Front anti-roll bar quick disconnects

[AJ120 Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close AJ120]

Whitey, remember this is a thread in the 90 series section, you have a 120 and Glen has a 90!

Cheers Andrew

[mjrandom Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close mjrandom]

I think Mark knows...

[haakonbs Lurker Find all posts View Profile Close haakonbs]

Have anyone tried driving with out the front anti-roll bar? I've always removed it on my previous Land Rovers

[wholesalesuspension Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close wholesalesuspension]

Thanks. These might fit?

http://wabfab.3dcartstores.com/End-L...cts_p_753.html

They will fit for sure, but for me the noise of the Heim joints knocking and clicking all the time would pee me off that much it would outweigh the benefits for me. I would rather spend 2 mins unbolting my own.

I have spoken to a few suppliers about getting some made with conventional style ball joints like our extended link kits, but i have to order 100 sets minimum.

Regards, Jason.

[glen_ep Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close glen_ep]

Front suspension is OME "mediums" - 881 coils & 90004 struts - ~1" lift (sagged)

Below is the spot I used for measuring, and you'll see here a slightly downhill position which uses the vehicles weight to get max travel. Note; in these photos the front wheels are turned because I was checking clearances (rubbing) at the time, not measuring.





After installing new rims I went back again and performed more clearance testing and the measuring. The link below includes photos of the arms, CV's and bump stops at the time:

http://www.pradopoint.com/showthread...l=1#post339998

I took two sets of measurements, the ones mentioned thus far was rim to arch:
a) measure passenger side drooped distance from under wheel arch to top of the 16" rim.
b) measure driver side compressed distance from under wheel arch to top of the 16" rim.
c) a - b = total travel

I also took strut assembly measurements. Below is everything I have relating to the fronts from that day:

Up hill:
450-335=115 (4.5") - flare to rim with sway bar
485-435=50 (2.0") - strut lengths with sway bar
472-280=192 (7.6") - flare to rim, sway bar removed
500-405=95 (3.7") - strut lengths, sway bar removed

Down hill (using weight):
433-268=165 (6.5") - flare to rim with sway bar
480-408=72 (2.8") - strut lengths with sway bar
480-240=240 (9.5") - flare to rim, sway bar removed
500-402=98 (3.9") - strut lengths, sway bar removed

Apart from shocks, some important factors which would influence my results are the upper arms (aftermarket), rim offset (-13 instead of +15), and obviously the extreme position (I could easily rock the vehicle by hand). Driving up ramps in a level area, or using a jack, will not produce max results - similar to my rear travel, with 21" rear travel I can loose a spring on the trails but never in garage tests. Then there's error factors as well, I used a tape measure, and it's difficult to measure wheel/arch in the exact same position every time.

[Whitey Shockie Maker of the Month Award Find all posts View Profile Close Whitey]

Hey Glen,

Thanks heaps for your very detailed response!

The photos are fantastic, and I really like the suspension shots in the link, you can see how you're nicely right on the bump stop, and still plenty of compression to go on the coil.

Just to confirm from your numbers for strut travel, I'm assuming you're on the bump stop at 402mm, and at CV bind at 500mm with the 90 front strut, or was your front strut limited to 500mm open length? I'm just wondering if you could squeeze more down-travel out of it? I'm still not sure what the 90 series OEM factory strut length is, and at what open length the CV will bind?

If I'm doing the calculation correctly, it would seem the leverage ratio on your setup is about 6.5/2.8 = 2.32.

...your measurements also suggest the sway bar is preventing full droop on the strut during articulation?

I was going to do this with my 120 on jack stands, but now I see from your threads that I need to find a small hill!

Thanks again for your great explanation!

Best

Mark

[BlakMoth Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close BlakMoth]

You've been asking lots of questions about suspension lately Whitey.
What ideas you got bouncing around in there?
Must be good 😎


Sent from my iPhone using Crapatalk

[Whitey Shockie Maker of the Month Award Find all posts View Profile Close Whitey]

Hey Blakmoth,

Haha, yep, I been measuring everything in sight on my 120!

