[Brett54]

Hi all, after exhaustive reading of all your valuable, informative, helpful information and links on the subject of more clearance for underbody I have deduced the following;
The only way to achieve inexpensive satisfactory clearance is by finding the maximum tyre/wheel combination to suit my zook. So working with my local tyrepower guy we will fit 245/75/r16 on my existing 16x6.5J wheels. The result shoud be an extra 26mm clearance. I am going with the MT pattern because beach and rainforest will be my prowling surfaces. Bitumen will be only 30% of travel.
So please confirm/comment my deduction.
Thanks in advance

[llama_au]

245/75/16 will scrub, 245/70/16 won't.

Your best options for a lift are Dobinsons lift kit (as it's the tallest) + taller tyres.

[ZUZUKI]

I agree with llama_au in that 245/75 is just a little big - I run them on my 1999 GV & put up with scrubbing, but it's not a nice sound or feeling when it does hit.
There are plastic lips on the rear wheelarch that won't last long if a tyre contacts them.

I know you say only 30% road, but this chassisless car suffers badly from tyre roar.
I know of 2 owners that have used different M/T pattern tyres that couldn't stand the racket & went to A/T instead.
Both tyres are not known to be overly noisy for a M/T pattern, yet on a NGV drove them mad.

You didn't mention a suspension lift & it would cost about the same as a set of tyres (depending on the tyres you pick!) but in a full IFS/IRS car like the NGV, this also achieves under body clearance & more is available that the 26mm you are looking at from tyres alone.
However, while wheel alignment (especially camber) can be altered on a NGV, going too high drastically reduces droop & can turn the car into a crashy riding nasty thing, plus it upsets the rear bush on the front control arms.
Better to go for a more moderate than maximum lift. I have experienced good results from OME (ARB) gear, & also Ironman seems ok.
These will give you approx. 30-35mm lift, that plus the tyres is as good as it gets, which is pretty good, for what the car is.

Having said that, you might still find it lower than you'd like - especialy on sand where speed is more a factor than it often is in the bush - skid plates are worthwhile - for replacing the plastic under engine tray as a minimum.
Rgs, Michael

[Brett54]

Ok, bugger, time for a rethink. thanks for the feedback. We are in Central Australia at the moment and need to replace tyres now after the Bridgestone h/t 225/70/r16 tyres have chunks out of them after 23,000kms mostly 4wd because we tow the Suzuki on a trailer with our 11 mtr bus when travelling.
So, I need to replace the tyres and thought to take that opportunity to put the tallest suitable tyre on that I can here and then look at a lift kit once we get over east coast in a few months.
Should I go and have a talk to the aftermarket 4wd guys in Alice Springs they have an ARB, Opposite Lock, and a couple of independant shops in town.
Thanks in advance.

[vet 180]

Zunkini is correct when he says that on an IFS/IRS vehicle you do achieve clearance with a lift (not true for a solid axle vehicle).there are plenty of quality lift kits at the around the $1000 mark.

I would also research a little people that have fitted the size your want to fit and know exactly what needs to be cut to fit and what you are willing to live with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe]

viewtopic.php?t=33254

^^^ no lift and 245/75r16 not sure if he trimed anything too make them fit

[llama_au]

Truly, don't go with 245/75s, 245/70s are much more sensible, fit better, and bring the speedo to about true speed. I highly recommend BFG KO2 all terrains. I think I'm one of the ones that Michael mentions had muddies and got sick of the noise. I had to raise my voice to talk to passengers. The wet weather road driving was awful, as was the braking distance increase. The BFGs have taken me everywhere the Cooper muddies have, are quieter, brake and handle better.

Back on the subject of the lift, your most common options are Dobinsons (40-50mm lift), Ironman (variable height achieved, supposed to be 40mm) and Old Man Emu (25mm). As Michael mentioned, they lift everything except the bottom of the control arms as they are an IFS/IRS vehicle.

[vet 180]

I second the KO2 option. They are not cheap, but a great strong tire that will pretty much do everything your average mud will do but much quieter.

