Thread: Superior Engineering Superflex arms for Rovers.

Originally Posted by kreecha

On a related subject, and thank you for your pics presto, can defenders or discoverys use the same height front shock towers?

I ask due to the different front guard/bonnet design.

Cheers, Adam.

Hi Adam,
I don't think so, its more to do with chassis design. The best way to check is to remove the springs & shocks and sit the car on it's bump stops. Then you can measure the distance between the lower shock mount and the std tower top mount or turret mount, and check this against your shock compressed length. This will at least give you somewhere to start.
As an example, my shock towers are +35mm from std for 12" shocks. Grimace is running 14" shocks on his RRC which are 90mm longer compressed, but is running +80mm shock towers, so clearly something is different, which is why i suggest to check your own car on its bump stops.

Hi Adam, yes I've got a few options open to me, I hope you noticed all the Discos when you last visited But if I'm needing certification for the Isuzu engine mount work, I wonder if that is an opportunity to also make a better mount for the bushes and get that certified as well? I spent last Saturday arvo at Mandorah under Hellonwheels latest purchase, an army deefa, measuring his engine mounts. The RRC running gear is doomed anyway as I have the Ashcroft stuff tucked away. And if need be, yes I can roll the Disco axles under the RRC, but I'd like to roll with (pun) the sway bar free RRC setup to see if I can cope with it first, without being hassled by motor vehicle registry saying since I've got Disco axles then I've got to have the sway bars. I might give Superior a ring tomorrow.

Have you solved your engine issue yet, see your other posts re my comments on timing. Cheers. Oh and thanks for this thread.

Hi all.

I had a long conversation with Greg at Super. What I'm about to write may not be an entirely accurate summation, but it clarified a lot of things for me.

Any ideas of modifications did not come from Greg or me but just fell out of the air - the desciptions here were so obtuse you did not get it, but you went away and thought about it and figured it out yourself ie your risk not ours

I have a Disco 1 and RRC and confirmed that the mounting bracket on the Disco 1 axle is wider than that of the earlier RRC - approx 54 mm internal to 48 mm - difference of 6 mm, maybe even 8 mm if bolt tension is removed.

As stated elsewhere in this thread the Superflex arm is 32 mm wide, so fits both brackets. The bush housing tube, welded into the arm is 40 mm, so it fits both brackets. The Nissan bush itself is 50 mm and only fits the Disco 1 bracket. So the whole system as a straight bolt on is limited by the width of the bush and therefore limited to the Disco 1 (and later Defers?).

We discussed Nissan setups. Particularly how their vehicles flog out the mounting bracket eye on the axle (our LRovers have an additional 'washer' plate added to the eye to reduce the flogging). To repair the damage, Nissan owners add plate with a new hole. So to fit the Super arms to the narrower bracket on the RRC why not cut out the necessary bolt hole areas and move them out slightly to the required width and weld them back to the remaining old bracket? Most of the bracket on the axle stays in its original position, so no change to shock mount or panhard positions. And you get a stronger flex arm. You may need a certified welder certificate for chassis welds, but what about axles?

Even if it were possible to find an alternative bush that fitted or it was possible to machine the 50mm nissan bush to fit the RRC narrow bracket, the distance between the walls of the narrow bracket and the arm itself reduces side flex gap ie the arm may grind against the wall of the bracket when subject to side loadings and have some bind. I also suggested the standard LRover bush, but this apparently cannot cope with the stresses of the extra flex.

The kit Super sells contains two arms - one superflex - the other much the same as the standard LRover. The reason is for uniform strength side to side, and matching chassis bushes with equal flex. You can just buy the Superflex arm and keep the other arm standard LRover, just you will not get all of the available flex that the complete kit gives. The superflex arm goes on the left side of your vehicle, because there is some benefit gained from the long axles ability to take up stress by twisting on that side. Why not have superflex on both sides - possible - but the flex might be so great as to break steering ball joints.

So you buy the bolt on kit for your Disco 1. But your sway bars will not fit back on! Super sell a kit, quick detach, that over comes this, for a few hundred (if I may say this). For the front only.

We discussed the rear trailing arms. A set should cost less than the front arms. Seems they are held at the axle and chassis by very flexible rubber bushes, so flexible that they may as well be ball bearing swivels or rose joints. Street legal it seems.

So again, if I can say this, for likely a bit over two grand plus freight you can vastly improve both front and rear flex and have detachable sways at the front (figure it our for yourself at the rear or adapt a front pair?) Of course there is cost of matching springs and shocks to consider.

As an alternative to the nissan bush on the front axle, why not use ball bearing races instead, inserted into what is now the bush housing, and pack either side with rubber disks for the side load issues. Told that was on the money, and was considered. Problem is that the bearing inner ring on the retaining bolt may create a harmonic for those whose rigs are primarily tourers. Greg did not think it a big issue given all the other noises, but some people are very very fussy he has found. Why not a rubber coated bolt or insert into the inner bearing ring to alleviate - could do - but would people be put off by the apparent 'complexity'.

I asked how well does the LRover conversion stack up to that of similarly converted Nissan. Greg thought originally that they may come close in capability. However, apparently, Wayne/LowRanger, has dispelled that and shows it can be taken much further than the Nissan which is at its limits apparently. What are your secrets Wayne???

Just an unrelated side note that if any of you are seeking an MSA to LT230 adaptor that Outcaste4x4 look like having something out soon, but numbers interested will determine price. Ring Greg (yes another Greg) on 0424705300 if serious interest.

Almost forgot - the 0 units are for standard to 2" lift - the 2 units are for 2" to 4". Hmmm, if your two inch lift then your on the cusp .

Could just swap all RRC internals into a Disco housing

Disco housing pretty cheap to pick up

Yes, that's the alternative I have in mind. I have three Disco 1 registered at the moment. I have a fourth unregistered, for spares maybe, but it is also still a good goer. If I take the disco axle housings off then I devalue the Disco. The Disco comes with sway bars, so the rego people may make me have those on as well, so there is additional work for chassis brackets. I could grind the evidence of sway attachments off, but then if I ever want to put the axle housing back on the disco I have all the trouble of putting the sway mounts back on.

I suspect cutting and shunting the bolt eyes on the RRC is the easier option.

Sorry, also the RRC internals are going Ashcroft.

Diff bolts into disco housing
Swivel balls and everything else bolts to end of housing (ie keep swivels and all internals)
Done

Housing is just scrap metal at wreckers - off a mate - someone in the club

No sway bar if not a spec on RRC vehicle so either leave mount or cut off

Originally Posted by Skiboy

Diff bolts into disco housing
Swivel balls and everything else bolts to end of housing (ie keep swivels and all internals)
Done

Housing is just scrap metal at wreckers - off a mate - someone in the club

No sway bar if not a spec on RRC vehicle so either leave mount or cut off

Just leave the mounts there MVR wouldn't know. It will just look like the panhard bracket for LHD.

Originally Posted by workingonit

Hi all.

I had a long conversation with Greg at Super. What I'm about to write may not be an entirely accurate summation, but it clarified a lot of things for me.

Any ideas of modifications did not come from Greg or me but just fell out of the air - the desciptions here were so obtuse you did not get it, but you went away and thought about it and figured it out yourself ie your risk not ours



I asked how well does the LRover conversion stack up to that of similarly converted Nissan. Greg thought originally that they may come close in capability. However, apparently, Wayne/LowRanger, has dispelled that and shows it can be taken much further than the Nissan which is at its limits apparently. What are your secrets Wayne???

I could tell you.....but then I would have to kill you