Jump to content


Settled In
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jamie_grieve

  1. ^^^^^ Exactly what I was thinking. Is there anybody currently working at Land Rover that would even understand the concept let alone push for something other than electronic aids in a production vehicle to enhance off road performance? The only way to get portals and lockers in a Land Rover is to build one yourself. Why would you though if you can buy something else that does the job better? I don't envy JLR replacing the defender but if we were honest, it wasn't really that good, just easy for folks like ourselves to make better and closer to our individual requirements. I fear it is this that will be lost with the replacement and why old defenders will carry on for decades to come. Did the article go on to mention the Defender replacement's engine, the displacement of which will be so small they'll have to invent a new system of units to measure it?
  2. I made the same assumptions as yourself so no worries about the time. They don't really have anything more to give than what's in the picture, the washer's touching metal and will now lever against it both flexing the bush inside and pushing out on the washer. Another few degrees and it would be a broken thing. Like I said though, within limits, they are immensely strong. More like something from a vehicle many times the size of a Land Rover. I think the L322 joints would be a great idea, I considered them myself. I wouldn't completely discount the creepers as I think proper resilience in a link is a good idea. Time will tell I suppose. The rod ends are so easy to change and the surface area big enough that I think they'll last a while before they start rattling around. No grease nipple in them's not good I think, maybe it stops grinding paste happening? I was thinking about putting my creepers at the axle end, rod ends at chassis end and using a CV boot over them. I have no idea how long they'll take to start rattling.
  3. Aye, no worries, I think we all realised that, you were in a hurry out the door to work. In the meantime, I've just jacked my job in so plenty of time for contemplation here!! I totally get what you mean there about the panhard roll centre and it's a good explanation. I agree that the roll centre would move slightly in the arc of the panhard. Actually I never considered that but it makes sense that it would. What I was meaning is say you're going down hill at an angle and drop your front wheel into a hole. Scenario one is it's a passenger wheel with the panhard axle mount in the hole and scenario two it's the drivers wheel on the downhill side. With a leaf spring setup and mechanical steering both scenarios would end up with identical results, same with linked suspension and hydro steer. I'm having trouble resolving in my head that a panhard would give identical results as in the second scenario the panhard's in tension and would result in a stable system but in the first scenario I think there's a point where the panhard now in compression would rotate round about the lower mount as there is nothing to stop the jacking forces, rather they would get compounded the more the angle of the panhard moved. Lets not consider an ideal setup where the panhard's level at ride height in the middle of our 20" travel but lets say it's like some mad American rigs with a crazy high angle at ride height to get a high roll centre in line with the C of G in an attempt to resist roll and ignoring better ways of doing that for the minute. How would this rig behave in the above scenarios? I think most if not all the information on the net that exists about panhards is the same regurgitated stuff from the same books that only consider race car dynamics. I'm not sure if you're familiar with another dreadful piece of British motoring awfulness which was the Triumph Spitfire? It had a swing arm rear suspension as did some early Corvettes and of course Volkswagens. These cars had a problem where under certain cornering circumstances the outside rear wheels instead of being stuffed into the wheel arch on a hard corner could 'tuck under' and the rear end would jack up and the outside wheel would instead be maxed out on full droop. Worth a google if you haven't heard of it. I believe the same can happen off road with a Panhard rod under certain circumstances. To cure it the droop travel could be limited and the problem never happened. With our relatively short wheel travel and long panhards we stay within the envelope but the same forces that exist to create the unstable situation with the swing axle still exist with a panhard and long travel if that makes sense? Sorry for the thread hijack a bit but I think Panhards are quite relevant to the three link discussion here as a better understanding of them at their limits might make for safer builds. Here's a Trail gear creeper joint at max flex.yes, really. The beauty of forums is we can share this knowledge. My angle finder's close enough at this, you can make it go more but the joint starts to compress inside. The ball bushing in he middle's just touching the washer here. Better view of touching the washer Regular 1 1/4" rod end.
