Ok I know that John at Rovertym has completed this conversion on a disco but I am curious if it is possible on a d-90. John says that with about 7" of lift on his disco it works with all the clearances but I'm not sure I want to go back to that kind of lift (COG too high) so I am curious what people think is neccessary to put a euro knuckle on a NAS d-90 and what knuckles will work. Obviously the D-90 knuckle will work but what other options are there. Maybe I should explain what I am trying to do here. I want to move my track rod (I think the one in back of the axle) to the front of the axle so I can change some of my suspension mounts on the axle and that damn track rod is in the way to make some really cool strong arms for the front. I am also told that I might need to change the hub and ball so what's everyone's opinion about that? Damn those Disco II owners they have it so easy. Especially want to hear from the irish brigade and the english contingent and probably the aussies too

-Ben

Ben,

What you're looking for is not necessarily a 'Euro' knuckle, but rather a RHD knuckle.

Also, what you are trying to accomplish is called 'cross-over steering'. Very popular with the Jeep crowd.

I was planning on doing that with my 80 inch truck, but after we did all the measurements, we decided that the crossover would interfere with the drop arm and a few other major things would have to be re-done, so I accepted the limitations of the rear track rod.

It's definitely do-able, and NO you don't need to change out swivel balls. Just make sure you get the same make/model/year vehicle's corresponding RHD knuckle to make sure you have the right arms cast into the piece. If you get the wrong year or model you potentially have different bearings, caster angle, etc....

Michael

what else did you and Timm determine that you had to change besides the pitman arm? I understand the clearance issue that could arise with that but I think with a hiem jointed rod it would be less of an issue and that's what I am planning on running with it. at max articulation on the driver's side John says that he has about 1-2 inches of clearance off his pitman arm so I am curious first is there an abundant availability of 94 RHD knuckles in europe (mainly why I called it a euro knuckle granted they don't all have rhs) and if so what would be the cost I would assume this would be a part that would be in a junkyard over across the pond and foudn pretty easily kind of like finding a 14 bolt over here. Also does anyone know the part number of this RHD knuckle for a 94? My parts guy at work says he can get anything and I am curious what land rover will charge for one of these. Thanks

You might try Nathan, I bet he may beable to come up with something. I would go with TREs over Hiems. You can ream out the Rover stuff to take a Beefy TRE like a Moog ES150.

The knuckle should be easy to get.

The question is why? If you are not going with major lift or don't have a strength issue with the SG 3 link there is your answer.

Ron

I think I remember Timm deciding that the angle of the panhard rod bracket in conjunction with the custom pittman arm would interfere with the crossover link.

He did say that he *could* do it, but it would require a major re-work of the front end. I said 'never mind'.

M

the reason why is I am running custom radius arms not a three link and I don't think that I'll be changing to a three link because they handle a little strange on road for me. i know lots of people have daily drivers with three links just not my deal. I want to be able to make a stronger radius arm and the drag link is getting in the way of doing this. From the measurements that we have taken it looks like we can either move the panhard rod back about an inch or use low profile heims and it'll work but getting the part and the part number seem to be the biggest challenge right now they are not listed anywhere in the NALR part guide at work and the techs and part guy don't happen to know that one off the tops of their heads. Also it will add a little clearance and clean up the rear of the axle. With all the jeep guys running it also it wouldn't seem like that bad of an idea. Maybe I'm missing something but jeep guys seem to have had a little more time to modify their vehicles and so often times if their ideas can be applied they work very well on land rovers.

oh I say go for it totally.

that rear track rod is always a PITA, so if you can figure out a way to make it work then right on!

Let's see a pic or two..

M

If you call roversnorth they will have a part number for you. Also jamie (who posts here) has a R.O.W. parts book and has been very kind in looking up PNs for me. :beer:

What i am wondering is how you plan to change the mounts on the axle? That is really the limiting factor as far as making the radius arms flex more.

Ron

well go back a couple of threads to new suspension thread and you'll see that I have the lower mount for the radius arm basically right on the bottom of the axle and utilizing the the old rear mount it has a lot less bind than the old arms and flexs pretty good all ready. with the track rod gone I think that there is even more potential for this design

well go back a couple of threads to new suspension thread and you'll see that I have the lower mount for the radius arm basically right on the bottom of the axle and utilizing the the old rear mount it has a lot less bind than the old arms and flexs pretty good all ready. with the track rod gone I think that there is even more potential for this design

After talking with John from RTE at the Uwharrie Safari and seeing his setup, I have also been thinking of doing the same. Since I have a DSII, the arm is already in place. I have about 4" of lift and have bump steer. I was originally going to make a new drag link with a 4" drop to compensate for the lift, and make a new panhard to axle bracket to raise the axle end of the panhard 4" to keep the drag link and panhard parallel. Would I gain anything by going from my current setup to a cross-over setup? Would it steer or handle any better, or would I just be re-inventing the wheel? Would it be time, money, and effort wasted?:confused:

Oh, one last thing. John ran his drag link to the steering arm, where the tie rod end is. I have seen other applications where the drag link actually bolts to the tie rod several inches in from the steering arm. What's the benefit of that versus them both mounting to the steering arm?