I'm very interested in getting the maximum out of the suspension, but not at the expense of minimising bump stop margins or spacing bump stops. Sway bars and their restrictions interest me also, and the front IFS is particularly interesting surrounding sway bar links....there's anecdotal evidence you don't need to increase the length of front sway bar links when you lift, but from what I can see, nobody has used static lengthened links on the front IFS, or even measured anything to know if they have an effect on the geometry.

It's also clear you can get a lot more down-travel out of the 4-link rear, FJ Cruiser guys are running Metal Tech kits with LT Icons, getting 4" bump travel, and 7" down travel, but these kits use a whopping 3" bump stop spacer and no sway bar. The LT Icon is 444-724mm, and they are binding the upper trailing arm on fuel tanks, binding the lower trailing arms on the diff housing at full level droop etc., and drivers are complaining about bottoming out on the bump stops all the time! They're really pushing the limits of rear shock lengths with 280mm of travel, but I don't want to do this with all the compromises.

Similarly for the IFS, I'm very interested to know the differences between the 90, 120, 150, FJ (120 and 150 versions) and Hilux.

Toyota has changed things a lot with the IFS between these vehicles, moving coil seat positions, strut tower positions, and consequently OEM closed-open lengths. With these changes in OEM lengths, I believe Toyota has also steadily reduced the bump safety margins on the IFS, which is the closed length on bump stop - bump stop thickness + safety bump travel. On the 120 the safety bump travel is 20mm, with a short OEM closed length of 420mm. I think that 20mm has been steadily decreasing from the 90 to 120 to 150.

Eventually I will measure the IFS on all three Prados and the Oz spec FJ and Hilux, so I can understand what the Toyota engineers have been doing.

Interesting stuff!

Best

Mark

[glen_ep Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close glen_ep]

No worries Mark, it's interesting to share results and bump ideas around.

For the compression measurements yes it's on the bump and even squashing it a little. For droop I didn't attempt to identify the limiting factor.

According to the OME product guide my 90004 struts have lengths of 340-473, a travel difference of 133mm. The strut travel figures I measured above varies from 50-98mm, so they could actually go further by ~35mm, but the question is, in which direction. I'll have to put it up on stands and remove the lower shock bolt to see how much further it'll go.

Notice between the up and down measurements, the one which changes the most is compression. Even with a wheel in the air, the less weight/downforce available the less the other will compress. A similar limitation will occur when using HD springs compared to softer ones, so for anyone chasing flex, they should avoid HD springs if possible.

On another matter, but related, I replaced the 5 rear links with aftermarket heim joint types, and changed the 2" Prado shocks (60028, 545-338=207mm) to 100 series shocks (N101C, 610-360=250) which have more travel. Obviously it droops further now, but the interesting thing is how smooth the articulation occurs with those heim joints. The smoothness is noticeable on and off road. It had one negative affect though, the difference between the soft/smooth rear and hard/stiff front is too great - during articulating terrain the vehicle body almost completely follows the front. Worse still, during off camber terrain, if one front wheel goes up a rock on the high side, that tipping behaviour get's dangerous. This is normal behaviour for IFS but I believe the flexy rear has aggravated it further. Now by disconnecting the front sway bar, the high side wheel will compress more and keep the body more level, surprisingly, providing more stability off road.

[wholesalesuspension Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close wholesalesuspension]

Hey Blakmoth,

Haha, yep, I been measuring everything in sight on my 120!

Sway bars and their restrictions interest me also, and the front IFS is particularly interesting surrounding sway bar links....there's anecdotal evidence you don't need to increase the length of front sway bar links when you lift, but from what I can see, nobody has used static lengthened links on the front IFS, or even measured anything to know if they have an effect on the geometry.
Mark

Hi Mark, the 120 front strut and swaybar setup is substantially different to the 95 series.
There is zero benefit to altering the link pin lengths on the 120 due to the mounting setup on the strut.
With the 95 though, as you raise it, the links change angles dramatically and pull the swaybar down at an angle which drags the links forward toward the swaybar.
Extending them puts the swaybar back to level and the links back to straight.

Regards, Jason.