  4. I thought that too until I got them, they don't move anything like that. I got the 1 1/4" ones from ORA. I'll take some pics. The housing's almost as wide as the mounting faces too so you'd need to space the mounting bracketry further apart for them and put spacers in compared to rod ends. You'd kill them fairly quickly flexing them too much. I learned after getting them how many people have blown the washers out of the side of them by flexing them too much. That said, they are awesome bits of kit and I dare say if kept within reasonable limits I think they'd be nearly unbreakable on a light 4x4. I'm limiting my suspension to 30 degrees of flex. I think any more would get me into more trouble than it would get me out of. Yes you can, the longer the better for axle steer, pinion angle, castor change etc, my lower links are going to be 50" long uppers are 36". The roll axis angle I refer to is exactly that, the roll axis the axle goes through as it articulates as opposed to the roll axis of the vehicle as a whole which is different again. Easier to visualise on a one link where it would be between the one link joint and the centre of the panhard rod. If they were the same height you'd have no roll steer at all. I'm struggling a bit in my own mind with Panhard rods and long travel suspension where I'm fairly confident in some circumstances on lots of droop and leaning over that the roll centre would stop being the middle of the panhard but instead that it would become the joint at the lower end. Does this mean the roll centre on a Panhard rod actually moves as it cycles? Normally not an issue as the Panhard sits flat on a Land Rover and they have fairly short travel but what happens when you have say 20" of travel? The panhard will respond differently in tension and compression, in real world scenarios with long travel (20"+), what happens?
  5. I agree with most all of above except: The 1/4 tyre diameter is generally for reducing the loads on the links which as I was saying are only pushing and pulling with a force corresponding to traction, tyre size and link separation. The rotational forces are negligible unless the joints are binding but point well noted that there are some small forces at play here too.The vertical separation of the links at the chassis plays no part in the forces imparted on the links other than the height of the centre of gravity relative to the height of the instant centre in an impact scenario where high anti dive characteristics would put high loads in and low antidive characteristics would impart lower forces which you can use to tune how you want it to behave. An example would be pushing a wheelbarrow with the handles held high into a kerb would be high anti dive where the handles would represent the instant centre and equally, holding them low will result in much lower forces required to overcome obstacles but poorer anti dive on braking. The chassis seperation will determine the location of the instant centre. If for example the links converged at the current radius arm location so lets take the awful example of taking out a bolt from each radius arm and adding a top link from say ten inches above the axle to a point in line with the rear mounts you'd have a triangle that behaved exactly the same as your radius arms but without any roll stiffness. By putting the end of the third link higher it would have less anti dive and correspondingly if it was shorter and inclined down further than the example then you'd have more. The roll axis of each axle can be changed by the location of the instant centre. This roll axis will determine how the axle will steer as it articulates. This is what I was referring to above (badly) when I was talking about roll centres. There's only one place the lower link joint in a one link can realistically go whereas you can play with the link height on the side of a chassis with a three link setup. I think that's a great idea. Where's Bill and Bush65 when you need them lol. It's been a while since I was here, great to see stuff happening.
  6. I'm building my suspension just now and found I had to get rod ends as the creeper joints don't have much flex in them. I didn't realise this at the time when I ordered them so I'm going with rod ends at one end and creeper joints at the other same as suggested above for my trailing arms. Even creeper joints at both ends of a link would struggle with a standard Land Rover geometry let alone a bespoke three link. The creepers are a nice beefy joint though and will handle the abuse i hope. I'm also going to use the creepers for the front of my A frame. I'm curious how well the rod ends will stand up as well. I'm not sure I agree with this, only if you talk about purely lateral forces then yes and only if the Panhard is remote from the centreline of the axle otherwise on the centreline, there's no moment around which for the radius arms to act. On a single wheel impact as Team Idris says, the forces on the panhard will be significantly increased as a moment is generated around the rear radius arm mount actually increasing the load on the panhard. You're getting closer to a one link but without the advantages the closer you get. More the better, especially with rubber bushes.... bush flex or when there isn't enough separation accelerated wear on joints and then the same issue of movement of the axle allowing changes to caster (loose direction sense when braking) or axle movement allowing the wheels to rub or worse steering the truck! oh and this could apply with your lower triangulation I think DeRanged is answering for axle separation in his rush out the door. Sure, more is better here, I've got 13" on mine. At the chassis it doesn't matter, that's the main advantage of the three link over the one link is that you decide where you want your instant centre and adjust the length of your links to suit. Pinion angle for the amount of travel we're normally dealing with isn't an issue really as max flex happens off road at low speed and road speeds and flex the pinion angles are good. The links are only pushing and pulling with a force corresponding to traction, tyre size and link separation. I'm going with a one link front so sorry, not much use to you. I agree with the three link on a road going motor for the height of the roll centre if nothing else although a one link could be made to work, it is outwith the scope of this thread.