Where I live we drive 120-140kph daily at at those speeds muds kill your ears. If you are going to get muds the way to do it is buy new and sell at half tread before they get too noisy then rinse and repeat

I am also going to go out on a limb here and say I doubt the monocoque chassis has much do do with the extra noise or at least it’s not the whole issue, but instead I say it’s more of an issue on the ngv as it’s a reasonably quite and refined 4wd. When you drive a Sierra, wrangler, 79 series etc you have so much wind noise, vibrations and rattles the extra tire noise just adds to the charm. Doesn’t matter what tires you put on them they are going to be noisy vehicles. Also these vehicles are rarlely driven everyday.

An NGV on the other hand is a nice quite car that is often driven daily, so when you install mud terrains all you hear is this distinct annoying, loud constant hum. The radio can’t block it out and it is just always there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe]

Brett54 wrote:

Bitumen will be only 30% of travel.

Not daily driven I'd be going M/T's, not all muddys are that noisy on the road.

[Gwagensteve]

They are in an NGV.

The tyre noise thing due to the monocoque construction is real.

[atari4x4]

^^^ all that 100% real [FACTS]

even the inbetweener's/xt's/cross terrains/aggressive all terrain are noisy in my ngv compared to the road tyres that came off it.

[vet 180]

Gwagensteve wrote:

They are in an NGV.

The tyre noise thing due to the monocoque construction is real.

A pajero is no worse than an FJ cruiser for tire noise. Same can be said for XJ vs TJ jeeps. Any modern car with little wind noise I have been in regardless of separate chassis or not seems to be louder for tire noise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZUZUKI]

Nah, direct experience.
Federal Couragia M/T - not a bad tyre for the money & not known to be overly noisy.
Fitted plenty of 235/75R15 & 30x9R15 on SE Vitaras' - no overly loud noise issues.
Fitted 205/80R16 to steelies on a NGV Diesel - diesel mind you & you couldn't hear the engine over the roar that the tyres made once over 30km/H.
Owner did 7,000 misserable km before he switched to an A/T (not by us & I can't remember which brand) & got his sanity back & his wife off his back.
NGV & M/T is a bad combination.
Rgs, Michael

[atari4x4]

My cross terrains went on with 3,000kms on the clock & for an aggressive all terrain the amount of noise is up there with MT/R’s km2’s on my SV’s.

[Chop]

Yep, even my 62,000km old KO2's make noise that seem to resonate the the GV.

[llama_au]

^mine are starting to get a touch noiser as they wear but nothing like muddies.

The tyre roar DOES resonate through a monocoque car, as do noisy shocks, etc. And I beg to differ about NGVs being refined - mine is the rattliest, most unrefined car I've owned.

To the OP - I'm glad you went with ATs, you won't regret that decision

[bob_oz]

245 75 16's on stock 5 spoke alloys - no rub.

I recently hot-knifed the front lip as it was getting washed back into the tyres and breaking clips with creek crossings - otherwise 245-75-16 maxxis bravo's fit no issue

[ZUZUKI]

IIama_au, you have Hyundai 16" alloys on your car - these might be a slightly different offset to Suzuki alloys or steels, so may have contributed to the rub issues you had with 245/75R16.
I don't mind a bit of rub, lets me know I am getting the car to work to it's maximum, at it's lowest height / least bump stop spacing.
RWC testers don't agree though (any contact on the body from a tyre is a fail).
A lot of rub, to the point of pulling bits of car off, or cutting lugs off tyres is bad though, I agree.
Rgs, Michael

[llama_au]

ZUZUKI wrote:

IIama_au, you have Hyundai 16" alloys on your car - these might be a slightly different offset to Suzuki alloys or steels, so may have contributed to the rub issues you had with 245/75R16.
I don't mind a bit of rub, lets me know I am getting the car to work to it's maximum, at it's lowest height / least bump stop spacing.
RWC testers don't agree though (any contact on the body from a tyre is a fail).
A lot of rub, to the point of pulling bits of car off, or cutting lugs off tyres is bad though, I agree.
Rgs, Michael

^Michael, they're exactly the same width and offset as the 16x6.5" (+45) steelies they come with.