Dont know is this is a super idea, IF you want to keep good on-road manners.

There is an engineering principle that is based arround a theoretical line drawn from the mid point of the rear axle and the point where the front wheel turns (front king pin?) Obviously there are 2 lines, one to each front king pin, making a V shape.

The steering knuckly is optimaly situated somewhere on this line. If it's behing the axle, then its easy to be on the line, but if in front it's more difficult.

There is a name for this rule but I cannot recall it.

Prolly does'nt matter so much on mud or rock vehicles, but on a road machine it will make a difference in the corners.

Merv, thanks. I was thinking the same because that was an issue when I was putting together the front suspension on my street rod. However, since I see so many J**ps running the steering up front, I thought there might be exceptions.

I guess off-road is an exception, and since it's my daily driver, I'll stick to my dropped drag link, etc. What are some good sites to help explain the principles and geometry of setting up a correct suspension?

You'll hate me for this but...

I got that from an excellent book that covers all sorts of cool vehicle engineering stuff, like brake bias, castor, watts link, panhard rods and all the pro's and cons of all sorts of cool stuff.

but

I dont have it any more, and cannot remember the name. Written by ca guy called Carrol? I think? Also wrote an excellent book on nuts bolts and fasteners?

I think what Merv is trying to get at is the Ackermann angle which has to do with the difference in the angle of the inside front wheel on a turn and the outside front wheel. We all know (I hope) that the reason we have differentials is to allow the outside tire to scribe a larger circle than the inside tire and the center and rear diffs allow the rears to do their appropriate circles.

Therefore, when you look at the front tires, they must be turned at different angles to allow for proper tracking in a turn. Without doing this, the tires scrub and cause strange handling characteristics.

Now, we all know that we have strange handling anyway with diffs locked, so if that's how you're running all the time, no big deal.

The way Jeeps (and a whole lot of other vehicles) set up is to have this calculated for the front linkage such that the tie-rod is longer than the distance between the kingpins.

for axles with the tie-rod behind the axle, ala Rover, the tie rod is shorter than the distance between the kingpins.

I'm not sure what angle the front arms are on the knuckles, but I'm guessing they're not appropriate for use on a road-going vehicle.

I have already aquired a RHD left side knuckle for my D90 with the intent of installing a hydraulic assist one of these days. I would suggest you call Rovers Down South (http://www.roversdownsouth.com) at (504) 248-5301. They can get you a used one for a reasonable price.

Good luck!

-John

Merv is talking about a series of books written by a British engineer named Carrol Smith. He was largely responseable for the success of the Ford GT-40 road race effort in the sixties.

The books are called "Nuts, Bolts, Hardware, and Plumbing", and another is "Build to Win". There's a couple more along the same lines.

"Nuts, Bolts" should be required reading for some of the fabricating and building we do. They're available from Motorbooks.

Mike
:usa:

Both right.
Thanks guys.

Having the tie rod longer than the distance between the king pins means that your either have massive offset on you wheels, or the wheels are large enough for the tie rod and knuckle to fit inside. neither are great for our game.

It comes down to useage. For a 100% trail machine - So what? - do what you like.

for a Daily machine, stick with keeping good manners on it.

After 6 weeks of the front tie rod set-up with my daily driver, and also several 5 hr road trips, I must say I cant see or feel any difference. I am not saying your thoughts are wrong, or mine are right. I am trying to understand. Maybe R Hills can get into the discussion. My thoughts on this are the knuckles provide the geometry for turning corners so whether the tie rod is behind or in front, the knuckles provides the turning geometry of front wheels tracking thru turns. After reading the previous discussions I even put my front axle on jack stands and put the rear tie rod back on the truck. With both front and rear tie rod in place, the front wheels turned as freely as ever. If there is a difference in geometry with the tie rod in front as opposed to in the rear, I think that having both tie rods front and rear would cause a noticable "kink" in turning the wheels, but it was smooth as ever.
Again I am not saying any of you are wrong, but when I see "tracking problems thru turns","ok for slow speed wheeling",
"not for daily driving" it makes me wonder as I am doing all the no no's and do not feel any difference. With a 5" lift I am very sensitive to the steering wheel, and I do not feel and difference what so ever. This is not a developing product, but just a personal thing for my truck so I have nothing to gain but personal understanding.

Roverwrench,

Experience speaks louder than theory in my book! I've never done this, i was basing my theory on what I read (and it does make sence as you read it.

could be that the standard rear knuckes are not "correct" so by using the front ones, your not getting any disimprovement? I'm not argueing, just interested to see why it's the case.

There's actually an article in the new issue of 4WD & Sport Utility that addresses some of this. It's all very basic, but gives an idea of how it all works. I would imagine that since we have all modified our rigs with lifts, larger tires, new springs, shocks, etc., that the difference in the Ackerman angle is probably masked by the other mods. I'll probably stick with my original plan for now, and possibly try the front-steer setup this winter when I have more time to play with things.

Thanks for all the input and book references.