Printable View
BillQuote:
Originally Posted by wagoo
I know someone running MD portals with custom Radius arms. They are 500mm longer than stock. Using stock mounts at axle and chasis, rubber at chassis and eurethane at the axle. Drives very very well on stock height springs. No diving under brakes. I can ask how it drove on stock arms. For a reference it drives (feels) better than my 2.5 inch liffted 110 ute. We both run very similar size tyres. His wheelbase is 8 inches longer than mine.
cheers
Serg
To answer a couple of questions.
-Room for Defender Calipers, yes that is what I currently have, though could put on a second set.
-Costs, after the portals you would be looking at diff locks and uprated axles and steering arms. MR Automotive could give you a current price on these. The bills started to add up, from memory the trailing arms and bushes around $500, Front Extended Guards $350, Set of 35 inch tyres $2000, Custom rims and internal beadlocks $1800, Engineers report $900, Machining of the rear tail shaft to suit longer diff centre $250. I also had a bit of mucking around with the brakes (though the ones from Tibus are inclusive of brakes). All up it was around a $18000 hit.
If you are going to get a bear, make it a Grizzly. Once you start, got to be finished properly.
Brendan
Tibus' V2 portal (the 1.16:1 4") includes only the rear brake rotor. The other brake parts you have to use from your car.
Out of interest if these are engineered and registered in NSW are they considered roadworthy in all states?
Regards
Iain
Hi Sean,Quote:
Originally Posted by wuldfasche
just got back from Billing and a little trip around the UK, shooting Wildcats and testdriving the Range Rover Evoque.
Yes, the CTIS or in this case TPAS will come as a full kit. The latest version can be programmed by the user as it comes with a connector and software.
The 4" drop boxes can be installed in a good days work and won´t need any brackets as support to the axle, except if you do serious offroading or use them for racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wuldfasche
The 5" drop boxes need the brackets to be welded to the axle, but the alignment is pretty easy and I will prepare sort of an installation manual from all the picture that I have.
I dare say, you won´t need any longer radius or trailing arms....
http://www.rallyewerk.com/LR-130CC-R...n_web1000t.jpg
The full story is in the upcoming LRO International magazine...
A mate of mine who has Volvo portals on a Cj7 Jeep/RangeRover Chassied hybrid was telling me the other day that used Volvo axle assemblies are now bringing around $9000 a pair. On top of that the LR suspension components still have to be fabricated and fitted, plus the cost of disc brake conversion etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by slug_burner
Spare parts supply, availabilty, and prices are also a concern.
In light of that the Tibus portals would appear to present very good value.
My personal opinion. For Rover type differential assemblies I don't believe the 1.16 ratio portals are worth having because all you are basically getting is increased ground clearance, without the benefits of a greatly improved effective strength increase of the differential, upper halfshafts and cv joints that the lower 1.6:1 ratio portals will give.Also more reduction at the hubs gives less torque roll to the R/H/S on steep ugly offcamber climbs.
For Defenders.fitting your transfercase with 1.003:1 high range gears plus the usual fitment of 35''ish diametre tyres will go a long way towards restoring your highway cruising speed. Another thought is that I doubt that any Australian Road Traffic Authority approved engineer worth his diploma would approve of the 4'' portal conversion without the support brace 3rd king pin fitted. Those puny swivel balls, pins and bolts won't hack it for long unless you potter around like GrandMa.
I'll handpass the response to the longer radius arm question to Serg (Uninformed) or John (bush 65).The antidive geometry under brakes is greatly exaggerated with portals, but as I've only ever done portals with 3 link setups i don't know if it is a cause for any concern.
Wagoo.
IMO......
from everything I have read, and seeing using portals and comparing them to a non portal vehicle on same tyres.....
attaching portals to a stock rover, will increase COG, wheeltrack, anti-dive and anit-squat. Roll center heights will increase also. Scrub radius is affected as well. What would remain the same if nothing but portals added is the front and rear axle roll axis angle and the vehicle aixs angle.
longer arms: Not just looking at articulation, but road handling and trasnmition of hp to traction: Draw a straight line from contact patch to chassis mount center line of the radius arms and trailing arms.... do this on a stock vehicle then do it on one with portals...now add your bigger tyres and spring lift...the steeper the worse it is, more so in the front as its trying to lead forward as the wheels go over a bump.....the rear is going up in backward motion so not as bad but still can change things in a climb etc.
Food for thought: all the RA-Aframe coil rovers are based on the original RangeRover. This vehicle and its components were purpose built for itself....so all the suspension links etc designed to work around the wheelbase,COG, tyre size etc of THAT vehicle and work as a whole. Changing just the tyre size alone changes the peramiters of how this vehicle works....is it still acceptable,does it still do ok? Yes, but not at its best.
a coil type defender on stock height springs and 750-16s requires the RA's to be 500mm longer than stock to maintain the same contact patch - chassis mount centerline angle as a original stock RangeRover on 205-16's
I have driven and passengerd in a defender type vehicle that has portals,stock height springs and 750-16s with longer RA'S...it handles on the road better and smoother over corrigations than my Defender with 2.5 in lift and 235/85-16s... I would have the better shocks, spring rates would be on par id say...The portal'd rig shows no sign of diving under brakes either.
Bushes: the portals will put more stress into the axle end bushes and making the RA's longer will compound this...BUT using eurethane will help and they are easily checked and replaced as needed.
Adding a higher (like MR Automotive) ball joint will help with the axle roational forces in the rear.
NB: there is way more to this but this is enough to give an idea and it really is person choice...plus you may be restricted to what you can do legally where you live.
Personally I would build a portal'd rig for road use with longer RA's, Trialing arms and A frame and I bet it would handle better on and off road.
cheers,
Serg
Thanks for the above Serg,
If it is not too much to ask would you or one of the other learned people help me understand some of the info that has been posted?
I have snipped a bit below to which I will refer to first off.
Increase CoG stands to reason that if you raised the weighty components like the axles assemblies (diffs etc) and everything that sits on the chassis rails up you will get a higher CoG. I think I got that bit.
Increase wheel track I expect is simply due to adding the width of the drop boxes to the end of the axle assemblies therefore you get the two drop box widths worth of increased track (or there abouts).
Effects on anti dive and anti squat. This is where I start to lose it a bit. the alignment of all the bits that join the axle assembly to the chassis do not change so why do we change the dive and squat characteristics of the vehicle?
I don't know what it is that determines roll centre but I would expect that if CoG has gone up so would roll centre. Although I can understand what CoG means and how you could determine it but not sure about roll centre. Had a quick look and this appears to cover it
http://medlem.spray.se/bmw02hemsida/...ing/fig-14.gif
Scrub radius I think I can also see the effect that you could expect given the following image. As long as scrub radius and pivot radius are the same thing, then with portals the steering axis inclination line will project to somewhere on the outside of the tyre if the drop boxes are high enough.
http://medlem.spray.se/bmw02hemsida/...ding/fig-5.gif
Please correct me where I have goofed and please give me a few more clews as to the reasons as to why dive and squat characteristics will be impacted.
I don't know if any one else is keen to know or if this is just kindergarden for auto engineering and I should go do my homework elsewhere!
Next time I will ask more about the length of RAs and TAs, although some scaled drawings might help and I will think about it a bit more.
Thanks in anticipation of some informative responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uninformed