Well this was going to be the next question to every 1 can they just about turn the 1 off the ground rear wheel while the other rear wheel is touching the ground I as because I don't know if I need new friction pads in the lsd if some 1 could measure with a torque wrench on a wheel nut I can compare the market as it were and c if my lsd was the same as every1 else if that makes sense :thumbs
Spin out!!! LSD issues
- Thread starter Crook Pin
- Start date
Help Support Nissan 4x4 Owners Club Forum:
Well this was going to be the next question to every 1 can they just about turn the 1 off the ground rear wheel while the other rear wheel is touching the ground I as because I don't know if I need new friction pads in the lsd if some 1 could measure with a torque wrench on a wheel nut I can compare the market as it were and c if my lsd was the same as every1 else if that makes sense :thumbs
Wow - thats a big torque value. I can't do that here but hopefully going to a friends place in a few weeks and can try that then.
On another track I have had the 4 wheel alignment checked today and it is all still good so no "movement" from the excursion which also makes me think the bushes etc are basically good.
Soooo if it is just the way the car is then this makes me think the rear end is too stiff. Thinking about it some more - the fact that bumps / holes can upset it seems to hold with that train of logic. Has anyone tried disconnecting the rear ARB ?? I used to be involved in some national level minor racing and on the race cars if they were tail happy or on rough circuits we softened up the back end. Thoughts anyone?
On another track I have had the 4 wheel alignment checked today and it is all still good so no "movement" from the excursion which also makes me think the bushes etc are basically good.
Soooo if it is just the way the car is then this makes me think the rear end is too stiff. Thinking about it some more - the fact that bumps / holes can upset it seems to hold with that train of logic. Has anyone tried disconnecting the rear ARB ?? I used to be involved in some national level minor racing and on the race cars if they were tail happy or on rough circuits we softened up the back end. Thoughts anyone?
makeitfit
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 15,112
Der, that's what I said :doh http://www.nissan4x4ownersclub.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161548&postcount=71
lacroupade
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 9,208
Twice in a week he's right.....:doh:doh:doh
Removing the rear ARB will give you a lot more articulation, keeping both wheels on the ground, although I would have thought that would just exacerbate he issue of th4e rear end breaking away??
But if Makeitfit starts trying to persuade you to take the front ARB off ignore him, he's on a local "Care in the Community" scheme LOL. Actually its fine offroad but handling without it gets lethal on tarmac.
DOHHHHH :doh 
Sorry - don't how I missed that one Makeitfit. So - next plan is to disconoberate the rear ARB and play.
I didn't think I was that heavy footed but maybe I am then ..... :augie
The shocks are brand new - not expensive ones but new.
Sorry - don't how I missed that one Makeitfit. So - next plan is to disconoberate the rear ARB and play.I didn't think I was that heavy footed but maybe I am then ..... :augie
The shocks are brand new - not expensive ones but new.
"Removing the rear ARB will give you a lot more articulation, keeping both wheels on the ground, although I would have thought that would just exacerbate he issue of th4e rear end breaking away??"
The logic runs like this I think:-
1) The rear tyres are losing grip and therefore by definition at the limit of traction.
2) The front are not.
3) It's centrifugal (centripetal ?) force which is loading the tyres - the fact that the CG is above the contact patch means the outer wheels get loaded regardless of body roll. In a perfectly front / rear balanced car with uniform suspension the load on the outer tyres in the turn would be 50% each.
4) Few cars are properly balanced front to rear. Suspension front and rear is usually different.
5) We resist body roll for (a) passenger comfort (b) to keep the suspension geometry in bounds (cambers) to maximise grip (contact patch)
6) By adding anti-roll we effective increase the spring rate on that axle ( the balance between spring rates and roll bar sizes is an interesting game - stiff springs vs soft bar or soft springs and heavy bar ?)
7) By stiffening front or rear you change the front to rear load distribution during cornering.
