Outer Limits 4x4 Board

hi any one running 3link set up?looking for some info or plains to 3link a rangie or if some one who has come up with a better idea for more flex in front that would be great.thanks or a link on this forum to a thread with info in

How much more flex do you need?

Mine with stock arms (and Haultech Holy Bushes) does this with 37s and 3" lift...



And that is not fully flexed out.

Micka wrote:How much more flex do you need?


Mine with stock arms (and Haultech Holy Bushes) does this with 37s and 3" lift...

Looking at his display pic, he wants a fair bit more....

RangingRover wrote:

Micka wrote:How much more flex do you need?


Mine with stock arms (and Haultech Holy Bushes) does this with 37s and 3" lift...

Looking at his display pic, he wants a fair bit more....

Going by his avatar his front end is not flexing to its potential with standard arms.

my truck is getting round 920rti score so looking over that maybe round 1300rti this landie scored 1300 .nice truck micka how high would you get the wheel up 800mm to 900mm? more or less?

That truck scored 1300 but many years ago and pioneering with a lot of various homemade mods never tried before...although the rear axle got the biggest benefit (search for balanced articulation and you'll have a good read re this).

I like Micka's truck, mine has been "improved" following the same school, cheap and easy




Alternatively you might replicate a Safari Gard 3-L system, tons of infos on this too...

I think an rti of over 1000 is easily acheivable in a range rover (with out goin to a three link design).

I don't think you would need much more to be honest, so long as it is even front to rear like Mickas it will be much better.

Get your self some holey bushes and triple check your front shocks.

Haultech Holy Bushes .are these slotted and replace radius arm bushes?looked up on google but not seen pic of what they are and what they do?
do they recorrect castor with lift as well?
triple check your front shocks?
thanks for replies

Hay gonfellon if you want more flex OFFROAD then pull a bolt from the front radius arms. In a Rangie you shouldnt need to as set up they will flex well.
This mod is an old trick to get a pootrol front diff to move. (even if they where mounted with bubblegum they still wouldnt bloody flex.



Gee Micka any bloody excuse to put a pic of BOB up
could have used a pic with the tube front though

yes ive seen that done.seems to be large amount of ways to get extra flex.finding a good way is hard with so many options out there to choose from. ive been talking to my engineer about extra flex he thinks extending rear trailing arms and moving chassis mount up and forward with longer shocks might be better way to gain more flex and still keep fairly good on road handling.but the more options and ideas the better ,as building up a bobtail to so can use that for testing on. keen on looking at holy bushes and see how they work and to see if it easy way out, might email them and get info on them .thanks again for good replies and ideas

gonfellon wrote:... my engineer about extra flex he thinks extending rear trailing arms and moving chassis mount up and forward with longer shocks might be better way to gain more flex and still keep fairly good on road handling...

The chassis rail has internal stiffening where things like suspension mounts are fitted. The chassis wall thickness is too thin without it - in some instances it is still too thin with it (particularly early rangies).

You will have to make suitable compensation where ever you move the trailing arm mount to.

If you also move the mount up, you trailing arm will hit the body mount outrigger before the axle housing hits the bump stop. If you are running lifted suspension, you will probably not have to raise the chassis mount to keep the angle of the rear roll axis near stock (with rangie suspension it is parallel to the trailing arms). Your rear anti-squat will still be good if you dont raise the mount.

But you will loose some belly clearance (ramp over angle) if you move the stock mount forward at the same height. By changing from the pin mount at the front of the trailing arm to a bush eye, you can avoid having the bracket below the chassis rail.

i do currently run hiem joints on the front of the rear trailing arms .and no self leveling borg shock
the springs dislocate around 200 odd mls before the shocks are fully extended.the front has maybe only 50mm or so of flex over standard with the shocks and mount setup ive used so evening up flex in front for this truck might be the way to go.and build up anuff info to mod the bobtail with some major flex as not a onroader

Bush65 wrote:The chassis rail has internal stiffening where things like suspension mounts are fitted. The chassis wall thickness is too thin without it - in some instances it is still too thin with it (particularly early rangies).

You will have to make suitable compensation where ever you move the trailing arm mount to.

Hi John, what sort of internal stiffeneing do they have? i have been thinking about longer radius arms and trailing arms. long enough to bring the 2 mounts (radius and trailing) only 300mm apart. my idea for the chassis mount is to fish plat the chassis with 6mm plate on the outside, top to bottom, and about 80mm longer than front and rear mount. then weld the front and rear mounts (6mm also) to that. then using 4mm plate box those in from center of top cord, around mounts and back under to center of bottom cord of chassis cutting out the mid section to alow for the install/removeal of nuts on both arms. the front mount would have a large plate (20mm thick welded to the 6mm plate to act as a bush. im tring to copy the designs gone into the oem mounts and juts mod them to suit my lenghts and heights to get the comprimise of axle roll axis/anti dive anti squat and belly clearence

cheers, Serg

gonfellon wrote:Haultech Holy Bushes .are these slotted and replace radius arm bushes?looked up on google but not seen pic of what they are and what they do?
do they recorrect castor with lift as well?
triple check your front shocks?
thanks for replies

They are replacement bushes that go into the front radius arm and yes they are slotted above and below the sleeve to allow it better movement.

