Okay fellas,
After spending(maybe wasting) hours of time on teh interwebs looking for some alternatives to my radius arms. Here is what I have found (not 100% correct by any means, just my take on them) :

3-Link=> Only "safe" if somebody smart else makes it/designs it ($G ect..)
Hard to implement on a stock range rover/disco without gutting significantly or use the SG design. Easier on buggies and ludicrously lifted rigs.

X-Link=> Utilizes the stock(or aftermarket if it floats your boat) radius arms, a pivoting piece links both of the front bolts from the radius arms together which eliminates the radius arm "bind". On a Range Rover however the panhard rod is in the way :(

To me the X link would require the least amount of downtime, would be cheaper, and much safer (vs a DIY 3 link).

However, I need to resolve the issue of that panhard rod in the way, and maybe other problems that I have not thought of. I need some opinions with experience behind them, has anybody even done this before??


Lets break the mold :smokin:

I have never seen one in use, so to me it looks like a gimick. Like revolver shackles on a leafer.

Pics of course

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/professorhilux/21092007241.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/professorhilux/21092007243.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/professorhilux/DSCF0057.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/professorhilux/DSCF0049.jpg


Here is a thread of one being installed in a toyota with pics, seems very straight forward.

http://www.downunder4x4.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6693

These guys sell them
http://www.dobbinengineering.com/index.htm

There are lot of things that are pretty straight forward to install on Toyotas that are a big pain to fit to a Rover. Go with the SG kit, everything is already figured out and ready to install.

There are lot of things that are pretty straight forward to install on Toyotas that are a big pain to fit to a Rover. Go with the SG kit, everything is already figured out and ready to install.

Giving up ehh? I would love $G but they have dissapeared and im not ready to drop those major bucks until I have exhausted every option.

Lets start with the first step then, can you modify the rover panhard rod without significantly changing the on-road characteristic of the vehicle?

This seems much easier IMO than welding a new x-member and having people flame you for crappy build quality ect ect..

http://www.dobbinengineering.com/images/X_link_F_Side.JPG

I still don't understand how the X-link does anything at all, or maybe I'm just missing something on the install. As it is your front radius arm bolts are connected to each-other via the axle housing, all that's missing is the central pivot point, but from the pics I've seen, I can't see that pivot point pivoting at all as it would require the front two mounts to be disconnected from the axle housing, which from what I've seen, they're not. What am I missing?


Really, if you want simple, bolt-on flex, get an SG kit. Sure you can build something much better with either money and fab skills, or money and more money, but for a kit that can be bolted on in an afternoon, it's pretty damn good.

I still don't understand how the X-link does anything at all, or maybe I'm just missing something on the install. As it is your front radius arm bolts are connected to each-other via the axle housing, all that's missing is the central pivot point, but from the pics I've seen, I can't see that pivot point pivoting at all as it would require the front two mounts to be disconnected from the axle housing, which from what I've seen, they're not. What am I missing?


Really, if you want simple, bolt-on flex, get an SG kit. Sure you can build something much better with either money and fab skills, or money and more money, but for a kit that can be bolted on in an afternoon, it's pretty damn good.

Because the front radius arm bolts are disconnected from the axle housing and connected via the pivoting link, it gets rid of the binding that happens with normal radius arms. If you flex it out hard enough it will bind, still much better than the stock setup.

Haha and for a SG kit I would love to have one to copy....buy not so much, not to mention buying from them seems sketchy. I have tried to call them numerous times with no response and no website soooo.

Could you alter the panhard rod shape? Nobody wants to answer this question haha. If the panhard rod was out of the way that would be a major hurdle in considering building these. Im not 100% i have to build them or that they are the best thing smokin' but I want to see if it feasible in respect to time and money spent.

I see now what's going on, looked like the radius arms were still connected to all the factory mount points.


Haha and for a SG kit I would love to have one to copy....buy not so much, not to mention buying from them seems sketchy. I have tried to call them numerous times with no response and no website soooo.