8) The rear is overloaded (past it's grip limit) and the front not (still gripping). Therefore you can afford to move some more load to the front. In a balanced condition both front and rear would break grip at the same time.
Thinking this through I can see why the T2 is tail happy.
1) It has independent front suspension and solid axle rear. This means that the front has a better geometry through it's travel and keeps better contact through compression and extension. The rear solid axle means that the rear wheels go into positive camber when cornering and lose contact patch.
2) The T2 has a high CG at the back end meaning higher loading of the outside wheel (lever).
So although the heavy engine is at the front the CG is lower and the independant suspension is much better able to provide grip.
Well that's as I understand it. The next ditch may prove me wrong .....
An interesting trial would be much softer rear springs and leave the bar on: body roll would then compress the loaded soft spring and the roll bar would transfer that across to the opposite wheel which would compress that spring and lower the back of the vehicle bring down the CG ....
The logic runs like this I think:-
1) The rear tyres are losing grip and therefore by definition at the limit of traction.
2) The front are not.
3) It's centrifugal (centripetal ?) force which is loading the tyres - the fact that the CG is above the contact patch means the outer wheels get loaded regardless of body roll. In a perfectly front / rear balanced car with uniform suspension the load on the outer tyres in the turn would be 50% each.
4) Few cars are properly balanced front to rear. Suspension front and rear is usually different.
5) We resist body roll for (a) passenger comfort (b) to keep the suspension geometry in bounds (cambers) to maximise grip (contact patch)
6) By adding anti-roll we effective increase the spring rate on that axle ( the balance between spring rates and roll bar sizes is an interesting game - stiff springs vs soft bar or soft springs and heavy bar ?)
7) By stiffening front or rear you change the front to rear load distribution during cornering.
8) The rear is overloaded (past it's grip limit) and the front not (still gripping). Therefore you can afford to move some more load to the front. In a balanced condition both front and rear would break grip at the same time.
Thinking this through I can see why the T2 is tail happy.
1) It has independent front suspension and solid axle rear. This means that the front has a better geometry through it's travel and keeps better contact through compression and extension. The rear solid axle means that the rear wheels go into positive camber when cornering and lose contact patch.
2) The T2 has a high CG at the back end meaning higher loading of the outside wheel (lever).
So although the heavy engine is at the front the CG is lower and the independant suspension is much better able to provide grip.
Well that's as I understand it. The next ditch may prove me wrong .....
An interesting trial would be much softer rear springs and leave the bar on: body roll would then compress the loaded soft spring and the roll bar would transfer that across to the opposite wheel which would compress that spring and lower the back of the vehicle bring down the CG ....
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 7,820
You could experiment with this:-
Find 3 mates, each 100kg, sit them on the back seat, and it should improve the traction at the rear.:nenau
Don't put excess weight behind the rear axle, in fact a full fuel tank might make it worse.
If it works, place some bags of sand or gravel on the floor behind the front seats.
Find 3 mates, each 100kg, sit them on the back seat, and it should improve the traction at the rear.:nenau
Don't put excess weight behind the rear axle, in fact a full fuel tank might make it worse.
If it works, place some bags of sand or gravel on the floor behind the front seats.
makeitfit
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 15,112
Hmm, I do have softer but longer rear springs on and oil dampers not gas. I find that without the rear arb the axle can follow the surface better. I agree the back end is loosing grip but it's more likely because of old school tramp effectively due to the stiff ish springs and probably gas shocks and then the poor old arb trying to keep everything tidy I still reckon a bit less boot on this loose surface stuff and a soft back axle will help.
I still reckon a bit less boot on this loose surface stuff and a soft back axle will help.
lacroupade
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 9,208
Hmm, I do have softer but longer rear springs on and oil dampers not gas. I find that without the rear arb the axle can follow the surface better. I agree the back end is loosing grip but it's more likely because of old school tramp effectively due to the stiff ish springs and probably gas shocks and then the poor old arb trying to keep everything tidy
....and a bit of low range.....:kissy
