Printable View
Im not familar with the Toyota chassis end bush??? Not sure how they would make a bolt on kit to change the bush mount on a Rover, and cant see it being any longer???
Also, I cant see how long arms would make a swerve test worse??? I can see a big lift, stock length arm having problems in a swerve test due to high axle oversteer, but long arms???yes they may dive under braking (if long enough AND soft enough springs and shocks).
The TLC uses a clevis and bush, like a DII, not a pin and bush.
I think the pin is a good idea, it allows for more rotation in the radius arm during articulation than a straight hinge type eye/bush/clevis.
As a comparison I went from std D2 arms and rubber bushes to QT coprrection arms with superpro bushes. Some said that they would limit flex so I measured before and after aand with everything else the same (springs/shocks/etc) there was actually slightly more movement (3/4") with the new arms and bushes. There was negligable difference at the chassis end, but the diff end they allowed more rotation of the arm in the diff mounting.
As a comparison I have also dome a RRC (pin ends) with superpro and these were limiting at the chassis end with reduced movement despite extra movement also at the diff end.
I do think the D2 design is better as it allows downward movement and there's a lot of rubber that can compress with arm twist where the pin design relies on the pin rotating in the bush which with the tension on it doesn't move a great deal.
I wouldn't have thought the design of the bush prevents much rotation at all with the way the bushes deflect. I would be more concerned with the drop restriction of the pin/bush setup. That can be sorted on the rear with cranked lower links, but not on the fronts. I would assume that the superior super flex arms would change over to them on the patrols if they flexed less
Aren't they changing the Patrol to the Land Cruiser design (similar to the D2).
The chassis/pin end isn't the limiting factor though, it's the diff end with bush distortion that limits flex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
With my own testing between holey bushes and Super Pro I was amazed at how much twist/rotation took place in the radius arm and how allowing this rotation helps take a bit of load off the deflection of the diff bushes.
If you use the right Super Pro bush at the chassis end (there are two versions for classic style front ends) there is no limit from the pin end at all, the limiting factor is the diff end bushes.
I max out my 10" travel shocks and Wayne/Lowranger has 11.5 or 12" shocks and he's getting full flex with the Super Pro bushes and long, soft springs, which isnt' bad at all for radius arms.
I can't workout how to get a piccy up from the phone ATM so I'll upload it later, but the 'better' Super Pro pin end bush has a groove around it's periphery to allow for more bush distortion, much like their rear lower trailing arm/chassis bush, which allow much more flex than stock too.
Rick do you have part numbers for these bushes you speak of that offer more flex?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
Cheers, Adam
When I spoke to the guys at Superior about a month ago,I was told the same thing and the same timeframe that is now posted on their website.So I wouldn't get too excited just yet.It looks like the Rover arms have just been put on the back burner,while they have lots of orders coming in for Toyo's and Nisans.The Superior arms are being made to fit a D1,so if they change the chassis end design then they probably won't be a direct fit for Defenders,due to the chassis differences.Hopefully they will keep the chassis end pin design,as I would be happy with even 2" more flex,as 14" should be plenty:D
can some one explain the "swerve test" and why long radius arms would cause a problem?
I don't recall the exact details for the swerve test, but basically it standardises (so all tests are identical) an extreme lane change manouver. A number of witches hats are set up in a row at defined spaces and the vehicle has to be driven at a defined speed in and out of the hats.
I have seen it set out in documents for conducting the test, but can't point you to them.
Some years ago, when the NSW 4wd association and the aftermarket manufactures were battling with the NSW government of proposed legislation on vehicle mods, they used a few different makes of 4wd, and tested and videoed stock and a variety of aftermarket suspension upgrades (spring + shockie, with and without lifts, but not extreme lifts or control arms type stuff) and IIRC all of the tests with aftermarket spring lifts performed the swerve test as good or better than the stock vehicles. Did this convince the legislators - not one iota.
Regarding the 2nd part of your question, sorry I don't know.