not aggresive though, but very good for all my usage, that is 50/50 terrain/tarmac.

T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Out of interest Tom, for purposes off roadiness, why didn’t you start with a Prestige instead of the Dynamic ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Out of interest Tom, for purposes off roadiness, why didn’t you start with a Prestige instead of the Dynamic ?
Tha is a good question Shady. And the answer is silly - I was not into offroading that time back in 2013.
Well I am not quite there even now, but this is more overlanding that I am keen on.
The difference is obvious, when overlanding - you don't cross over nasty obstacles, you don't sink the vehicle in a mud up to the roof or in a water. You like to cover a distance rather than taking yourself to hard reachable places for a stamp.

But yes, your point is valid , Pure or Prestige would be a better call for offroading, they have better angles, especially approach angle. But only the Dynamic had the option of Magne Ride suspention. Today it is still HSE only, I believe.
I guess I have not realised the difference back in the days of excitment when choosing a vehicle. On the table was also a Grand Cherokee , but again the version was not near close to the most offroad worthy back then which was Overland. And maybe XC60 , so you see were I was at .

Today I see no point in changing as the car is in a good condition, serviced, it's modified, and still looks and rides very good.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CoolBlueWhyte

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Hi.

I kind of misplaced this thread, should be in the Modifications section of the forum.
So to get it back to off-roading topic, have this short film.

There are two situations in which the lift presented here has proven its purpose.


The Duster is modified way havier from the stock.

T.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top