Could you alter the panhard rod shape? Nobody wants to answer this question haha. If the panhard rod was out of the way that would be a major hurdle in considering building these. Im not 100% i have to build them or that they are the best thing smokin' but I want to see if it feasible in respect to time and money spent.

Ok, so you're confident enough in your fab skills to copy SG's link kit, why not build your own? If the only thing stopping you is a lack of understanding about how to make all the measurements and get it set-up correctly, all it takes is a weekend reading PBB to figure that all out.

As far as doing business with SG, it's my understanding that SG is now wholesale only, call Eddie at WCR http://www.westcoastrovers.com/, he's their West Coast distributer but should be able to get you squared away no matter where you are. Eddie is a stand up dude and won't steer you wrong.

Panhard shape can be whatever you want. What's important is where the two mounting points are, the imaginary line between them will always go from center to center on the mounts, doesn't matter if they're straight, bent, curly-fry looking, whatever it takes to get the clearance you need.

http://www.dobbinengineering.com/images/X_link_F_Side.JPG

It looks like the RA sticks out in front of the axle further then on a Rover.

I already removed the axle brackets but from looking at the RA it no where near come to looking like you could use an x-link with any sort of arms made for the rover.

Also the RA cups the housing pretty tight. So wouldn't that limit the amount of upward movement anyway?

This seems much easier IMO than welding a new x-member and having people flame you for crappy build quality ect ect.

if you are basing your build on the level of flaming it will get, you might want to just give up now

:D

It looks like the RA sticks out in front of the axle further then on a Rover.

I already removed the axle brackets but from looking at the RA it no where near come to looking like you could use an x-link with any sort of arms made for the rover.

Also the RA cups the housing pretty tight. So wouldn't that limit the amount of upward movement anyway?

Good point about the radius arms, however, if that is true a simple hack/weld should compensate for that problem easily.

I see now what's going on, looked like the radius arms were still connected to all the factory mount points.



Ok, so you're confident enough in your fab skills to copy SG's link kit, why not build your own? If the only thing stopping you is a lack of understanding about how to make all the measurements and get it set-up correctly, all it takes is a weekend reading PBB to figure that all out.

As far as doing business with SG, it's my understanding that SG is now wholesale only, call Eddie at WCR http://www.westcoastrovers.com/, he's their West Coast distributer but should be able to get you squared away no matter where you are. Eddie is a stand up dude and won't steer you wrong.

Panhard shape can be whatever you want. What's important is where the two mounting points are, the imaginary line between them will always go from center to center on the mounts, doesn't matter if they're straight, bent, curly-fry looking, whatever it takes to get the clearance you need.

Whats is PBB? Good info about eddie and panhard rod.

if you are basing your build on the level of flaming it will get, you might want to just give up now

:D

Pshh never, but I do have my flame-proof suit next to my computer :flipoff2:

It looks like the RA sticks out in front of the axle further then on a Rover.

I already removed the axle brackets but from looking at the RA it no where near come to looking like you could use an x-link with any sort of arms made for the rover.

Also the RA cups the housing pretty tight. So wouldn't that limit the amount of upward movement anyway?
That pic shows the X-link on a Nissan Patrol axle and radius arms. The distance between the 2 axle mounting bolts on these vehicles is very large compared to Land Rovers, and as a result the stock front articulation is terrible, even with their better (compliant) suspension bushes.

The X-link allows good articulation from the Nissans front.

That pic is also an early version and the main part is profiled from flat plate. The newer version has the main part pressed to tuck in closer to the axle tubes. The new version also provide a bolt (option) as a disconnect that can lock out the X-link articulation for road use - when the bolt is fitted it drives similar to stock radius arms.

The X-link performs much like a 3-link with no vertical separation at the frame. Anti-dive same as radius arms, but much less roll resistance than radius arms.

Edit: Yes the closeness of rover radius arms to the axle tubes will limit how much they can move with an X-link.

Edit: sorry I had seen the pic a long time ago and didn't look close enough again to confirm. It is not a Nissan Patrol axle and radius arms as I said, but Toyota 80 series Landcruiser.

