Thread: 3rd production radius arms

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bush65

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

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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