I was musing over the rear suspension of this Rover when one of the peeps was fixing a puncture. It's a mid-90s design so probably a carry-over from a similar Honda (Civic, maybe an Accord, FWD anyway);



As you can see it's a trailing arm with a combined spring/shock and lateral link. What interests me is the rear link, which projects over the wheel and is articulated to allow for suspension deflection.

I read in my expensive book the upper link is projected to the top so longitudional complaince can be built in without excessive geometric disturbances ie; where the upper and lower balljoints are spaced closely together, large longitudional compliance in the joints would cause large geometry disturbances, so complaince is designed in elsewhere, usually subframes.

That makes sense in front suspension with SAI, Castor etc but why bother on the rear ?

Isn't this more applicable to RWD?.... at least in your book.

not sure what you mean there dude ?

hate them link bars on rovers grhhh had 2 snap on me before and could i get the beepin bolts undone for em.........NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The move from live bean to independent suspension meant there is some trade offs namely toe gain on squat and bump. Squat on a RWD independent suspension is a real issue so the need for a traction rod was required to control toe during compression and bump, common on cars like the 200/ 300 SX.

Be warned the traction rod cannot be measured or tuned on the calibration rig, it's totally dynamic.

The IRS in 4-pot Omegas is the same as S12s (more or less) but, I'm sure you're aware, they have a seperate toe-control arm. Presumeably for the same reasons.

So that arm on the Rover is for toe control on bump/squat ?

The axel under load will dive pulling the unsprung body down, this in turn generates conditions with the toe and camber (mainly toe) so a control rod can be used to adjust the dive...squat... gains.