| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 03:03
|
 |
Heya Ppl,
i'm interested in hearing from anyone who has engineered a 5 link (well, 4 link + watts) live axle rear end, into a car that originally came with rear leaf springs, particularly in NSW.
looking for background info on body mods and reinforcing needed (that were required to get the cert), and difficulties i could expect with geometry, aligning, and getting it engineered.
does it constitute an ICV since no bits are being removed as such, mostly just extra bits added? (the COPofLVM is unclear on this)
any hints, tips and suggestions welcome.
handwaving and speculation is not so welcome 
Cya, Stewart
{EDIT} such as Bills work on the starlet
http://www.billzilla.org/starlet4link3.jpg
http://www.billzilla.org/starlet4link2.jpg
[Updated on: Mon, 10 May 2004 03:53]
|
|
|
Location:
Northwestern Sydney
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 03:28
|
|
I've been researching this as well, but really need to speak to an engineer on the subject.
As far as body modification is concerned, there will be a need to locate a strut tower in the rear floor pan (and probably bracing in the cross direction as well to the chassis)
As for the Chassis the standard leaf springs push the force from the diff housing directly to the chassis rails. any modifications need to do the same (As well as satisfy suspension Geometry)
My ideas would be to find a doner vehicle of simialar size and use that as a base. as the geometry would be basically there already. you would just need to match that geometry (or improve it) to your vehicle.
Suspension Geometry and how it affects the cars handling is currently where I fall in a hole. And needs to be researched by myself before I decide to modify my suspension.
From what I have discovered the conversion may be relatively simple (if you can weld) but very easy to Stuff up if the geometry is off.
You probably already know this but I'm interested in any other findings as well...
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 04:13
|
|
|
You might want to try the forums at www.spannerfodder.com you can buy kits to convert Escorts and someone there might have fitted one..
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Terrigal
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 05:32
|
|
Sorry not offering much help here, but I wanted to be included in this thread as I have a friend with a '75 lancer thinking of doing the same thing.
So might be able to pick up some ideas..
I was figuring you could use the original leaf mounting points for 2 of the trailing arms.
In the Lancer, it already has shock towers of some sort, as its leaf with a shock. So maybe just need a good spot to support the springs.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 06:11
|
|
|
You mite won't to try to contact some of the improved production class people with { if any } with the same car , the class rules allow a link system rear end to be fitted to the vehicle but the original leaf spring also has to be kept , so there just make the leaf one thin one that does stuff all , also the mounting points from memory have to be the same points as the leaf spring . What kind of car is this for ?
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 06:24
|
|
heya IP86,
yeah i was looking thru the IPRA forum and rules. seems like the rules were narrowed so that the leaf must still provide the majority, if not all, of the springing, ie no coil over type springs..
as for as axle location, i'll have to see if i can stick my head under a few cars
hmm, car is a road registerable car.... i'll pm you.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 07:51
|
|
this is not going to be a drag car, but all the 4 link kits look pretty much the same anyway
hmm, ladder bars.... probably won't fit 
they are fairly competetively priced apart from postage..
i guess i'm trying to find out about people who have done the conversion and know what is involved..... i mean i know i will haev to reinforce chassis, provide strong shock/coil turret, work out geometry etc.....
but has anyone accomplished this in NSW? for the road (and track too i guess)
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:18
|
|
What benefits are you trying to achieve with a 4 link. If it is just handling, you can make big improvements with a pan-hard rod or watts link. If you are worried about the springs winding up, there are other ways of dealing with that.
Granted if you are wanting to turn it into a drag car, a 4 link would give significant advantages, but given a little attention, a leaf sprung rear can be made to work well.
If have to go to the trouble of fabricating/engineering all the above mentioned parts, then surely you may as well get rid of the live axle alltogether and weld in a floor pan from an IRS car.
|
|
|
Location:
Northwestern Sydney
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:24
|
|
4 Hours, well I was close. 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:33
|
|
| gold28 wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 18:18 |
What benefits are you trying to achieve with a 4 link. If it is just handling, you can make big improvements with a pan-hard rod or watts link. If you are worried about the springs winding up, there are other ways of dealing with that.
