Printable View
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
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-...x-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.
Here's a pic comparing the axle end of Rangie, Patrol (3rds arm) and Landcruiser radius arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by lambrover
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zute
cheers phil
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
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.
sounds like a man after my own heart:)Quote:
Originally Posted by roverrescue
cheers phil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by roverrescue