anti-lift is anti-dive but when accelerating. Accelerating or using the brakes put torques on the suspenision, but in opposite directions. So if it keeps you from diving when you brake it will keep you from lifting when you accelerate....

Matt

 

...doc...I don't think so...the anti-lift devices I've used in the past have lowered the front pickup point...but I could be wrong. What does Milliken say? I'm guessing you are home with a new baby? ...or. perhaps the adjustment is made where is is most feasible for a given setup...but the instant center either rises or falls depending upon where the modification is made. to me, this means something...or it's just two sides of the same coin...

 

http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles...WL%20ALK_b.pdf

and it has some interesting stuff, but I think it's based on a flawed assumption. It argues that because the torque due to weight transfer counters the dive (or lift) that therefor the stiffness of the suspension to verticle diflection is increased (I think this is the where the perception that the suspension locks comes from) but that isn't the cast. The chassis is responding to a torque based on the rate of acceleration or decelleration. Think of it as a "helper lever" connected to the Cg. If under braking or acceleration a tire goes over a bump, there is no increase (to first order) in the accleration, and the "helper lever's" action is constant through the event, and the spring does what it intended to do anyway. With the same spring rate as if the car were not accelerating. So I think the additional pitch observed makes perfect sense, but the NVH arguement seems to me to be BS.

I'll have to go read what Carrol Smith has to say. He's good at explaining things. But the link does illustrate how coupled things are.

Matt

 

This is absolutely true for double wishbone geometries, or any suspension that causes the upright to rotate as it rises and falls - IF the torque is fed into the upright.

For braking, it most certainly is fed through the upright and on to the suspension points. For acceleration, though, the half-shafts provide the torque to drive the wheels, so this torque is reacted to by the differential case and its mounts, or by the engine/transaxle package and its mounts if that is the arrangement. For engine torque to cause the upright to rotate would require a bad bearing to transmit torque from the rotating spindle to the upright. At least, that's the way I understand it.

 

after reading the link that meb sent me. They show the lift vs dive geometries going to different points on depending on acceleration or braking. You hit the nail on the head.

Matt

 

Now back to the Powerflex front control arm bushings; I installed stock bushings after 13,000 miles on the Pflex bushings. The removed Pflex bushings were in the same condition as new, no deformation and still well lubed; nothing to show in a photo.

 

compare to the powerflex? Most of our comparisons are from old, worn or shot stock to upgrade....

Matt

 

I have a question on the two 13mm holding the ball joint to the knuckel (2003 R50), I took the two bolts out and it didn't come a part, any help on this? You guys know these car way more then I, if you need to know something about a Cummuns ISM 410 or a Mercedes Benz MBE4000 Tractor Power Plant it's on! AL.