[Whitey Shockie Maker of the Month Award Find all posts View Profile Close Whitey]

Hey Jason and Glen,

Very interesting points you both raise!

First of all, thanks Jason for clarifying that big difference between the 90 and 120 front sway bar links. So for the 90, it seems that extending the front sway bar link length is a good thing! Do you know Jason what the typical length extension is on a 2" lift?

Also, considering that the 120 front sway bar links don't need lengthening, does this suggest that the articulation gains from sway bar removal that Glen has seen in his 90 won't be as great in the 120?

...one more question for you Jason, could you clarify for me how the mounting setup for the strut affects the sway bar link length?? ...what is it that is fundamentally different between the 90 and 120?

Glen, what you've said about your articulation and body roll in rough terrain is then quite interesting.

I was under the general impression that due to the limitations of the IFS in Prados, we needed to get as much flex as possible out of the rear. I'm running a similar rear shock (365-618mm) to you, and I'm assuming the difference in the 4-link (call it 5-link with the panhard rod) between the 90 and the 120 is minimal.

...and yet you find the net result a contradiction of the original assumption that more flex in the 4-link would be helpful.

I have a few more questions then for you Glen;

i) are your front sway bar links lengthened, as Jason suggested? (if you run with the sway bar in)

ii) do you run with your rear sway bar in to reduce body roll? ...I'm not sure what shock open length the rear sway bar binds on the 90 series?

iii) regarding the rose/heim joints you are running on your rear trailing arms, are these Icons? I've read in the FJ blue room that they can end up clunking a lot (as Jason has mentioned), but this is because the nyloc nuts haven't been tightened all the way up. Once tightened the noise goes away. ....I'm also not sure if the heim joints Icon use have a teflon liner?

I'm currently running Roadsafe heim joints on my extended rear sway bar link, and it doesn't have a teflon liner, and it hasn't made any noises yet. I'm also going to try these on the front. ....from a strengthening perspective more than anything else, as I don't wanna bust a CV boot.

Very interesting stuff!

Best

Mark

[Whitey Shockie Maker of the Month Award Find all posts View Profile Close Whitey]

Hey Glen,

One other thing I forgot to mention...some of the quoted open lengths on ARB struts are incorrect. This is due to them sometimes mounting the shroud lower than the flange seat for the first bush washer. For example, many people quote 543mm open length on the old N140S, but it is actually 570mm open, as Andrew (AJ120) measured!

This may not be relevant for the 90004's you're running, but it may be worthwhile checking their open length next time you have them out!

Best

Mark

[mjrandom Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close mjrandom]

I cannot recall how much difference there is between the 120 and 150 but putting the spacer blocks in the 150 to effectively bring the sway bar back to the correct position with the lower arms did make a difference in how the rubbers and the bar sat. Whether it had a demonstrable difference in how it performs is another thing but the rubbers were sitting back as standard and not distended.

[wholesalesuspension Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close wholesalesuspension]

Hey Jason and Glen,

...one more question for you Jason, could you clarify for me how the mounting setup for the strut affects the sway bar link length?? ...what is it that is fundamentally different between the 90 and 120?

Mark

Hi Mark, the easiest way to explain the difference in the 2 models is with a couple of pics.....

The 95 Series runs the Swaybar link on the lower arm, so when it's raised the Swaybar is pushed further downward and puts the link pins under more stress.



The 120 Series swaybar link attaches to the upright in the hub.
Yes it also moves downward when you raise the vehicle, but the 120 series isn't really affected anywhere as much when you raise the vehicle as the 95's are.


The links i run are extended by 30mm front and rear on the 95 Series.

Kind Regards, Jason.

[Whitey Shockie Maker of the Month Award Find all posts View Profile Close Whitey]

Hey Jason,

Thanks for those images, very informative! ...and what a difference between the 90 and the 120! ...and I understand now why the 90 links would need to be lengthened.

Very interesting change in geometry!

...so the sway bar on the IFS in the 90 would definitely be more limiting in articulation travel, so maybe what MJ observed with his original measurements were correct, and the benefits of running without a sway bar on the 120 are minimal compared to the 90???

Best

Mark