Suspension bushes

[owen1]

The time is coming when the bushes in my car will need replacing.

Whilst it is being done I have decided to do all bushes including the panhard arm, springs, shock absorbers etc etc

I would like to use polyurethane ones and wonder if anyone has any experience of them including which ones are the best for a Mk2.

Owen

[piman]

Hello Owen,

I've used Superflex polyurethane bushes for many years, albeit on my Triumph rather than a Jaguar, and found them easy to fit and long lasting. I will fit them to my MK2 when the time comes.

Alec

[ecosselynx]

Hi

I've had the superflex polyurethane bushes on the front of my Mk2 for the last 12 years and they are still fine, a little harder than the original ones but that was what I wanted and don't find it make the ride to hard. Sub frame mountings are still original metaflex units.

[owen1]

Thank you both for your replies.

Looks like it will be Superflex then so I had better start pricing them up.

At the last MOT I was advised re a couple of them and I have a knock from the front end which I think is the shock absorber lower bushes.

Thanks again

Owen

[Martec]

I have the same front set up as 'eccosse link' and they are still OK after 12 years. I did try the front subframe mounting in poly but removed it for more compliance.

I also trialled a set of rear 'Polybush' of Wrexham on the rear as the rubber torque arm bushes were wrecked after 2 years. They were good but transfered too much vibration so I refitted the spring centre and spring front pads in rubber, 10 years ago. All is fine.

If I was doing it all again I would do the same again but using 'Polybush' front and rear, use the softest bushes in the front lower wishbones and the rubber on the 4 front subframe mountings and rubber on the centre and front pads on the rear springs. Nothing to wear or fail then and reasonable comfort.

Brian

[owen1]

Thank you Brian, interesting.

I wonder if the rear rubber lasted well because less oil etc is thrown over them. By torque arm I assume you mean the panhard arrm? I will replace those as well.

I take your point about the softest Polybush ones, I never drive it that hard to warrant the ultimate in handling, comfort is more important these days!

Owen

[Martec]

Mine is a 1961 without a rear oil seal so a fair amount of oil lubricates the underside, but it was not the oil that destroyed the bushes it was enthusiastic driving.

The torque arms are the two rods lying horizontal fore and aft on top of the axle that connects the top of the axle to the body below the seats, these stop axle wind up as torque is applied to the axle, they lead a hard life and fail.

In my attempts to make the car comfortable for us on long journeys I've mixed poly and rubber and feel that those parts that are just locating arms ie front top links, anti-roll bars, torque arms and panhard rods are fine in poly, but those the take load and transmit it to the body including vibration ie rear spring ctr and front pads plus lower front wishbones need to be in rubber. unfortunately the latter fail quickly so I used 'superflex' poly but wish now there had been an alternative of a softer poly (I beleive from talking to 'Polybush' of Wrexham that it is possible), hence the reference to them for bushes.

I have no links with any on these but do take the oportunity to talk to them (ie at the NEC last week about 2000my s type bushes and MkII) to see what they make and what they would be willing to make.

Brian

[J44EAG]

Re your modern S-type bushes, Brian, Polybush do a kit for early and late models. The full kit costs around £500.

I have one concern however. Namely the replacement of the lower rear wishbone bushes which are of a rotational self aligning bearing unit and a metalastic type unit which allow for limited rear tracking adjustment and suspension movement. I`m not that happy with the design aspects of Polybush replacement of those special bush/bearings with poly type material, so would suggest a degree of caution before replacing those particular units.

Mike K

[Martec]

I agree with you mike about the modern s type, I'm very concerned about losing the comfort by fitting a full kit of polybush(even though offered free as a trials car for them) as there is no rubber subframe mounting for the front, unlike the rear.

After a few days in bed to recover I was under the S type again today to get the front and rear wishbone casting numbers also to look at the condition of the bushes and specifically their alignment. The MkII front wishbones have a single long pin around which they rotate so alignment is not an issue, but my early 2000MY S type also has the lower wishbone bushes inline, front and rear, but I would be concerned about the rear bush in the upright as it will twist in movement of the wishbone. Both myself and my MOT guy are happy with all the bushes at present, but I will be watching the front end of the front lower wishbone.

'Polybush' said they had numerous part numbers for the F & R wishbones, particularly the different casting numbers which means Jaguar/Ford were continually changing them and the O.D. of some bushes and my parts search of different suppliers of replacement wishbones bears this out, What were Jaguar doing??????

I would consider replacing the front wishbone joint in poly as soft as possible but would prefer rubber. I'm not in awe or these plastic spherical bushes and regard them as a poor engineering solution and am not impressed by Jaguars continued tinkering/changing of wishbone designs over a 9 year production run.

The car is back on the ground and I feel the need be unenvironmentally friendly and to burn some petrol, and to fit some rear parking sensors.

Brian

[J44EAG]

We should really continue any modern S-type conversations on that Bulletin Board. Otherwise it gets very messy, frustrating and confusing for the Mk2 guys.

I`ll just add before we move ourselves to the S-type BB, that the MY02> cars had a revised suspension. To my knowledge, the major changes in components is confined to the front suspension components only.

Nuff said here now.

Mike K

[owen1]

Brian
Thank you for your informative reply

Owen