By tripple check your front shocks, I was just thinking they may be too short.

thanks for that does the bushes affect braking?over here 4.9 seconds stop from 100ks 3 times in a row or no cert.my shocks are bilstiens which have custom turrets made which does give me abit more flex,the compress and extend lengths have changed to allow for the lift . but not as much as rear flex ,if i do install holy bushes will front flex be still limited by the radius arm bushes on the chassis, like the problem i had in the back before installing hiem joint trailing arms.i live in whoops so i can go on abit sorry

gonfellon wrote:thanks for that does the bushes affect braking?over here 4.9 seconds stop from 100ks 3 times in a row or no cert.my shocks are bilstiens which have custom turrets made which does give me abit more flex,the compress and extend lengths have changed to allow for the lift . but not as much as rear flex ,if i do install holy bushes will front flex be still limited by the radius arm bushes on the chassis, like the problem i had in the back before installing hiem joint trailing arms.i live in whoops so i can go on abit sorry

The biggest hindrance to braking is larger tyres, the bushes should not effect the braking to a noticable extent. They will alow the diff to rotate a touch more so it may wonder a tad under hard brakeing.

The bushes at the chassis end on the radius arm are fine IMHO.
Just make sure you stick to standard rubber bushes.

uninformed wrote:
Hi John, what sort of internal stiffeneing do they have?

I am not John, but the last chassis I cut up (rangie) had steel angle formed to match the chassis contours, welded in at each corner of the box section where spring turrets and link mounts were located. There is probably other stiffening, but that is what I remember.

uninformed wrote:

Bush65 wrote:The chassis rail has internal stiffening where things like suspension mounts are fitted. The chassis wall thickness is too thin without it - in some instances it is still too thin with it (particularly early rangies).

You will have to make suitable compensation where ever you move the trailing arm mount to.

Hi John, what sort of internal stiffeneing do they have? i have been thinking about longer radius arms and trailing arms. long enough to bring the 2 mounts (radius and trailing) only 300mm apart. my idea for the chassis mount is to fish plat the chassis with 6mm plate on the outside, top to bottom, and about 80mm longer than front and rear mount. then weld the front and rear mounts (6mm also) to that. then using 4mm plate box those in from center of top cord, around mounts and back under to center of bottom cord of chassis cutting out the mid section to alow for the install/removeal of nuts on both arms. the front mount would have a large plate (20mm thick welded to the 6mm plate to act as a bush. im tring to copy the designs gone into the oem mounts and juts mod them to suit my lenghts and heights to get the comprimise of axle roll axis/anti dive anti squat and belly clearence

cheers, Serg

Hello Serg,
I don't what specifically what is used where the mounts for trailing and radius arms are attached to the chassis.

I have seen different forms of internal stiffening in other places in the chassis, which makes me believe there may be some at the suspension mounts. My experience is with rangies, your 110 chassis is different.

Where ever bolts fix to the chassis there are pressed up plates inside the chassis rail that prevent the side walls from compressing.

In other areas such as near the spring perches, there is additional stiffening from pressed angle sections inside the corners - these are spot welded to the chassis rails and extend over a considerable distance. If you look carefully it is possible to see the spot welds from the outside.

I would not be surprised if this method is used near the chassis mounts.

Welding across the top or bottom flanges of any structural member greatly reduces the fatigue strength. Although Land Rover does this in several places, anyone else will find it difficult to justify.

Welding to the pressed corners of the chassis rails is normally not recommended for good fatigue strength, because there is normally severe cold work stresses there. Land Rover chassis rails are very soft/malleable and probably have been stress relieved after they weld in these areas. But again, we would have difficulty arguing for doing the same.

With regard to what you call fishplates, 6mm is approaching or may be too thick. Their thickness should be proportional to the wall thickness of the chassis, which is quite thin. I personally think it would be ok, but others may have some rule they work to, which differs. 4 or 5mm would better match the chassis wall thickness.

The problem is that fatigue cracking occurs where there are abrupt changes in stiffness.