  7. Snagger's post sums it up pretty well. The only thing I would add in an effort to satisfy your curiosity is if you added another calculation for rim pull or tractive effort as opposed to just engine torque which would possibly make the scenario more obvious. This would allow you to play with tyre sizes too. half an hour on Excel would see you right. As an addition, the ability (as I understand it) for modern Land Rovers to have been able to tow 3.5 tons compared to most Japanese 4x4's which were more powerful was the ability to pull that weight from a standing start on a 16% grade. The series land rovers were only 2 tons which is a huge difference. Gearing being the only difference in the case of very early coil sprung ones.
  8. One good example would be all the B6 armoured land cruisers as currently used by the UN use original equipment for the doors, additional protection comes from extra locks which are employed once the occupant is inside. You'll see the same for the Chevy suburbans and some G wagons as well deployed at various locations with the same B6 / B6+ rating. I take your point though, I was more referring to the mechanical stresses from the additional weight rather than being adequate to offer protection from internal overpressure. I'm as equally surprised as yourself at their use, it's the very reason I highlight them. Many different firms in their wisdom and testing must have found them adequate. I have them onto the inspection forms as a separate check. The ballistic protection offered by this level of armoured vehicles is for high velocity projectiles like small arms fire and shrapnel. In the unfortunate event that they are subjected to internal pressure resulting from being to close to a blast, often as the result of a direct attack, they open up like sardine cans at this level of ballistic protection. Literally, the roof armour peels off and the windscreens pop out. Generally, the door skins open out but the doors usually stay closed. Remember, they are up armoured to a particular standard, they're not tanks. This is the level at which we need to be thinking of vehicle integrity, add on the Euro NCAP tests and the bar's been set pretty high for anyone else to beat the land cruiser, or indeed the other vehicles mentioned. With regards to the OP question, one word of warning with Toyota spare parts, their equivalent of Britpart is Alibaba which is basically a guarantee of Chinese origin. Stay well clear of any parts sourced through Dubai as well as they are generally from China unless you actually go to the main dealers there.
  9. I think Cynical gave a good response to off road in an auto. I agree with all of it but also disagree too as I think it applies only to modern high revving turbo diesels. The scenario of the obstructed hill climb describes exactly why I have a large displacement but lightweight V8 diesel in mine. I can trickle over most anything in 3rd low at 600rpm then light the tyres up and get it going. By the time I'm at 1200rpm I've doubled my speed, 2400rpm I'm 4 x faster then all the way to 4000 rpm. Most of that happens in one or two lengths but without enough grunt to really upset things. I only use the clutch to stop, never to tiddle around on obstacles, that's why they invented low gears. I think a flexible engine is key off road, heavy flywheels help here. Autos are fine for some things but they don't work on rocks where you have to drive through the brakes all the time, downhill, driving through the brakes and on wet grass and mud where you can't modulate the throttle feeling for grip as accurately that's without the 'wrong gear' scenario that crops up only at inopportune moments. Add to that the much higher overall ratios that despite the torque multiplication of the torque convertor are just never low enough to not cook things eventually. I think a modern auto which is more like a little powershift with a torque convertor you could lock with a switch would be the best all rounder. As for the 606 o_teunico, I would stick a 603 flywheel on it and run a manual trans for the length. If it was a 109, I'd say go with the auto but on an 88, nah, no chance, as said, even with an LT77 you struggle. I'd stick an R380, short bell housing, LT230 and a Rakeway short rear shaft for your project to have a chance of working. The wheels will spin before the R380 breaks. Auto's are good for not shock loading drivelines too but you might have to lose that for the length.
  10. The 70 series will probably evolve although that's just my guess. They are the current only option and subsequently the mainstay of every single large international aid agency and the UN, not to mention various armies and anti government elements around the world. I'm sure Toyota in their wisdom will provide an adequate replacement without any drama. I look forwards to the next evolution of the 70 series whatever it may be secure in the knowledge it will perform and I can get parts easily anywhere in the world. Interesting they've kept the 1HZ engine available even though it was superseded a few times now. The movement from leafs to coils was seamless, the move to the wider chassis was equally seamless. Although Land Rover coined the phrase 'evolution not revolution', actually Toyota have been the real exponents of this. The Defender was a genius move in the early 80's, way ahead of the competition, as was the Discovery afterwards. Unfortunately the move away from increased off road prowess, smaller highly stressed engines and poorer build quality killed the defender in the eyes of the consumer, long before EU or other regulations killed it. Look at Jeep, G wagon and of course the Land Cruiser for how evolution could have worked. A hydroformed stronger chassis like an even heavier version of the P38 chassis could have been used. A monocoque body on top made from aluminium extrusions glued together like an Elise could have been made to work, the options are limitless but the customers aren't. They need to make something people want to buy. I'm sure the defender replacement will be interesting and no doubt I'll have one one day but I doubt it will have any appeal to people who need a strong dependable simple vehicle suitable for large scale deployment to areas without much infrastructure. I pretty much live and breathe Land Rovers for my personal choice but I doubt I will ever recommend the brand for a fleet purchase or professional use. The Prado and LJ type are very different beasts to the 76 / 78 & 79 series which are the heavier duty versions. Have a look for an older and affordable 105 in any configuration for a taste of Defender capability with modern saloon car comfort and safety. Another example of the difference is that Land Rovers really struggle with being up armoured, both mechanically and structurally, the Land Cruisers don't even notice it, right down to even using original door hinges and locks.
