Increasing Articulation Y60 GQ Patrol (Flex)

[symmetry4wd]

Hi guys,

If you haven't noticed already, I like to post up technical discussion type threads, I'm here to learn, and maybe questions other have will be answered by the experienced in these threads.

Today's topic:
Articulation/Flex

What are the most effective ways of gaining more up & down travel on the GQ Y60 Patrols?

To clarify a few things first:
1) The front suspension on a GQ is a 3 link correct? 3 Points of contact to the chassis: Radius arm x2 and Panhard bar?
The rear suspension on a GQ is a 5 link correct? 5 Points of contact to the chassis: Lower control arm x2, upper control arm x2 and Panhard bar?
Is this the correct terminology for the suspension setup?

2) My car doesn't have a front sway bar, and for the rear let's assume I will be disconnecting it off-road.

3) My car has a 2" suspension lift, EFS Shocks and Springs with a "matching" steering damper.

4) Brake lines will be replaced at some point with braided & extended ones.

5) I think the goal for my car would be running a 3" suspension lift on 33x12.5 R15's, maybe (unlikely but we will see) 3" suspension lift, 1" body lift and 35's. Some body trimming in either case I imagine...

Questions:

What are the major components limiting flex on the GQ front and rear? Shock length, bushes, I understand at the front it's the 3 link system and how the radius arms attach at 2 points on the diff/axle housing, binding when the bushes run out of play, is this correct?
I have read on a few of the Australian forums that bushes play a big role here, and these are a major limiting factor. What can be done here? Is rubber the best material, oem or aftermarket? Being stiffer I think polyurethane would limit articulation more the rubber, is this correct? How much does our articulation rely on our bushes?
I have also read that most shocks supplied for 2" lifts could rather be longer, i.e a shock suited to a 4" lift used for a 2" lift, to allow more droop, but possibly spring retainers would be required. Does this make sense, to maximize travel, at least droop?

Let's get this ball rolling!

My GQ

[Peter Connan]

X-link.
Search the forum.

[symmetry4wd]

X-link.
Search the forum.

Hi @peter connan,
I've read these following 2 threads of yours:
viewtopic.php?t=3390&hilit=xlink
https://www.patrol4x4.co.za/viewtopic.p ... lty+secret

Firstly, well done!
That is some awesome, careful, well thought out and executed design & engineering you have done there. Also good research into what options are available.

So, basically that answers a lot of my questions and what the solutions are for the front articulation. Thanks!
And with that in mind, I will definitely be contacting you about an X-link system down the line, so keep that in mind!

Now for the rear,
What are your options for the rear then, longer shocks, sway bar disconnected, and get some retainers for the springs? and rubber bushes?

[Peter Connan]

I haven't looked too hard at the rear end yet.
Firstly because i like the setup to be fairly well balanced (similar amounts of flex front and rear) and even with the X-link I still have more flex at the back.

Secondly because the amount of flex available at the rear exceeds what room there is for the tires (in other words the inside side-wall rubbing inside the rear arches is currently limiting my flex).

I believe after removing the sway bar the next limiting factor will be shock length, and I believe a similar approach to what I did at the front (external reservoirs and careful measurement) will make a significant difference if you first make enough room for the tires, either by lifting or grinding. Again, I am not yet ready to get that radical.

Lastly, adding a front locker is still more cost-effective than adding more flex. Flex gives better stability and doesn't compromise turning performance so I am not sad that I went through the trouble, but ultimately a locker will give more traction.

[symmetry4wd]

I haven't looked too hard at the rear end yet.
Firstly because i like the setup to be fairly well balanced (similar amounts of flex front and rear) and even with the X-link I still have more flex at the back.

Secondly because the amount of flex available at the rear exceeds what room there is for the tires (in other words the inside side-wall rubbing inside the rear arches is currently limiting my flex).

I believe after removing the sway bar the next limiting factor will be shock length, and I believe a similar approach to what I did at the front (external reservoirs and careful measurement) will make a significant difference if you first make enough room for the tires, either by lifting or grinding. Again, I am not yet ready to get that radical.

Lastly, adding a front locker is still more cost-effective than adding more flex. Flex gives better stability and doesn't compromise turning performance so I am not sad that I went through the trouble, but ultimately a locker will give more traction.

I've read the same on a lot of aus forums where the tires rub on the inside of the chassis and can often cut themselves on the seat belt bolt.
That is interesting regarding the remote res shocks, I never thought of it the way you describe in your other X-Link threads, over and above the increased oil capacity, fade resistance etc that you actually gain more stroke within you extended and compressed lengths with a remote res shock over a regular non remote res one.
I am a fan of the Bilstein shocks, monotube design, good reputable company, I ran them on my previous Pajero, 5100 custom length in the rear and 4600's in the front. I ran out of flex at the rear with still 50mm of stroke left in the shock because the radius arm bushes were at their limit, with the Pajero only being a 3 link rear setup. The shocks drove great though.

Will first see what my clearances are like once I get new tires and take it from there.

I agree that a locker is probably the best bang for buck for performance, I personally would like a front locker down the line, but would like to get my suspension set up right, first. It's definitely on the cards in the future.