You should do whatever you can to avoid these abrupt changes in stiffness. One way is to make the doubler/fishplate with an exaggerated taper on the ends like this < > Making the plates rectangular shape is a bad practice.

running yellow bushes from uk seem softer than the red bushes that i had in my front, and 35" tires thats why looking at xtra breaking problems.if i do change to holy bushes.waiting for email reply from that firm.
Q. micka
how is brakes in your truck?with 37".are they abs brakes or not or are they upgraded brake pots ,braided lines.drilled disc for cooling?too stop fade?
Q.bush65
would a larger plate shaped slightly bigger than the chassis like a glove fit. made of core10 steel on each side of chassis bolted through the chassis with crush tubes x 8 @12mm h/t bolts like a sandwich with a new custom xmember between them?
so it would be bolt on and would be minor chassis work
or is that way out there lol

Bush65 wrote:

uninformed wrote:

Bush65 wrote:The chassis rail has internal stiffening where things like suspension mounts are fitted. The chassis wall thickness is too thin without it - in some instances it is still too thin with it (particularly early rangies).

You will have to make suitable compensation where ever you move the trailing arm mount to.

Hi John, what sort of internal stiffeneing do they have? i have been thinking about longer radius arms and trailing arms. long enough to bring the 2 mounts (radius and trailing) only 300mm apart. my idea for the chassis mount is to fish plat the chassis with 6mm plate on the outside, top to bottom, and about 80mm longer than front and rear mount. then weld the front and rear mounts (6mm also) to that. then using 4mm plate box those in from center of top cord, around mounts and back under to center of bottom cord of chassis cutting out the mid section to alow for the install/removeal of nuts on both arms. the front mount would have a large plate (20mm thick welded to the 6mm plate to act as a bush. im tring to copy the designs gone into the oem mounts and juts mod them to suit my lenghts and heights to get the comprimise of axle roll axis/anti dive anti squat and belly clearence

cheers, Serg

Hello Serg,
I don't what specifically what is used where the mounts for trailing and radius arms are attached to the chassis.

I have seen different forms of internal stiffening in other places in the chassis, which makes me believe there may be some at the suspension mounts. My experience is with rangies, your 110 chassis is different.

Where ever bolts fix to the chassis there are pressed up plates inside the chassis rail that prevent the side walls from compressing.

In other areas such as near the spring perches, there is additional stiffening from pressed angle sections inside the corners - these are spot welded to the chassis rails and extend over a considerable distance. If you look carefully it is possible to see the spot welds from the outside.

I would not be surprised if this method is used near the chassis mounts.

Welding across the top or bottom flanges of any structural member greatly reduces the fatigue strength. Although Land Rover does this in several places, anyone else will find it difficult to justify.

Welding to the pressed corners of the chassis rails is normally not recommended for good fatigue strength, because there is normally severe cold work stresses there. Land Rover chassis rails are very soft/malleable and probably have been stress relieved after they weld in these areas. But again, we would have difficulty arguing for doing the same.

With regard to what you call fishplates, 6mm is approaching or may be too thick. Their thickness should be proportional to the wall thickness of the chassis, which is quite thin. I personally think it would be ok, but others may have some rule they work to, which differs. 4 or 5mm would better match the chassis wall thickness.

The problem is that fatigue cracking occurs where there are abrupt changes in stiffness.

You should do whatever you can to avoid these abrupt changes in stiffness. One way is to make the doubler/fishplate with an exaggerated taper on the ends like this < > Making the plates rectangular shape is a bad practice.

thanks John,

regarding welding acroos the bottom or top cord: i wasnt goint to weld across but rather along, parrallel with the weld (actually on top of it) that welds the box section together along the chassis lenght.

regarding fish plate, the ends are to be as you discribed with a large radius at the end of the tapers...no sharp edges to create stress risers...it would also have a mid hole cut for a weld as the plate is large and i feel needs more than edge welding.

if not welding right up to the corners how close can one safley get....i feel that the fish plate needs to have a large surface area to distribute the forces out into the chassis and get them into the top and bottom cords.....

just gut feeling, i have no eductaion in this feild

cheers,Serg

uninformed wrote:

Bush65 wrote:

uninformed wrote:

Bush65 wrote:The chassis rail has internal stiffening where things like suspension mounts are fitted. The chassis wall thickness is too thin without it - in some instances it is still too thin with it (particularly early rangies).

You will have to make suitable compensation where ever you move the trailing arm mount to.

Hi John, what sort of internal stiffeneing do they have? i have been thinking about longer radius arms and trailing arms. long enough to bring the 2 mounts (radius and trailing) only 300mm apart. my idea for the chassis mount is to fish plat the chassis with 6mm plate on the outside, top to bottom, and about 80mm longer than front and rear mount. then weld the front and rear mounts (6mm also) to that. then using 4mm plate box those in from center of top cord, around mounts and back under to center of bottom cord of chassis cutting out the mid section to alow for the install/removeal of nuts on both arms. the front mount would have a large plate (20mm thick welded to the 6mm plate to act as a bush. im tring to copy the designs gone into the oem mounts and juts mod them to suit my lenghts and heights to get the comprimise of axle roll axis/anti dive anti squat and belly clearence

cheers, Serg

Hello Serg,
I don't what specifically what is used where the mounts for trailing and radius arms are attached to the chassis.

