3rd production radius arms

[lambrover]

I am after some more flex out of the front end, I have looked at the safari guard set up but the on road handling is affected to much for a touring rig.
What do you guys think about 3rd productions nissan GQ/GU radius arms they have a similar chassis connection to the rover but these ones have a pivit point after the bush. wonder if you can make them fit.

http://http://www.bbmmotorsports.com.au/patrol.html

scroll down to the radius arms.

[geckos]

snake racing does some for rovers. or those reeeeeeeeeeeeaallly nice ones from equipe:tease:
qt ones, and you can get them from the uk in 5 days or so.......


geck

[Bush65]

They will fit the rover chassis mount, but not the axle. The position of the bushes in nissan arms are a long way off the position of the brackets on a rover axle.

[lambrover]

John, I thought the diff housing end might be the problem, need to talk to an engineer about moding the housing or ring 3rd to make some for the rovers, I think they would work well.

Gecks, hows the car going got your parts yet, you go to cairns. You better keep an eye on those radius arms mate I know where you work. so if they go missing it :wasntme:.

[Slunnie]

I am after some more flex out of the front end, I have looked at the safari guard set up but the on road handling is affected to much for a touring rig.
What do you guys think about 3rd productions nissan GQ/GU radius arms they have a similar chassis connection to the rover but these ones have a pivit point after the bush. wonder if you can make them fit.

http://http://www.bbmmotorsports.com.au/patrol.html

scroll down to the radius arms.
It might be worth trying SuperPro blue bushes in the axle end of the radius arms before spending the big money etc.

[lambrover]

It might be worth trying SuperPro blue bushes in the axle end of the radius arms before spending the big money etc.

what will that do, I want the chassis end to be able to flex more, wouldn't I use a softer bush at the chassis end. I have thought about cranking the arms, has any one had there's done.

[Slunnie]

what will that do, I want the chassis end to be able to flex more, wouldn't I use a softer bush at the chassis end. I have thought about cranking the arms, has any one had there's done.
The restriction comes mostly from the axle end, not the chassis end.

When you articulate it forces the 2 bushes that are at the axle, one has the crush tube forced up , and the other has the crush tube forced down and this is what increases the resistance to articulation. The SuperPro bushes have more give in them and allow the crush tubes to move more within the bush than the OE ones do. There was a lot of work done out of QLD on bushes that were drilled and cast with slots above and below these bushes with excellent results, but they are not very durable. The SuperPro ones are softer and the end result is apparently similar for articulation, but more durable for DD and touring. These are the same bushes that Discowhite (I'm pretty sure) is using with good results.

[lambrover]

cheers slunnie, I'll have to order some in.

[DRanged]

Be very carefull using soft bushes if you intend to drive on the road. Under hard braking the car will brake steer in either direction as the bushes compress under load.
Mate I run a 4" lift with custom shock towers and shocks with standard LR bushes. It flexes very well. Spend your money on a front locker instead.

Justin

[lambrover]

can you post a pic of your front flex. I will be getting a front locker abit later on, busy soughting out a 4bd1 engine to fit to the county at the moment. I am rebuilding the lt95 plus researching turbos as well. I have custom shock mounts and longer travel shocks its just not enough any more, I have the flex bug.

[discowhite]

front flex in a rover will always be an issue.. been there got sick of tweeking things, bought a SG 3 link, problem solved:D,,,,,well for a rock toy NOT a tourer.
if you want it as a tourer what flex you have in the pic is shirt loads. if you want it as a rock toy then engineered mods are the only way.
as for the 3rds arms... your still replacing a rover radius arm with something thats almost identical in design.
i too would spend the money on a locker;)

cheers phil

[rick130]

There's not much in it between the Haultech slotted bushes and the Super Pro ones for flex in my testing, but the Super Pro ones beat the slotted ones hands down for on road manners in a daily driver IMO

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-chatter/49753-poly-bushes-dont-flex-do-they.html

<edit> I'm only running 10" stroke shocks, the Haultech ones may be better if you run longer stroke dampers, but the Super Pro bushes deform enough to allow you to get the full stroke out of the shocks i run and the dampers are mounted to get the maximum amount of droop I can without killing the shock on bump.

[Bush65]

John, I thought the diff housing end might be the problem, need to talk to an engineer about moding the housing or ring 3rd to make some for the rovers, I think they would work well.

