Thread: A-Frame Vs 4 Link Rear

Originally Posted by PAT303

Dave look on the Patrol forum,engines,gearbox's and diff's.The LC forum is the same. Pat

The Patrol and LC diffs are still a heap stronger out of the box than Rover kit, and when built they're heaps stronger again than built Rover kit.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Is it possible to setup an A-frame with Rose joints at the chassis end perhaps... if the rose joint will take loading like that in terms of direction??? It doesn't get any more locked up than this???? Then run the A-frame to a factory ball joint at the diff???

I don't think this is right type of joint for my application.
I've seen rover chassis crack/bend this mounting point and the idea of a 'solid' joint worries me, it will only transfer the increased action to where is probably shouldn't be.
I am using the car as a daily driver at the moment, and I think the vibes & wear will only be painful.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by PAT303

Dave look on the Patrol forum,engines,gearbox's and diff's.The LC forum is the same. Pat

Your absolutely correct - look hard enough and you will find a fault with EVERY vehicle / piece of equipment made.

I'm not comfortable with Rover gear - I've thrashed Nissan gear enough to know it will suit my needs.
I don't have the same power out put as a worked nissan and the car will be lighter.

Cheers
Dave.

Hi Dave, I can't believe you are still going on your project.

It is taking almost as long as mine.

I have to agree with Slunnies posts.

Originally Posted by DaveS3

...4link rear conversion using standard a frame upper mounts and new control arms to try an get rid of some of the slop in the rear end.
...
Lower links are adjustable with GQ bushes, uppers will be Rover/GQ ...

I'm not sure if you are talking about parallel upper links plus a panhard (like nissan) or triangulated upper links.

Parallel uppers plus panhard should be ok. But the stock A-frame mounting brackets on the cross member will need to be changed to suit parallel uppers.

If triangulated uppers, then IMHO, the chassis mounts are too close together to get good angles for the transverse loads and the GQ bushes will flex too much. Although I'm not sure what you mean by slop, I think this set-up will increase what I would call slop.

Originally Posted by DaveS3

...I'm hoping the horizontal separation of the rear links will help some of roll...

Sorry I don't know what you mean.

Originally Posted by DaveS3

...Does anyone think the 4-link will stiffen the rear end or have any advantage over the 3-link?
...

The geometry of the 4 link and the details of the mounts will affect the comparison.

Technically, a link is a member that can only resist axial load (tension or compression) and neither end will resist rotation in any direction. So A-frames and front radius arms are not links. It is misleading to call Land Rover rear or front suspension 3 link.

The Land Rover rear suspension, with parallel lower links and upper A-frame performs much like a 4 link with parallel lower and triangulated upper links. But articulation is ultimately limited by the chassis mounts for the lower links, the ball joint and bushes for the A-frame.

So called heim/rose/rod-end joints are not road legal in Australia, so we have rubber or polyurethane bushings.