The center distance between axle end bushes on some radius arms are:
Land Rover 6-1/2"
Toyota Landcruiser 7-1/4"
Nissan Patrol 9-1/2"

Clearly this difference explains a lot about how the front suspension of the different vehicles articulate.

The first X-link ever made was for the Toyota Hilux shown in the 3rd and 4th pics, in the 3rd post.

The 1st and 2nd pics are Toyota 80 series Landcruisers.

Whats is PBB? Good info about eddie and panhard rod.


How about Pirate bulletin board??
:D

I always liked the X-link concept.
Go ahead, I'll copy you Guinea pig later :p

It looks like it would make an excellent bashguard for the front diff cover!:laughing:

:idea:

Lengthen the stock radius arms.
Flip em so they mount on top of the axle.
Make the mount TDC of the axle for the rear RA bolt.
Front RA bolt goes to the x link.

How about Pirate bulletin board??
:D

I always liked the X-link concept.
Go ahead, I'll copy you Guinea pig later :p

:sighs: I feel dumb :shaking:
I might just do it the X link, my friend has 2 welding classes and one of them is just a goof-off class to build stuff so it might just happen! Chopping radius arms and doing some welding to the diff housing couldn't be that bad....
Or could it:evil:

It looks like it would make an excellent bashguard for the front diff cover!:laughing:

And it gets the ladies :smokin:

That pic shows the X-link on a Nissan Patrol axle and radius arms. The distance between the 2 axle mounting bolts on these vehicles is very large compared to Land Rovers, and as a result the stock front articulation is terrible, even with their better (compliant) suspension bushes.

The X-link allows good articulation from the Nissans front.

That pic is also an early version and the main part is profiled from flat plate. The newer version has the main part pressed to tuck in closer to the axle tubes. The new version also provide a bolt (option) as a disconnect that can lock out the X-link articulation for road use - when the bolt is fitted it drives similar to stock radius arms.

The X-link performs much like a 3-link with no vertical separation at the frame. Anti-dive same as radius arms, but much less roll resistance than radius arms.

Edit: Yes the closeness of rover radius arms to the axle tubes will limit how much they can move with an X-link.

Good info, so do you think it would be do-able on a rover suspension? From looking today things that would be interfering would be the panhard rod, and maybe the steering linkage (if the pivoting link does not protrude too much.

I know nothing about this suspension. But it looks heavy, big, gay, and fab intensive. All that for an unproven system is not my cup o tea. But you should do it and keep us in the loop. Be a trailblazer so others don't have to.

:idea:

Lengthen the stock radius arms.
Flip em so they mount on top of the axle.
Make the mount TDC of the axle for the rear RA bolt.
Front RA bolt goes to the x link.

Is that do-able?
What is TDC lol

Also as far as modifing the Radius Arms, all that would need to be done is cut after the rear bolt and modify it to give it more room away from the axle housing so that you can have more flex.

As for the panhard rod.... Could you raise the lower panhard rod mount so that it would give you clearance for the X-link?

I always like the idea of the x link, but the point about the rover radius arms being too close to the axle tubes is what put me off. As for being big and gay, there are lots of solutions out there that use incredible amounts of kit. The wristed arms on the broncos for one. (I like that one too, but too much fab again)
The advantage for those of us not allowed to modify chassis is just that, the chassis doesn't get modded, pickup points are the same, obviously the axle is modified. Can the axle be modded for toy radius arms?
Better still can the toy axle and arms be fitted complete instead?

So if I understand this, and it's a big if, the giant chrome link on the front basically has the affect of allowing the front bolt on the RA to move more. Then someone mentioned that you still bind up eventually. So even with this system, you still get some bind, so you will still have some of the annoying qualities of a RA system. If thats the case, then shortening the separation of the RA bolts on the axle is much cheaper, lighter, and easier.

So if I understand this, and it's a big if, the giant chrome link on the front basically has the affect of allowing the front bolt on the RA to move more. Then someone mentioned that you still bind up eventually. So even with this system, you still get some bind, so you will still have some of the annoying qualities of a RA system. If thats the case, then shortening the separation of the RA bolts on the axle is much cheaper, lighter, and easier.