Gecks, hows the car going got your parts yet, you go to cairns. You better keep an eye on those radius arms mate I know where you work. so if they go missing it :wasntme:.
Here's a pic comparing the axle end of Rangie, Patrol (3rds arm) and Landcruiser radius arms.

You can see the the bush separation is least for Rangie (about 165 mm), then Landcruiser (about 186 mm) then greatest Patrol (about 240 mm).

Clearly this greater separation is why flex at the front of Patrols is not as good as either Rover or Landcruiser.

IMHO the GU Patrol bushes are the best for flex, followed by 105 series Landcruiser, and last are the duel shell Land Rover bushes.

Both the GU and 105 series bushes have holes in the rubber element and the radial dimension of the rubber element is greater, both of these details provide more flex.

The I/D of the 3 are similar, but O/D of Landrover bushes are about 50 mm compared to 60 mm for Patrol and Landcruiser. The larger O/D is one reason why the separation is greater, but not to the extent that Nissan has gone.

IMHO, you will not benefit from using 3rds Patrol arms.

You should also be aware that these arms led to several failures of the chassis mounts (tearing mounts from chassis rails), when 1st used. The 1st ones used steel blocks with UHMWP bushes but they had to go back to stock rubber bushes. The problem as I see it is greater moment load on the mount (due to offset of the new pivot point) when the arm is at full droop. The rubber bushes must relieve it enough to prevent failure, but they don't eliminate it.

I toyed with the idea of using Landcruiser radius arms with a clevis similar to the 3rds Patrol arms.

[geckos]

Equipe radius arms......... (rotate right)
lambrover, this is the extent of my mods, car still away, all other mods have arrived and still in shed.

[Zute]

Have a look at X-members. Its an Ozie invention, its been talked about on Outerlimits forum.

[discowhite]

Have a look at X-members. Its an Ozie invention, its been talked about on Outerlimits forum.

if its the dobbins one you talking about its almost impossible to fit into a rover.

cheers phil

[roverrescue]

A quiet mate of mine who tinkers away in a shed south of Cairns has built an Xlink for a rover front, Xlink attached beside pumpkin with a combined with a Watts linkage for lateral location...

He tells me he did it because people told him it couldnt be done!!!

Ill have a yarn and see if he is happy to take photos etc.

Steve

[Bush65]

I wouldn't say an X-link can't be fitted. It depends on how much you want to do it.

I believe the main issues that persuaded them not make an X-link for a rover were:

Insufficient clearance between the radius arm and the axle housing.

The position of the mount on the axle end of the panhard.

[discowhite]

A quiet mate of mine who tinkers away in a shed south of Cairns has built an Xlink for a rover front, Xlink attached beside pumpkin with a combined with a Watts linkage for lateral location...

He tells me he did it because people told him it couldnt be done!!!

Ill have a yarn and see if he is happy to take photos etc.

Steve

sounds like a man after my own heart:)

cheers phil

[Slunnie]

A quiet mate of mine who tinkers away in a shed south of Cairns has built an Xlink for a rover front, Xlink attached beside pumpkin with a combined with a Watts linkage for lateral location...

He tells me he did it because people told him it couldnt be done!!!

Ill have a yarn and see if he is happy to take photos etc.

Steve
That would have been a handful to drive with the axle moving in a different arc to the steering. I guess doing it and doing it well are 2 different things.

[Michele]

<edit> I'm only running 10" stroke shocks, the Haultech ones may be better if you run longer stroke dampers, but the Super Pro bushes deform enough to allow you to get the full stroke out of the shocks i run and the dampers are mounted to get the maximum amount of droop I can without killing the shock on bump.

Would you please elaborate on this :)

This is the front travel (sorry usual old pic) with 36" rubbers and 10" Bilstein shocks and Queensland flavour bushes :angel:
http://usera.ImageCave.com/Michele/CubeII_flex.jpg
I did change the shocks (different lenghts but yet 10" travel) and the mounts and the flex should be the same.
Police spec Rangie springs start dislocating at the bottom seat.
I guess I could gain 1 cm.? droop more and still be able to compress the shocks without fuss...

I got RRC EAS external mounts to play with but I haven't checked them out yet...


Cube II is more or less balanced front/rear...

[Grimace]

The holey bushes will cyle 12"+some stroke shocks up front, and this is more then most use. The standard pin style bushes at the chassis can handle this no problem, so upgrading to a hinged style bush at the chassis end is pointless in my humble opinion.

