The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

Done anything to upgrade or personalise your 200 or 400? Wanting some advice on upgrades? Then talk about it in here.

Moderator: Forum Staff

Message
Author
User avatar
GTiJohn
Club Chairman
Posts: 5156
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#31 Post by GTiJohn » Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:56 am

redandwhitE wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:53 pm
Forgive the ignorance but for my edification: the front brace is across the top of the suspension (under bonnet) and the anti roll bar is somewhere under the engine across the 'axle'?

I know it's not an axle but the word suits my purpose and you hardly hear it these days so felt it needed resurrecting!!
You're correct with both of your comments.

A body brace tries to keep 2 parts body the same distance apart of putting a strut between them. In this case it's the 2 front damper top mounts which, on a Macphereson strut front suspension such as R8 and R3 (but not HH-R), has a major controlling affect on the camber (the in/out lean) of the wheels.
The best design of any strut is straight but unfortunately most enginebay struts have to be cranked slightly to miss the engine.

An anti roll bar (or ARB) is basically a torsion bar between suspension members on the the two sides of the car. Your car can have none, one (usually at the front) or 2 - one front, one rear. They join a suspension member on one side of the car to the same one on the otherside. They are usually cranked to miss the big bits inbetween.
They are used to redistribute the vertical load between the more heavily loaded outer wheel and the less loaded inner wheel during cornering and are basically used to 'trim' the under/over- steer balance of the car.
As the name, suggests the effect is to reduce body-roll which has the beneficial affect of keeping the roadwheels more upright and improving their limit of grip.
The downside is that they make an independent suspension system less independent, as what's happening at one side affects the other. Basically, if the wheel at one side of the car hits a bump or pothole that wheel is less free to move to cushion the input due to the higher combined spring-rate of the road-spring plus the ARB.
If you want your car to understeer less you put an ARB on the front, or increase the stiffness of the one already there. This is usually done by increasing its diameter.

For interest, most R3s don't have a separate RARB as the rear suspension's H-frame performs that function. The cross-section acts as a torsion bar between the two trailing arms and the thicker of the two Maestro/Montego sections was chosen as it has the desired stiffness characteristics. It was the one from the Montego Estate.
I like Twin Cams.... and Single Cams

User avatar
GTiJohn
Club Chairman
Posts: 5156
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#32 Post by GTiJohn » Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:11 am

The Origina lNom wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:54 pm
... the DC2 front brace (which I discovered by accident) fitted Rover 400s.The Rover chassis had four bolt holes ready drilled with bolts already in situ so it was easy to fit. This has sharpened up my steering considerably.
Something

I have heard of, but not seen, Civic braces that fit inside the front wings that link the damper top mounts back to the A-posts. These, and your brace, are likely to be reducing the mobility of the front-end and so improving feel.
Another alternative is to a a V-shaped pair of struts from the damper top mounts back to the centre of the bulkhead, although there might be a few things you'll need to miss.

All of the above change the crash performance of your car - for better or worse is hard to say - so as always, it would be better if you didn't :laughing2
I like Twin Cams.... and Single Cams

The Origina lNom
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:07 pm

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#33 Post by The Origina lNom » Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:23 pm

Actually the brace I found is a lower subframe brace. I looked at Rover 400 subframe pics from google images and found that almost all HHR subframes have the four bolt holes.Since i was about to get on the floor to fit the 27mm ARB, it made sense to fit this at the same time. Its made the car a bit heavier but it really feels astonishingly well planted at the front.
Here is brace on ebay:
https://flic.kr/p/2jDh6kq
And here is where it sits. Note the pair of holes on either side.

https://bparts-eu.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaw ... 0if803.jpg

Interestingly, from other photos it would appear that K series engined cars did NOT have the holes for the subframe brace and I cannot predict if it fits the ZS180 cars.

Its not hard to check if you have the brace mount holes once you have a wheel off.


Incidentally, i do use an alloy top front strutbrace made by Weicher.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wiechers-str ... Sw2lReeMCE

I am just trying to obtain a rear 23mm anti roll bar which does not currently exist as this would definitely improve the behaviour of the rear end. I have tried to control the rear with preloaded springs by using seats/spacers at the top of the strut which further compressed the springs but this lacked any compliance and was very uncomfortable.

Edit: After talking to the VHS guys as suggested below they suggested changing the springs and whilst this has helped, I still feel a thicker arb would make for faster turn in without using Eibach springs which I have always found too hard for the road.
Last edited by The Origina lNom on Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
GTiJohn
Club Chairman
Posts: 5156
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#34 Post by GTiJohn » Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:48 pm

Interestingly, from other photos it would appear that K series engined cars did NOT have the holes for the subframe brace and I cannot predict if it fits the ZS180 cars.
Ask the VHS guys, they'll know :D
I like Twin Cams.... and Single Cams

The Origina lNom
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:07 pm

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#35 Post by The Origina lNom » Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:37 pm

I just forked out for a set of H &R springs ( 29994-2 ) from Germany. They require a standard length shock which sellers do not make clear.
. After digging around in the boxes in my lock-up, I discovered an unused pair of Monroe Sens-a -Trac rears which make for an extremely gentle ride which have the rear H&R springs with 10mm spacer on top.and a lightly used pair of standard length KYB Excel Gs fronts which could fit the H&Rs perfectly.

The H & Rs are meant to lower -35mm but I dont think they would lower anywhere near that, we shall see
The Spax really needed a standard length shock too (16"x 6.5" and tyres 205/50/16 . Incidentally, a 205/45/16 set of tyres would have been just about okay with the Standard shock - Spax combination but not if you carry heavyweight friends in the rear of your car
The Bilstein B6 with shorter springs would be perfect if I ran standard 15" wheels but I seem to like making things more difficult for myself.
I have also found a MGZS180 std front spring in the lock-up which is the same as a 420D HHR so I will try that as it looks much beefier than the H&R front and should protect my tyres from hitting the under wing plastic due to the ZS180 brakes.
Fitting is next.

The Origina lNom
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:07 pm

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#36 Post by The Origina lNom » Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:15 pm

I have come to a conclusion regarding my suspension.
The 2021 HHR 416 is about to fitted with stock ZS180 front springs complete with 10mm spacers on top to standard length shock absorbers.
The rear of the car has been fitted with H & R rear springs on std length shocks.
I had tried so many variations to get what I wanted but the limiting factor was always my 16" Hairpins and 50 profile tyres.
To keep my tyres unscuffed I had to retain the standard shock length or use a heavy duty spring on the front to prevent the tyre catching on the inner wheel arch liner. i might have escaped most clearance problems but my ZS180 front brakes needed the matching springs to stop the front of my car making bad noises when braking hard.
It will probably take a year or so to soften up the front springs but I think it will be worth it in the end.
I still think a 24mm rear anti roll bar would make this car steer a lot faster but lockdown has prevented this from happening.

redandwhitE
Club Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:13 am
Location: North Lincolnshire

Re: The Hunt For Driveability in a 416

#37 Post by redandwhitE » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:44 am

Interesting stuff. Keep the info coming as I am keen to see what works and then perhaps adopting some (or all!!)
1995 416 SLi (BRG) - OTR
2004 45 Imp Diesel (silver) - OTR
2004 45 Club SE (red) - not OTR
1993 416 GSi (BRG) - not OTR
1972 Mercedes 350 SL (red) - not OTR
1998 Audi Cabriolet (maroon) - not OTR

Post Reply