I would think that the force on the bushing would increase exponentially the closer the RA bolts are together (thinking lever action) making it kinda squirrely to drive. I would guess that freeing up the front bolts a little will have a big effect because of the lever action as well.

Someone can pull both front bolts and see how far up and down the RA's can move relative to the mount eye. (with a jack or forklift of course)

I still cant understand how the Jeep y-link RA setup can flex so freely.

If thats the case, then shortening the separation of the RA bolts on the axle is much cheaper, lighter, and easier.

Wouldn't that have the same effect as drilling the RA bushes?

Which is cheaper and easier still.

Wouldn't that have the same effect as drilling the RA bushes?

Which is cheaper and easier still.

How do you drill a bush? Sounds creepy. :laughing:

Affect, yes, but won't destroy your bushings. I have found all RA options to be band aids. Some better than others.

This X thing might be the best option for all I know. But if it leaves any RA characteristics then it seems foolish when you can build something else for the same amount of work.

But if it leaves any RA characteristics then it seems foolish when you can build something else for the same amount of work.

No, it completely removes all binding in articulation. It is not exactly that difficult to understand what is happening.....

No, it completely removes all binding in articulation. It is not exactly that difficult to understand what is happening.....

So the guy who said it does bind still was wrong? That changes things.

I would think that the force on the bushing would increase exponentially the closer the RA bolts are together (thinking lever action) making it kinda squirrely to drive. I would guess that freeing up the front bolts a little will have a big effect because of the lever action as well.

Someone can pull both front bolts and see how far up and down the RA's can move relative to the mount eye. (with a jack or forklift of course)

I still cant understand how the Jeep y-link RA setup can flex so freely.

I ran like this for 4 years. Worked perfectly on the street, but only lessened the negetive affects of the RAs offroad. Way better than stock though. If this system doesn't bind at all, it would be better.

I ran like this for 4 years. Worked perfectly on the street, but only lessened the negetive affects of the RAs offroad. Way better than stock though. If this system doesn't bind at all, it would be better.

Properly done it would not bind, look at those pics of the Nissan truck it has very good flex with no binding. All suspension systems will bind at some point, whether a bushing binds or if the tire is crammed against the tire well. Since Land Rovers are not Nissans the design will obviously need to change to compensate for tighter radius arm to the axle housing, panhard rod ect..

Also with the pinnable system the x link will perform just like radius arms which should offer better on-road performance than a 3 link :stirthepot:

I first asked Chad (owner of the white Hilux above) in 2007 about the chance of x-linking a Rover, this was his opinion in the end:
People I have some bad news
Looks like the rover XLink is a bit more complex than we first thought.
We were able to study a rover today at great lenghts a few thing we found were that the panard mount is in a bad spot for the Xlink. this can be fixed but we also found that the radious arms are far to close to the diff to offer the correct amount of movement the Xlink needs and also the tie rod sits all to close to the radious arms at the rear of the diff.
having said that at this stage we are not going to manufacture these as a production line product.what we can offer to people is a full custom setup. This will be alot more involved to setup and engineer than what we first anticipated so the build up like this might not be for all.


The front bushes of the RA are connected to the X-link and this is connected to the axle via a pivot (is this the correct term?).
So the stock RAs are kept but they allow much more articulation.
Red90 or Bush65 please correct if I'm wrong.

Also with the pinnable system the x link will perform just like radius arms which should offer better on-road performance than a 3 link :stirthepot:

How is a properly designed 3 link going to perform worse then stock?

How is a properly designed 3 link going to perform worse then stock?

I think he is talking about the roll resistance of the stock system versus a 3 link.

If you really want body roll resistance, add a sway bar with a disconnect for off road..... Personally, though, if you want to drive around corners fast get in a sports car.

I first asked Chad (owner of the white Hilux above) in 2007 about the chance of x-linking a Rover, this was his opinion in the end:


The front bushes of the RA are connected to the X-link and this is connected to the axle via a pivot (is this the correct term?).
So the stock RAs are kept but they allow much more articulation.
Red90 or Bush65 please correct if I'm wrong.