The super pro poly bushes work well enough for 90% of rovers, but for max flex the holey bushes come out in front IMHO. But as mentioned they don't tend to last too long.

[mopar]

anyone thought of having the rover arms bored to take the larger od patrol bushes, is there enough meat to do it safely? by my understanding it should improve articulation

[rick130]

Good question.

I can measure up the GU Patrol bush OD (when it stops raining here) but I suspect it might make the material a little thin for my liking on the Rover radius arm.

[edit] forgot to add that late GU bushes have holes these days too, which makes for better flex.

[mopar]

The I/D of the 3 are similar, but O/D of Landrover bushes are about 50 mm compared to 60 mm for Patrol and Landcruiser.

In the pic showing the 3 different arms the rover appears to be quite solid around the bush (compared to the cruiser) but maybe not that solid

[wagoo]

anyone thought of having the rover arms bored to take the larger od patrol bushes, is there enough meat to do it safely? by my understanding it should improve articulation

Probably as John( Bush65) mentioned, there is insufficient clearance between the radius arms and the axle tube to take full advantage of larger diameter bushings,although you would get some improvement as one bush will pull further away from the axle tube rather than into it.

The complaint over the Safari Guard 3 link. Could that be addressed with a disconnectable antiroll bar?
For large amounts of articulation,IMO, playing around with radius arm bushings is a little like shaving differentials to gain more ground clearance. I've been there, done that on both counts and the small amount gained never satisfied the obsession.Only a 3 link front suspension and portal axles could do that for me.
bill

[uninformed]

Bill did you ever make LOOOONNNNGGG arms? now im not talking about an extra 100mm but more like 500mm or more? Im not saying a RA will flex like a 3 link. But I dont think enough has been done with them. They have their advantages as far as packaging and roll stiffness.

some info for those reading this thread that may not know. The earlier RA's from raniges and defenders etc were narrower and allowed more flex. Disco 2 arms are different again. They have a larger bush which inturn means more bush seperation at axle end....but I believe the % increase in rubber is greater than the % increase in bush seperation compared to a normal rover arm

[wagoo]

Bill did you ever make LOOOONNNNGGG arms? now im not talking about an extra 100mm but more like 500mm or more? Im not saying a RA will flex like a 3 link. But I dont think enough has been done with them. They have their advantages as far as packaging and roll stiffness.


No Serg, i've never delved into making long arms as most of my developments were with SWB vehicles where the side mounted fuel tanks are in the way.I could maybe have gone 200mm longer.
I agree that longer arms will give greater articulation for the same size bushings, but roll stiffness would also be reduced due to the bushings not having to deflect as much for a given amount of roll.

from my observations,the earlier narrow radius arms only allowed more flex due to having less rubber to be compressed as the crush tubes are forced over to the outer shell of the bushing. When the suspension is crossed up the sides of the arms remain parrallel with the axle brackets. The bushings dont twist to any noticable degree.
I can't exactly compare apples with apples with my 3 vehicle fleet,but I'd suggest that the narrow armed front end would have less resistance to axle tramp or castor angle change under heavy braking than the wider arms.
Bill.

[350RRC]

Bill did you ever make LOOOONNNNGGG arms? now im not talking about an extra 100mm but more like 500mm or more? Im not saying a RA will flex like a 3 link. But I dont think enough has been done with them. They have their advantages as far as packaging and roll stiffness.

some info for those reading this thread that may not know. The earlier RA's from raniges and defenders etc were narrower and allowed more flex. Disco 2 arms are different again. They have a larger bush which inturn means more bush seperation at axle end....but I believe the % increase in rubber is greater than the % increase in bush seperation compared to a normal rover arm

There was a green Rover bodied thing in 4x4 Monthly some years ago that had long fabbed arms that articulated from near the middle of the chassis. The f&r mounts were only about a foot apart.

Pretty sure it ran Toy motor and driveline, chassis was RRC, body was either RRC or Def. Search might find it.

DL

[wagoo]

There was a green Rover bodied thing in 4x4 Monthly some years ago that had long fabbed arms that articulated from near the middle of the chassis. The f&r mounts were only about a foot apart.

