Pedders suspension

[Stuart]

Not much point as I have a T5.1 not a T6.

Oh go on! It really would be interesting

 

[WelshGas]

Oh go on! It really would be interesting

Why?

 

[Stuart]

Why?

Are you asking why I find it interesting? Just a van geek I guess

We can pretend I've got a T5.1 if that helps persuade you?

 

[vmaxkiddy]

The wonderful thing about Cali's
Is Cali's are wonderful things!
Their tops are made out of canvas
Their bottoms are made out of springs!
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!

 

[WelshGas]

Measurements
Centre of wheel to high point wheel arch FRONT 43cm REAR 42cm

Side Cill from Bottom of cill to floor FRONT 26 cm REAR 26 cm

Fully loaded, as we are going away, 80L Fuel and 30L water.

 

[Stuart]

@WelshGas thanks for the photos but it's the VW info from the handbook / sales literature that I'm keen to see

 

[WelshGas]

@WelshGas thanks for the photos but it's the VW info from the handbook / sales literature that I'm keen to see

 

[Kmann]

Looks pretty much like mine (102 / 2WD / T6-16 ). Fully laden with everything for 4 weeks on the road (30L water, 70L fuel, spare 907 gas) Inklusive top books full of iSUP, kites, etc. And two bikes on the rack.

Don't ask me to spring marking colours. My springs are covered in a tar-based rust protection solution (SUVO). So everything under my Cali is black in black ;-)

 

[Skewif]

Looks very close to mine too. VW got the suspension pretty much spot on for the vast majority of their customers. Most of whom are more than happy to cruse along, don't need or expect perfect handling and would never dream of taking it on really rough stuff. It is a cruiser and an amazing mile muncher that just floats you along motorways in quite wonderful comfort. I appreciate this setup.. a lot. Although interesting seeing how close a van conforms to factory spec ( I think mine does +/- 2cm), respectfully the tread was mainly an information exchange for the minority who would like to modify this popular suspension setup and taylor it to specific needs. I for one want more hight and damping. Many others seem to want to firm it up a little even if fully to spec . We all have different driving styles and requirements, thats why we choose different cars. Nout wrong with a bit of modding I say.

 

[Stuart]

Thanks @WelshGas although I have seen that before. I was hoping for something from VW which actually stated what the ride height should be. It seems to vary so much between vans!

 

[Stuart]

I guess the 186 / 569 kind of does, as it should be possible to get from that to the usual wheel centre to arch measurement

 

[Kmann]

As you can see from the drawing @WelshGas just posted, it is very clear that there is a difference between the space over the front and rear wheel. So the sagging might indeed be an illusion. A quick Google search enlightens that this is not the case in all drawings of the California. But then again, how correct are these drawings?

It is my impression that when the baseline between the wheels is horizontally aligned the car is set up perfect. Whether it is raised or lowered due to change of springs. Despite the front wheel arch having more distance to the tyre, than the rear … the space in the wheel arches is not a valid place to measure.

 

[WelshGas]

I guess the 186 / 569 kind of does, as it should be possible to get from that to the usual wheel centre to arch measurement

This is the best I can find - you'll have to sort out which dimensions are of relevance.

https://bb-database.com/jctumbau/web/international/transporter-technische-zeichnungen

 

[andyinluton]

Measurements
Centre of wheel to high point wheel arch FRONT 43cm REAR 42cm

Side Cill from Bottom of cill to floor FRONT 26 cm REAR 26 cm

Fully loaded, as we are going away, 80L Fuel and 30L water.


Sort of confirms that the sagging rear is just an optical illusion, I would be interested to see your measurements to top of rear bumper & bottom of front to see if they match the VW diagrams.

 

[Kmann]

This is the best I can find - you'll have to sort out which dimensions are of relevance.

https://bb-database.com/jctumbau/web/international/transporter-technische-zeichnungen

Brilliant info WG!

If someone follows the link you posted (above), they will see an illustration of a T6 that also has a visible difference between spaces in the front and rear arch. I become more and more convinced that it is supposed to be like that.

 

[GrannyJen]

Mine looks much the same, It has been bounced all over rough roads, even taken flying on one occasion, is in use all year round, all types of terrain and this afternoon was towing a caravan, all fairly effortlessly so I am quite happy with it although towing it did resemble one of the ships I was on in a force 10 when going over bumps so may take advice whether stiffening the rear any further would help.

Oh, and don't ask me to get on my knees to look at the springs as I would need someone to point them out to me

 

[WelshGas]

Mine looks much the same, It has been bounced all over rough roads, even taken flying on one occasion, is in use all year round, all types of terrain and this afternoon was towing a caravan, all fairly effortlessly so I am quite happy with it although towing it did resemble one of the ships I was on in a force 10 when going over bumps so may take advice whether stiffening the rear any further would help.