:( well it seems to be heading to 3 link for me

I think he is talking about the roll resistance of the stock system versus a 3 link.

If you really want body roll resistance, add a sway bar with a disconnect for off road..... Personally, though, if you want to drive around corners fast get in a sports car.

Agreed, I have noway-bars off right now and i agree you. However finding a good model for doing a custom 3 link that is not the SG design is pretty rare. The one 3 link that seemed feasible was flamed to pieces

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/plasticbadger/ToyRover005.jpg

Something like this would be much easier than the SG imo unless anybody has made a DIY 3 link who wants to help a brotha out lol

:( well it seems to be heading to 3 link for me



Agreed, I have noway-bars off right now and i agree you. However finding a good model for doing a custom 3 link that is not the SG design is pretty rare. The one 3 link that seemed feasible was flamed to pieces

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/plasticbadger/ToyRover005.jpg

Something like this would be much easier than the SG imo unless anybody has made a DIY 3 link who wants to help a brotha out lol
This kind of 3 link is similar to what I had in a rover, except my lower links were straight and in Australia we have to run flexible link mounts (heims not allowed) for road driven vehicles.

My links used stock rover trailing arm bushes at the axle end and the frame end of the upper link used a stock rear trailing arm frame end mount on the cross member.

Like John (red90rover) said use a swaybar for onroad handling with disconnects for offroad.

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt84/bushie39/Axlemount.jpg
http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt84/bushie39/Crossmemberfront-left.jpg

I first asked Chad (owner of the white Hilux above) in 2007 about the chance of x-linking a Rover, this was his opinion in the end:


The front bushes of the RA are connected to the X-link and this is connected to the axle via a pivot (is this the correct term?).
So the stock RAs are kept but they allow much more articulation.
Red90 or Bush65 please correct if I'm wrong.
That is correct Michele.

I believe what Chad was getting at is custom radius arms and axle mounts would be necessary to get it to work on a rover.

By the time you do that it is getting a lot further away from close to bolt on with a little welding (which an X-link kit offers Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol owners). And no particular advantage over a custom 3 link (apart from being able to lock out the X-link for on road).

I think he is talking about the roll resistance of the stock system versus a 3 link.

If you really want body roll resistance, add a sway bar with a disconnect for off road..... Personally, though, if you want to drive around corners fast get in a sports car.

Drive a Defender fast around corners! :laughing:Thats the silliest thing I have ever heard! I can just imagine my hardtop crushing like an empty beer tin!

How is a properly designed 3 link going to perform worse then stock?

How is any thing going to perform worse than stock?

I think he is talking about the roll resistance of the stock system versus a 3 link.

If you really want body roll resistance, add a sway bar with a disconnect for off road..... Personally, though, if you want to drive around corners fast get in a sports car.

It depends what the vehicle is used for.
If it's an off-road only trail rig, then fine. But most of us drive on public roads and being able to drive around the idiot who just tried to pass on a blind corner is of benefit.

:( well it seems to be heading to 3 link for me



Agreed, I have noway-bars off right now and i agree you. However finding a good model for doing a custom 3 link that is not the SG design is pretty rare. The one 3 link that seemed feasible was flamed to pieces

Something like this would be much easier than the SG imo unless anybody has made a DIY 3 link who wants to help a brotha out lol

That system was only flamed because of how badly it was built. Not the design. Where are you located?

It depends what the vehicle is used for.
If it's an off-road only trail rig, then fine. But most of us drive on public roads and being able to drive around the idiot who just tried to pass on a blind corner is of benefit.

The sway bar affect only seemed to start to matter after 6in or so of movement, so the front is going to dive way too far in any corner before it does anything for you anyway.

A sway bar on the back makes a big difference.

The one 3 link that seemed feasible was flamed to pieces

It was flamed because of what appear to be fairly flimsy mount designs. The arrangement of the links is fine. I would just build the attachments stronger and make the lower links stronger or over the tie rod.