I have seen different forms of internal stiffening in other places in the chassis, which makes me believe there may be some at the suspension mounts. My experience is with rangies, your 110 chassis is different.

Where ever bolts fix to the chassis there are pressed up plates inside the chassis rail that prevent the side walls from compressing.

In other areas such as near the spring perches, there is additional stiffening from pressed angle sections inside the corners - these are spot welded to the chassis rails and extend over a considerable distance. If you look carefully it is possible to see the spot welds from the outside.

I would not be surprised if this method is used near the chassis mounts.

Welding across the top or bottom flanges of any structural member greatly reduces the fatigue strength. Although Land Rover does this in several places, anyone else will find it difficult to justify.

Welding to the pressed corners of the chassis rails is normally not recommended for good fatigue strength, because there is normally severe cold work stresses there. Land Rover chassis rails are very soft/malleable and probably have been stress relieved after they weld in these areas. But again, we would have difficulty arguing for doing the same.

With regard to what you call fishplates, 6mm is approaching or may be too thick. Their thickness should be proportional to the wall thickness of the chassis, which is quite thin. I personally think it would be ok, but others may have some rule they work to, which differs. 4 or 5mm would better match the chassis wall thickness.

The problem is that fatigue cracking occurs where there are abrupt changes in stiffness.

You should do whatever you can to avoid these abrupt changes in stiffness. One way is to make the doubler/fishplate with an exaggerated taper on the ends like this < > Making the plates rectangular shape is a bad practice.

thanks John,

regarding welding acroos the bottom or top cord: i wasnt goint to weld across but rather along, parrallel with the weld (actually on top of it) that welds the box section together along the chassis lenght.

regarding fish plate, the ends are to be as you discribed with a large radius at the end of the tapers...no sharp edges to create stress risers...it would also have a mid hole cut for a weld as the plate is large and i feel needs more than edge welding.

if not welding right up to the corners how close can one safley get....i feel that the fish plate needs to have a large surface area to distribute the forces out into the chassis and get them into the top and bottom cords.....

just gut feeling, i have no eductaion in this feild

cheers,Serg

I would use several holes in the doubler/fishplate to plug weld to the chassis rails. This will improve the combined strength of both plates.

I would weld the top and bottom edges of the doubler to the radiused corners of the chassis rails - you can see examples where Land Rover have done just this. I base this on the assumption that the cold work stresses have been relieved, but the risk is that someone else could pull you up on this.

LRA sell plates to strengthen RRC and Disco chassis. They weld to the inside of the chassis from the engine mounts to behind the bolted cross member under the gearbox. Their plates have a series of notches spaced regularly along the top and bottom edges where they are welded to the chassis.

Bush65 wrote: I would use several holes in the doubler/fishplate to plug weld to the chassis rails. This will improve the combined strength of both plates.

I would weld the top and bottom edges of the doubler to the radiused corners of the chassis rails - you can see examples where Land Rover have done just this. I base this on the assumption that the cold work stresses have been relieved, but the risk is that someone else could pull you up on this.

LRA sell plates to strengthen RRC and Disco chassis. They weld to the inside of the chassis from the engine mounts to behind the bolted cross member under the gearbox. Their plates have a series of notches spaced regularly along the top and bottom edges where they are welded to the chassis.

looking at those pics, the notches are for stich welding correct? so weld 50mm miss 50mm weld 50mm etc etc, is there a reason that this would be better than a continuous weld, especialy considering my fishplate may be upto 700mm long....

thanks for your help
Serg

Stitch welding, in the notched areas should be ok strength wise, as long as it is welded where any brackets are weld onto the plate.

The problem with stitch welding is it leaves areas where moisture can enter by capillary action and lead to corrosion. But these areas could be sealed with sikaflex.

I'm making new mounts for the trailing arms on my rangie, which has a 30mm od bush welded through the chassis rail. The 30mm hole allowed me to check a limited area and I only looked quickly, but could not feel any stiffing inside the chassis near the trailing arm mount.

Interestingly, the stock brackets weld to the top, outside corner, and the bottom, inside corner. This spreads the load better than if they were welded to top and bottom outside corners. I need to check if there is any stiffening in these corners, there was none in the bottom, outside corner.

Edit: I just had a better look. The only stiffening that I could see was a piece of angle between the inner and outer sides, orientated like an inverted Vee ^ at about half height, where the near vertical plate for the chassis mount is welded to the chassis rail. Because my hole was drilled near the bottom of the chassis rail, I could not fell or get a good look at the inside of the upper corners.