DL

A little OT but it just occurred to me that in a high centre scenario,a vehicle with very long arms is more likely to belly out on the arms instead of the chassis. With the chassis bellied, the suspension can still unload to a degree before all traction is lost. With the long radius arms bellied I'd imagine that the vehicle would come to a stop much earlier.
I suppose the radius arm chassis mounts could be raised up to prevent this.
Bill.

[uninformed]

There was a green Rover bodied thing in 4x4 Monthly some years ago that had long fabbed arms that articulated from near the middle of the chassis. The f&r mounts were only about a foot apart.

Pretty sure it ran Toy motor and driveline, chassis was RRC, body was either RRC or Def. Search might find it.

DL

Thanks Ill do a search. Depending on the wheelbase, the arms may have not been that long. If it were say 100inch then lengthing the arms by 500mm in the front and say 300-400 in the rear would have the mounts back to back no gap.......

[rick130]

Did John ever chase up about acquiring the moulds for the holey bushes from Haultech ?

If not, I've been thinking of asking Fulcrum/Super Pro if it's feasible to machine some of their standard ones with a ball end mill, or just getting some stock and doing it anyway.

They have detailed turning instructions here Machining Polyurethane (http://www.superpro.com.au/why-superpro/knowledge-base/machining-polyurethane)

[wagoo]

Did John ever chase up about acquiring the moulds for the holey bushes from Haultech ?

If not, I've been thinking of asking Fulcrum/Super Pro if it's feasible to machine some of their standard ones with a ball end mill, or just getting some stock and doing it anyway.

They have detailed turning instructions here Machining Polyurethane (http://www.superpro.com.au/why-superpro/knowledge-base/machining-polyurethane)
Don't know if it would improve or adversely affect longevity, but instead of drilling holes, how would you go machining a concentric groove between the ID and OD of the bushings?
bill.

[rick130]

Don't know if it would improve or adversely affect longevity, but instead of drilling holes, how would you go machining a concentric groove between the ID and OD of the bushings?
bill.


That's what I was thinking of Bill, just not all the way around.

I was just going to roughly mimic the ones Sam made.

[edit] your suggestion may be easier and better.

[uninformed]

I reckon a chippy could make a template and do it with a router :D:o

[Scouse]

There was a green Rover bodied thing in 4x4 Monthly some years ago that had long fabbed arms that articulated from near the middle of the chassis. The f&r mounts were only about a foot apart.

Pretty sure it ran Toy motor and driveline, chassis was RRC, body was either RRC or Def. Search might find it.

DLIt's not this car, is it (yes, I know this one's blue) ?

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=43171&d=1328242466

[uninformed]

thanks Scouse,

I dont know if that is the truck 350RRC was talking about??? Those arms only look about 150mm or so longer than standard RA's. Stock RA's on a 110 mount aprrox 150mm behind the bulkhead line, those at a guess, look about 300mm behind

[350RRC]

Not that one. Was definitely green and in really good nick. Might have had the pseudo military look with shovels and axes strapped on.

I remember the fabbed radius arms were like an I beam section, really neatly done and he looked to be using stock rubber bushes on the chassis ends with the stock mounts, which had been moved really close together as previously described.

cheers, DL

[350RRC]

A little OT but it just occurred to me that in a high centre scenario,a vehicle with very long arms is more likely to belly out on the arms instead of the chassis. With the chassis bellied, the suspension can still unload to a degree before all traction is lost. With the long radius arms bellied I'd imagine that the vehicle would come to a stop much earlier.
I suppose the radius arm chassis mounts could be raised up to prevent this.
Bill.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw the one in the mag. I don't recall it having much of a lift.

It was around the time LRA started selling angled rear chassis / trailing arm bushes they had got made out of rubber. Even my POS had angled poly bushes on it when I bought it. (still there and in good nick after at least 200,000 k's)

I couldn't really see why he'd gone to all that trouble, but the workmanship was really good! :)

cheers, DL

[wagoo]

Not that one. Was definitely green and in really good nick. Might have had the pseudo military look with shovels and axes strapped on.

I remember the fabbed radius arms were like an I beam section, really neatly done and he looked to be using stock rubber bushes on the chassis ends with the stock mounts, which had been moved really close together as previously described.

cheers, DL
It wasn't by chance Sam Overtons mates truck that appeared in 4wd monthly an issue or two before Sams Mog Rovers article? That's going back quite a few, maybe 10 years though and had Dana diffs IIRC.
Bill.