  11. An alternative for parts go to: http://www.toyodiy.com/parts/ Although it's subject to UK censorship rules meaning you don't get the pictures as in other countries. It's a fantastic resource which will decode your VIN and make finding part numbers a doddle which you can then use to look locally for parts. I've been working with fleets of Land Rovers and Land Cruisers for years. You can basically half the number of mechanics required by running Land Cruisers. It's a shame Land Rover haven't offered a vehicle suitable for fleet use in developing countries since the last ROW spec Defender. It's a remarkable feat of stupidity not to have tapped into the very market the Land Rover had owned right through the '60's and just gave to Toyota on a plate in the '70's. Interesting also that America never came up with a viable alternative too, probably based on the Jeep platform. Maybe because diesel wasn't an option. Nothing has really come out of Europe either. Now that the Land Cruiser has the market share, dealer network and more importantly the trust of people in remote areas, it's hard to see how Land Rover could ever get into the market again.
  12. http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=83269&hl=%2Bstage+%2Bone+%2Bsaga I'm not sure if you've seen that? I'd forget the 4.3 and just go straight to the full fat SBC. Forget the weight too. My 6.2 didn't make the slightest bit of difference. I still took leafs out the front with a PTO winch and tubed front end to get it to flex. Some lads are running Cummins 6BT's at half a ton each with no worries, likewise in ye olde days we had Perkins 6354's on LT95's which handled them no problems and put out more torque than a SBC could dream of. Overdrive will handle it too if you don't go daft. I did snap the odd U bolt though and nearly pulled the front axle off after a big jump. Santana U bolts and spring plates sorted this out. If you do want a light weight V8 then look no further than a 1UZ FE toyota engine. 300hp with no mods at all and similar weight to a rover engine. A whole car is worth about £400. A diesel flywheel from a hilux can be drilled out or get an aftermarket one. There are three 1UZ FE's in the shed here. The Rover engines don't rev as well and are gutless in comparison. Santana axles in my mind were the best way to get discs and reliability into the equation. The larger steering components will handle the power steering too. I'd use a P38 or Santana steering box, not defender. They mount to the outside of the chassis rail and mean you can have the series No2 crossmember if you want the look, otherwise use a 90 / 110 type front cross member, the stage one version is nothing special and has a steering relay incorporated into the end of it which adds strength. Why go to the trouble of narrowing the axles? Standard wheels fit fine without flared arches. Put on Austin Gipsy wheels to the wide axles if you want the wheels inside the body like an e type jag. I think they look dreadful this way. I'd strongly suggest putting the rear wheels back a few inches as I did. It looks better, less overhang, longer prop so more wheel travel. You'd also get the series front in as well with the SBC. I chucked three sets of stage one floors and seat boxes out when I broke them. Couldn't even give them away!! Got a steering box, relay and front prop is about all that's not been binned. Still got a tunnel and the bit that goes in front of the seat box too.
  13. Sounds like an interesting build, what you up to? Any pics of ideas, mock ups or progress? You using or need any other stage one bits?
  14. Exactly, apologies for not being more clear in my response.
  15. I have to be honest, I think you have a problem with your turbo. Turbo diesels rely on boost pressure to fill the cylinders, even on idle there's no appreciable vacuum which is why they have vacuum pumps for the brakes. Petrol engines can generate blue smoke from stem seals but it would be unlikely on level ground from a diesel. Unburned diesel generates white smoke as it does generally from retarded timing or a failed injector. Glazed bores from excessive idling can also cause what you describe too. When's the last time your oil was changed? Faulty injectors will cause it to become contaminated much faster than normal. How profusely does your crank case breather vent? Following with interest to hear what it is.