If have to go to the trouble of fabricating/engineering all the above mentioned parts, then surely you may as well get rid of the live axle alltogether and weld in a floor pan from an IRS car.
|
what benefits? well... imagine a leaf spring rear end car with leaves maybe 3 to 4 inches in from the tyres... now move the springs in an inch? sound good? how about a couple more inches? starting to sound bad huh.... basically it aint gonna cut it as is 
a locater will be good for now, but with different diff housing, different track width, closely spaced leaves are bad. i have never had a problem with wind up so far, but i am envisaging some eville things that could happen in the future.
IRS is an option, but not really for the road. engineering basically needs it to be an ICV because of substantial changes. with 4 link, you can sort of attach the mounting points to the chassis rails and sills, but for IRS, you need a rear subframe, which is attached to the boot floor (pretty much) and then you need to attach this to the rails to transfer the power...
IRS is pretty, but in a 700-800kg car, not really necessary..
if i was going that far, it'd be double wishbones.
of course the other option is de-dion, but i'd like to entertain the 4/5 link option first.
Cya, Steart
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 08:48
|
|
leaf springs are currently centred at 37" (940mm) apart,
inside of tyres will be 47" (1200mm) apart
coils will also allow for easier ride height adjustment and easy changing of spring rate as it's getting set up.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 09:18
|
|
maybe you hit the nail on the head there stu, itd probhably better and easier to see if you can engineer a double wishbone setup??
I wonder if its legal under the self build system like the kit cars?
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 10:03
|
|
If thats all your concerned about, why not weld some box section to the side of the rails and relocate the springs outboard. An engineer shouldn't have too many problems with this. It's a little bit of fabrication but no where near as much as trying to find somewhere to put a coil-over and trailing arms.
Oh and I would have thought a reduction in unsprung weight would be more important in a light car. Hence my suggestion of using an IRS.
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Mon, 10 May 2004 11:48
|
|
Gold 28, very true, that would be the easy option, but i kinda don't like the leaves . there was a version of my car running in sports sedans with leaves, but i'd like to try something different.. a bit of a challenge.
i've just been re-reading the "Code of Practice for Light Vehicle Modifications" and it doesn't specifically prohibit either 4/5link OR IRS OR double wishbones, as long as there is suitable reinforcing to withstand exceptional road forces (as specified in G's) so i guess it's all back on the cards....
still, i think setting up and aligning a 4 link with watts would be a little easier than setting up and aligning an IRS...
so, any IRS cars with track of around 1350mm?
time to start weighing in components!
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Finland
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 03:06
|
|
The World Cup Escorts of the 1970's came from the factory with a leaf-spring rear end, but with the Ford rally kit they ended up with a five-link. The leaf springs ended up only supporting the rear, not locating as well.
It's a bit of a job to do it ....
(The rear of my Starlet has been converted to five-link from the crappy four-link they come with, pic here ->)
|
|
|
Location:
eastern suburbs, Melb
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 05:18
|
|
Jayem, thats one heck of a KE20!! is it set up mostly from drag work? seems to be a lot of adjustability in the mounts
Callum, what you have done would not be easily registerable for me, sicne you've cut the chassis rails (and indeed most of the rear of the car ; ) out... if i could do something like that and register, i would not be using a factory IRS....
the anglia idea is good!!! i like that, saves a lot of space i don't have, although would need a decent range of movement.. hmm, i'll suggest that to my engineer.
thanks Bill, thats pretty much what i'm looking to do. is QlD mroe lenient on major changes to suspension? did you consider a bellcrank with coilvers in the boot? i know those shocks would be a little more exxy but it does make adjusting much less messy, and the bellcrank can also be altered for rates and range..
yup, i realise it's a bit of a job to get it in, and that is half the point of doing it. but i'm not afraid of my welder or angle grinder.. just afraid of the lawmakers 
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
adelaide
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 07:33
|
|
stew, get in touch with 'DR MAZDA' on ausrotary, he is yet another rear end guru (sells kits etc and can tell you all about engineering them)
ab
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 5 link rear end into orig. leaf sprung car???
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 07:35
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 11 May 2004 15:18 |
thanks Bill, thats pretty much what i'm looking to do. is QlD mroe lenient on major changes to suspension? did you consider a bellcrank with coilvers in the boot? i know those shocks would be a little more exxy but it does make adjusting much less messy, and the bellcrank can also be altered for rates and range..
|
I don't know about the legality, I'm just doing it anyway.
I hasdn't looked at a bellcrank, partly because it's not needed and it's also an extra complexity & weight.
|
|
|