The sway bar affect only seemed to start to matter after 6in or so of movement, so the front is going to dive way too far in any corner before it does anything for you anyway.

A sway bar on the back makes a big difference.

My rangie needs poly bushes in the front radius arms to keep oversteer in check. Adding a rear swaybar would make the oversteer particularly vicious. I mean going sideways is fun for a while, but leaving corners backwards is best left to porsche drivers.

Just take a look at the swaybars landrover added stock. Front one was chunky, rear was a token effort.

That system was only flamed because of how badly it was built. Not the design. Where are you located?

I am in Roanoke VA, and that is good new to me!
This is probably a dumb question but would doing a system like that even require the need of the 3 link calculator? Seems really simple like you could almost guesstimate

It was flamed because of what appear to be fairly flimsy mount designs. The arrangement of the links is fine. I would just build the attachments stronger and make the lower links stronger or over the tie rod.

good deal

My rangie needs poly bushes in the front radius arms to keep oversteer in check. Adding a rear swaybar would make the oversteer particularly vicious. I mean going sideways is fun for a while, but leaving corners backwards is best left to porsche drivers.

Just take a look at the swaybars landrover added stock. Front one was chunky, rear was a token effort.

Thats wierd. Oversteer has never been even close to a problem for me. I still contend that most lean comes from the back of the truck. It's been a long while since I drove fast on the street in this thing though.

I don't think pointing to how Rover did it is at all helpful in proving a point! :flipoff2:

I am in Roanoke VA, and that is good new to me!
This is probably a dumb question but would doing a system like that even require the need of the 3 link calculator? Seems really simple like you could almost guesstimate



good deal

You should look at a calculator for the learning experience. In the end, the rover will make a perfect system near impossible.

You should look at a calculator for the learning experience. In the end, the rover will make a perfect system near impossible.

Ain't that the truth! :laughing:

EDIT: ermm does anybody have a design for a RRC SWB with 33's :P
All the different variables are confusinggg

IMHO The setup below is an accident waiting to happen. I think he said he was remaking it with beefed up mounts (rod ends and links look puny too). It won't be a moment too soon, as every time a modified 4x4 has a crash it promotes a media frenzy and calls for home modified vehicles to be banned.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/plasticbadger/ToyRover005.jpg

IMHO The setup below is an accident waiting to happen. I think he said he was remaking it with beefed up mounts (rod ends and links look puny too). It won't be a moment too soon, as every time a modified 4x4 has a crash it promotes a media frenzy and calls for home modified vehicles to be banned.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/plasticbadger/ToyRover005.jpg

Hes in the UK, we good :grinpimp:

A question for those who are good with 3 link calculator, how do you figure your center of gravity (inches)?

My rangie needs poly bushes in the front radius arms to keep oversteer in check. Adding a rear swaybar would make the oversteer particularly vicious. I mean going sideways is fun for a while, but leaving corners backwards is best left to porsche drivers.

Just take a look at the swaybars landrover added stock. Front one was chunky, rear was a token effort.

What RRC's came with sway bars? My 1990 is completely original and had none on it. There is significant body roll, but it's predictable. I just got done replacing all the bushings with new Rover rubber bushings and that tightened things up nicely. I thought there was a steering issue, but it turned out just to be bushings. When I replaced just the radius arm frame bushings and panhard bushings, it actually made things worse. I suppose before that, all the slack in the different bushings canceled out a bit. The front radius arm bushings made the most difference though. I suppose that's a good enough reason for me not to want to drill poly bushings on something I drive on the road.

What RRC's came with sway bars?

The last of them did. But far more common in the discos.

IMHO The setup below is an accident waiting to happen. I think he said he was remaking it with beefed up mounts (rod ends and links look puny too). It won't be a moment too soon, as every time a modified 4x4 has a crash it promotes a media frenzy and calls for home modified vehicles to be banned.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/plasticbadger/ToyRover005.jpg

I was wondering about that. Is i the photo or are the 3-link bars the same size as the drag link.

I think the easiest way to run that X-link thingy is to swap in the Toyota axles it was made for!