Oh, and don't ask me to get on my knees to look at the springs as I would need someone to point them out to me

Just be aware if it is stiffened up for towing then it could become uncomfortable when not.
Airbag inserts for the springs maybe a good alternative. Pressurised for towing and depressurise when not.
http://air-lift.co.uk/61-universal-air-helper-kits

 

[GrannyJen]

Just be aware if it is stiffened up for towing then it could become uncomfortable when not.
Airbag inserts for the springs maybe a good alternative. Pressurised for towing and depressurise when not.
http://air-lift.co.uk/61-universal-air-helper-kits

That's my quandary as I find the set up perfect for my use at present. I think it is just becoming used to towing again. On the motorway I never even knew it was there

 

[mccp]

Oh, and don't ask me to get on my knees to look at the springs as I would need someone to point them out to me

Your knees are halfway between your feet and your hips.

(I'll get my coat)

 

[GrannyJen]

Your knees are halfway between your feet and your hips.

(I'll get my coat)

I was anticipating that

 

[westfalia]

Measurements
Centre of wheel to high point wheel arch FRONT 43cm REAR 42cm

Mine is 40cm front and rear. T5.1 lowered 30mm.

 

[mccp]

This is the best I can find - you'll have to sort out which dimensions are of relevance.

https://bb-database.com/jctumbau/web/international/transporter-technische-zeichnungen

That bodybuilder website is a mine of information!

In case it's of any use to anyone, I took some measurements of the T6 Window Van from the DXF drawings with AutoCAD:

Front wheel centre to wheel arch - 410 mm, centre to ground - 339 mm.
Rear wheel centre to wheel arch - 389 mm, centre to ground - 312 mm.

The drawing shows the ground level - "Roadway plane with vehicle loaded", as a horizontal line, but the rear wheel of the van is compressed more than the front. In the drawing, the centre of the front axle is 24 mm higher than the rear. At the same time, the sills are horizontal - parallel with the roadway plane.

The gap between the top of the front wheel and the wheel arch is 61 mm, the gap at the rear is 39 mm.

It seems like there is more space at the front compared to the rear, by design. Obviously this can be varied with different vehicle loads and springs.

There is one other measurement I've never been able to find - the distance between folded mirrors. On the drawing this is shown as 2093 mm. The distance between door handles is 1904 mm and mirrors unfolded is 2230 mm.

 

[GrannyJen]

That bodybuilder website is a mine of information!

In case it's of any use to anyone, I took some measurements of the T6 Window Van from the DXF drawings with AutoCAD:

Front wheel centre to wheel arch - 410 mm, centre to ground - 339 mm.
Rear wheel centre to wheel arch - 389 mm, centre to ground - 312 mm.

The drawing shows the ground level - "Roadway plane with vehicle loaded", as a horizontal line, but the rear wheel of the van is compressed more than the front. In the drawing, the centre of the front axle is 24 mm higher than the rear. At the same time, the sills are horizontal - parallel with the roadway plane.

The gap between the top of the front wheel and the wheel arch is 61 mm, the gap at the rear is 39 mm.

It seems like there is more space at the front compared to the rear, by design. Obviously this can be varied with different vehicle loads and springs.

There is one other measurement I've never been able to find - the distance between folded mirrors. On the drawing this is shown as 2093 mm. The distance between door handles is 1904 mm and mirrors unfolded is 2230 mm.

I know the width of the vehicle with the mirrors folded ...

It's about 1mm more than the width of the French street that I found myself in last summer

 

[s2bear]

Brand New Austrian Spec LHD Cali Beach Edition 4motion DSG WITH HD anti roll bars (1k miles on clock): Front Centre Wheel to centre of Arch = 450mm / Rear Centre Wheel to centre of Arch = 425mm. So, it has the illusion that the front rides higher than the rear. Spirit Level on interior floor says the front is LOWER than the rear. Spirit Level on garage floor says floor slopes ‘slightly’ down towards the front of the vehicle but not as much as the vehicle’s floor. Letting go of the sliding door, it rapidly closes of its own accord - is it designed to do so regardless of the vehicle stance? i.e. do the door runners slope down towards the front? The Front of the vehicle is to the RIGHT in the photos. Spring Markings attached too (grey/grey/green). Not sure if I’ve confused the situation even more or not, but hopefully the spring markings are good for the record. Despite the measurements and apparition of being lower at the rear, my Cali’s angle seems less than the OP’s Cali. Stu... p.s. 1/2 tank of fuel.

 

[andyinluton]

That bodybuilder website is a mine of information!

In case it's of any use to anyone, I took some measurements of the T6 Window Van from the DXF drawings with AutoCAD:

Front wheel centre to wheel arch - 410 mm, centre to ground - 339 mm.
Rear wheel centre to wheel arch - 389 mm, centre to ground - 312 mm.

The drawing shows the ground level - "Roadway plane with vehicle loaded", as a horizontal line, but the rear wheel of the van is compressed more than the front. In the drawing, the centre of the front axle is 24 mm higher than the rear. At the same time, the sills are horizontal - parallel with the roadway plane.

That drawing can't be correct - the rear wheel is drawn sunk into the road. Unless I am missing something with wheels of the same diameter, fitted with the same tyres, with roughly the same load front to rear & inflated to the same pressure you would not get an extra 27mm of "squash" in the sidewalls of the rear wheels compared to the front.

I think it shows the correct position of the body to the road i.e. when fully loaded the cills are parallel to the road surface, but the position of the wheel is wrong.