I've never had 245/75/16s

[vet 180]

ZUZUKI wrote:

Nah, direct experience.
Federal Couragia M/T - not a bad tyre for the money & not known to be overly noisy.
Fitted plenty of 235/75R15 & 30x9R15 on SE Vitaras' - no overly loud noise issues.
Fitted 205/80R16 to steelies on a NGV Diesel - diesel mind you & you couldn't hear the engine over the roar that the tyres made once over 30km/H.
Owner did 7,000 misserable km before he switched to an A/T (not by us & I can't remember which brand) & got his sanity back & his wife off his back.
NGV & M/T is a bad combination.
Rgs, Michael

Not debating that NGV’s have bad tire roar I have actually experienced it with only AT’s, but is it is it really because of mono chassis? I am still not convinced as Pajeros are also mono and probably have less tire roar than FJ’s. JK and JL wranglers are also very bad for tire roar and they are separate chassis.

I still feel it has more to do with insulation, steel used, lack of wind noise etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZUZUKI]

Agree that some cars are worse for tyre noise than others - NGV are right up there with the noisiest.
I don't think it is wholly or solely a monocoque chassis issue, as as you say, there are other cars with similar construction that do not suffer as much.

Tracking noise transfer is a bit of a black art, but it is probably more to do with materials / design of subframe mountings to the body shell.

Much of the suspension design is common 'car' practice & works fine in that application, but seems to have a problem when more aggressive tyre patterns are fitted - these sorts of patterns would not be fitted to a 'car', so the issue never arises.
(Lack of) insulation or resonance dampening might be a factor, steel probably not, lack of other wind or mechanical 'background' noise - nope. An NGV is quiet as far as Suzuki 4WD's go, but compared to other modern 4WD's, it's not that refined or quiet.

Rgs, Michael

[bob_oz]

ZUZUKI wrote:

Agree that some cars are worse for tyre noise than others - NGV are right up there with the noisiest.
I don't think it is wholly or solely a monocoque chassis issue, as as you say, there are other cars with similar construction that do not suffer as much.

Tracking noise transfer is a bit of a black art, but it is probably more to do with materials / design of subframe mountings to the body shell.

Much of the suspension design is common 'car' practice & works fine in that application, but seems to have a problem when more aggressive tyre patterns are fitted - these sorts of patterns would not be fitted to a 'car', so the issue never arises.
(Lack of) insulation or resonance dampening might be a factor, steel probably not, lack of other wind or mechanical 'background' noise - nope. An NGV is quiet as far as Suzuki 4WD's go, but compared to other modern 4WD's, it's not that refined or quiet.

Rgs, Michael

I'll be dropping my rear K frame out this year - will put it back with some 5mm rubber between chassis mounts and see if it helps the resonance in the rear - sounds like a wheel bearing etc but is just tyre tread harmonics / noise

[Gwagensteve]

Bob, I would definitely not do this.

The subframe to body connection will be designed one of two ways, either with bushes that allow the subframe to float a little, or rigidly mounted. If it uses bushes, there is some scope to adjust the stiffness of the bushes by using material with a lower durometer*, but you can't just add an additional soft spacer.

The subframe retaining bolts are a highly stressed connection and need to be torqued to spec. Adding a spacer will make this impossible, so the bolt will most likely work loose. Additionally, if the spacer was effective, the subframe would be effectively sliding slightly on the bolt causing wear.

In short, you can't mess with an engineered connection.

*it's common in drift/circuit vehicles to remove the factory rubber subframe bushes and replace them with solid spacers to improve handling and steering response. There are also precision shims available that very accurately locate the subframe compared to the body but retain the rubber bushes. Either way, the integrity of the connection isn't affected - the bolt still torques to spec.

[ZUZUKI]

Another source of noise in the rear of a NGV I've come across, is 'chatter' from the rear springs.
The depression in the pressed tin control arm where the spring sits is not generous.
Many aftermarket springs are wound from thicker wire than the originals, to achieve the desired increase in spring rate - this larger wire can rub against the sides of the control arm depression, making an annoying noise that resisted cure via insertion rubber & silicone in this area.
Rgs, Michael