  16. As said already, all the V8 boxes are the same in this regard. I have a Chev 6.2 V8 on a 101 gearbox and can confirm there are no dramas although on the diesels at least the nose of the starter requires taking a bit out of the 101 bellhousing. The bolt pattern is the same on the 6.2/6.5 diesels and all the Chev V8 petrol engines. In addition to the larger splines, the LT95 also requires a smaller spigot bush or bearing than other Land Rover gearboxes. The Samurai conversions also bolt to the bottom half of the bell housing which is a good thing. Depending on what you're doing, the front output on your transfer case has a different flange and is longer than a RRC or 101 so you'll either need to keep your double cardan shaft or swap it for standard as it's rebuilt. I know what you mean about the diesels, they are a poor engine in many ways but they are light tiny for their displacement and the torque at low revs is very good and they rev well which is why I put up with them. I'd like to bolt an SAE 3 bellhousing to the chev engine. If I can find a way to do that you can have my adaptor plate.
  17. Following with interest too. Can you measure from the axle centre line along the diff back to the end of the pinion spline to remind me how long the diff is as standard please? The length of your prop shafts will probably dictate the amount of useable suspension travel you can use. the portal offset means you can go up 10" in tyre size for the same amount of body chopping or alternatively and preferably, remove anything previously fitted (probably lots? Bump stops, cranked trailing arms, longer springs etc) to reduce bump travel and keep it as low as possible. This will give you more prop shaft angle to play with for more travel and lower the C of G. Just to emphasise what the lads have been saying already about the forces and other than the axle mounts, under no circumstances can you use any part of the original rear trailing arms which are made of cheese and the chassis mount for them with the three bolt holes for the front of trailing arm needs reworked for extra strength as they crack really easily when you start to load them up. Below pics for reference are on different vehicles on standard axles with 7.50 tyres used hard. As you can see there's no margin at all for adding portals and big tyres so these mounts need completely reworked. The vertical separation of your links on the axle will determine the forces involved. This will also change the suspension geometry. The TRIAGED calculator on Pirate might be worth a look. Off Road Armoury does some nice boxed chassis brackets which would allow you to use 1.25" joints. The radius arms on the front are easy to punch through the outriggers too, reinforcement needs to happen here too. Any pics? Good luck and have fun with it!!
  18. I realise this is an ancient thread but this is exactly a question I have. I'm looking at steering Sumb portal axles with large tyres fitted. My current options seem to be: 1. Heavy truck steering box & associated pump. 2. Hydro assist using 4 bolt landrover parts I have lying around and a GAZ 66 steering cylinder. 3. Original manual steering box with vickers link from an old tractor or complete setup from a GAZ 66. With all the experience gained since this was posted, has anybody any real world knowledge on this subject? I'm thinking of option 2 being the preferred option just now as there's no real fabrication of steering components required. At present it's off road only but I'd like to keep my options open. Any input much appreciated.
  19. Not ideal for setting up a trigger wheel perhaps but good enough to get going is a 'field fix' method some may find of interest: Oil poured down the plug hole will give enhance the movement of the piston and give a more accurate limit either way than a screwdriver or something down the plug hole. Even dial indicators are a pain because of the angle of the hole. Once you start playing with your map the TDC will just be a reference point. The knock sensor will sort the timing out for you once it's running.
  20. You can put coiler width axles on with series wheels and it 'hardly fouls at all on the front but more importantly with coiler width doesn't rub on the inside of the rear tub. I cut the top of my wheel boxes out and got way better articulation available to me. For the front, I just pulled hard at the 10 o'clock position (LH) and 2 o'clock position (RH) on my front wings to set them out a bit and they never rubbed with 900 x 16's on. If you like the skinny look you could put some Austin Gipsy rims on which are identical to Land Rover except more inset. Arches just look wrong on a series in my humble opinion. The PAS box on the Santana is a good unit, I would say they didn't upgrade so much as completely redesign the whole steering. It's way better than the current coiler setup and twice as strong. It's unbelievable how weedy Defender steering components still are. The Santana chassis rails are wider so the drag link needs shortened if fitting to a series.
