Leaderboard

Tony; I don't know about the mirror, I have a feeling that Joe dot com may be the man for that, a new thread with a descriptive title may be the best way to find out. Yes the arms are expensive that's why I changed the bushes only, although the upper rears are a different matter what with the built in ball-joint (nonsense). Three hours sounds reasonable, I trust they set the toe, camber and caster to spec? Knut Are; It's only for certain situations that I think polyurethane is not worthwhile, I'll try to explain myself. The bushes on the front arms of early S-type have to only absorb radial loads, that is that in normal suspension movement they simply pivot around a bolt and for the most part are only asked to absorb the vibrations and radial forces from the arm which they're fitted into. It's the same with the ARB bushes as they only locate a bar that rotates within them. For these applications I think polyurethane is just fine and in fact suit my requirements better than rubber. I don't like a car to shake me to bits just for the sake of it but I do like them to handle predictably. So although the rubber bushes that it had in the arms absorbed a lot of "chatter" and small bumps that the poly bushes don't they also allowed the suspension geometry to change in an instant which is not predictable and so created unpredictable handling especially over the fast, rough A and B roads around here. The poly bushes are much, much harder than the rubber which ensures that the arms are better located to prevent the geometry changes. For me the trade off was absolutely worth it although I'd be equally happy with the slightly softer poly bushes which are available, all suspension is a compromise. On the other hand, in my experience, poly bushes which are designed to flex and hence deform as part of the normal movement of the suspension tend to permanently deform in use and end up unable to locate the components properly. A good example of this that I can give first hand knowledge of would be the front wishbones on most 80's VWs, in this case an A2 platform (Golf mk2 and Corrado). If you look at the picture below you can see that the front bush works like both the ones on early S-type arms as it simply rotates. The rear on however has to flex as its pivot is at 90 degrees to the arm, hence the voids in the rubber bush. In use I have found polyurethane rear bushes to permanently deform at the central hole allowing the bush, and so the arm, to move around the bolt that goes though it. This defeats the object of the bush as a location point and lets the caster and toe values vary wildly and uncontrollably. This obviously makes the car handle badly. For VWs with arms like this I fit solid rubber in the back and poly in the front. This is only what I have concluded from modifying and tuning suspension on a fairly limited variety of cars. I may be wrong and I certainly don't know geometry or materials theory but I think my reasoning is sound. I didn't fit poly bushes to the rear lower arms of my S-type because I think there is just no way they could have out performed the standard pillow-ball bushes, but that's for slightly different reasons, see my third post.