  21. For reference purposes I enclose a few pictures of a Santana front axle. It is based on a series swivel but uses taper roller bearings instead of railko bushings but has the same four bolt fixing for the king pins. The swivel ball has series type bolt PCD rather than the coiler one. The narrowest part of the front half shaft is between the CV and the splines for the drive flange, this measured 27.5mm. (the rear half shafts are 31mm in a banjo version of the Salisbury). Wheel bearings and all oil seals despite the Santana packaging are all identical to Land Rover as is the ten spline front diff. To put the Santana swivel and hub assembly on a series you could use the half shafts from a stage one and bolt it together to a series axle or if you didn't mind it the coiler width which lets you use larger tyres just narrow the spring perches and bolt the whole axle on using the Santana U bolts and spring pads which are much stronger than Land Rover ones. You can also see the steering is much heavier duty too. The ten spline inner is of no consequence in my experience. They are high quality components and a lot of LR 24 spline stuff is of inferior quality in later years. I doubt many will run out to find a Santana axle for this purpose but I think it's good to at least share. I gave my Santana axles away partly because KAM couldn't sell me lockers for them and partly because I broke yet another leaf spring and changed the direction of my project. Great axles for a road vehicle but no advantages at all for an off roader I'd say.
  22. How does it compare to the Autodesk Fusion 360 or inventor which is free as well? I've been looking into learning a drawing package and went through a few Solidworks tutorials and a few on Autodesk but didn't have the time to go further. I was interested in Solidworks as it seems to be industry standard but as a Mac user it was pain using VM ware or Parallels and constant operating system updates which was why I stopped using it. The Autodesk seems to tick most of the boxes and runs native on a Mac.
  23. http://www.haultech.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=700&start=20 Great build, guys a genius. Did anybody else see his Subaru rear caliper swap to gain a handbrake? Might be useful info for anyone doing fiddle brakes or a transfer case swap without a brake on it.
  24. i'll grab the popcorn. Lol, it's kinda heading that way. The poor thing's still not getting any prettier. One day I'd like to build something nice. Maybe with shiny bits like other people do. I made a wee bit of progress but not as much as I'd have liked. I was a bit pathetic with my efforts this week. Feeble excuses aside at least the front axle's under the thing and it moves. I'm fairly pleased with the low rider stance as the last thing I want is something that has the centre of gravity of a monster truck. It sits almost level with my 88" posing as a 90. My 88" is full of scrap in this shot and would have sat a bit higher but it gives a good indication. I wasted too much time faffing with prop shaft bits and wandering around in circles rather than achieving progress. Luckily my hoard of old prop bits came in handy. I used the angles of the various yokes and a centre bearing with a triple labyrinth seal normally used on rock crushers to find the maximum possible up travel and still clear the starter motor then built a new front chassis to accommodate the new full bump height. This is about 7 inches higher than standard. I've got my engine about two inches lower than standard crank height to make everything more awkward. The chevy starter sits quite low above the prop. I'm using a 101 gearbox originally to keep a nice short drive train but it's actually counting against me here. I might put a standard range rover LT 95 in and get a longer front prop and one link happening and reduced angles all round. The current one link with 101 box will be around 52" long and use an SU ball joint. The extra up travel and low engine is also giving all kinds of packaging problems. I'm not sure how the PTO for the front winch is going to work and there's no room any more for a hydraulic pump setup like Team Idris has as the diff lock actuator is too close to the crank. My plan at this stage is to build an A frame upper and two lower arms for the rear. I'd welcome any input from anybody who would suggest why a four link might be a better setup? The build would almost identical in terms of cost and time, in fact, the four link would be easier than the A frame possibly. I have a bunch of 1.25" Creeper joints from Off Road Armoury (who were great to deal with and very helpful) with which I could build a four link. I'd use another SU joint I already have for the ball on the A frame which has no restrictions to rotation and +/- 20º for up and down. Intuitively I'd say the A frame and links would be stronger and give me a roll axis in the ballpark of where I'd want it with the front whereas the four link setup in my mind would struggle to give the triangulation I'd want with the link lengths required for decent travel and the separation available within the width of a Land Rover chassis. I can achieve the same anti squat with both setups but feel metalastic bushings in the A frame will add strength and durability not found in the fancy rod end style joints.
  25. I disagree, just because one app is bad you'd junk the more effective GPS platform..? That it operates with GPS and GLONASS for the last 5 years and all the good apps have grown with that functionality is not to be considered? Can you tell me which android app has worked as long as any of the IOS ones? I keep a dual sim Samsung on Android as standby. the only app which comes close is Polaris GPS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.discipleskies.android.polarisnavigation&hl=en For comparison: http://gps.motionx.com
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy