Firstly, I'd like to say hats off to Mike for probably writing more about this subject than anyone else in the history of forums!!
I have a 2007 X358 XJR which has done 77,000 miles. In both lower rear wishbones the rubber in the forward-most metalastic bushes has come away from the ends of the inner metal tubes. The rubber at the ends probably does not contribute very much to the bush strength as it tapers down to meet the tube (not easy to describe but anyone familiar will know what I mean), but I can't see how far the detachment extends inside the bush to be sure how bad it is. With a stout 2ft long tyre lever between the bush and the subframe I can move it approx 3mm using modest force. It feels and looks worse than the measurement suggests. However, being rubber with voids it's designed to allow for/aft compliance, and as that movement depends on how much force is applied, it's hard to know what is acceptable.
What seems to be different from all the other numerous 'posts' about wishbones is that I can't detect any play at all in any of the spheri-bushes, which are usually the ones to cause bush/wishbone replacement and not the metalastics. The car rides/handles perfectly with no noises or uneven tyre wear or pulling etc.
However, the metalastics will only get worse, but rather than just replacing them I plan to fit complete new wishbones, particularly as prices seem to have come down a long way now.
Which brings me to the main point of this 'post' and request for any advice please.
Trawling the internet shows a surprisingly large number of supposedly different wishbones for different cars across S type, XF, X350/8, X351 etc at very different prices. The cheapest I've found is £87.83 up to several hundreds. I did not realise that Jaguar made so many variations of the same component across their range. I can't imagine this is actually the case and suspect the suppliers are making out they are different.
My existing original wishbones (2007 X358) have cast onto the top faces the markings 5B530RH2-2 (RH) and 5B531LH2-1 (LH). I only found one supplier who mentioned this specifically in their description, but that was supposedly for an X351. Another supplier advertised wishbones specifically for XF 08-15, but their wishbone photo actually shows my XJR numbers 5B530RH/5B531LH, so I know they will fit even though the description says it's wrong. Most suppliers quote a variety of part numbers such as C2P16878, C2C39586, 33865, 24304,36792, C2D42388, 36809, 25221, 3029, C2Z3282. Confusing or what!!
With all the wishbones you have worked on (over 30 mentioned in one post) can you shed any light please, ie are there in fact many different variations as indicated, or are they all the same, or just a few variations?
Jeff1954, I see you mentioned in your post of 5/4/20 a price of £85. Could you advise who was the supplier, and if you bought them?
Many thanks, Les
Rear wishbones, again but different.
Re: Rear wishbones, again but different.
Les,
In my own practical experience, the different part numbers are irrelevant across the S-type, X350/6/8, XF and X351 range of vehicles. They are all the same ie the same dimensions and can be swapped without difficulty, S-type to 350, 350 to XF etc. This is hard fact NOT fiction. The dimension of the inner rear to near sill mounted Metalastic bush is the typical 281mm on all part number variations. Earlier S-type model wishbones differed very slightly in that the Metalastic bush had softening compliance built into it by way of slots. Later Metalastic bushings did not have the slots and were one solid mass of rubber which made them solid and therefore firmer. Most wishbones now marketed will be of the solid variety.
The Metalastic bush by its very nature will have compliance movement and that is to be expected as part of the design. Unless bush movement is really excessive or the bush is showing signs of degradation, I see no reason for condemning it.
The inner rear bush and also the bush found at the hub carrier is of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT design from the third Metalastic bush. These two bushes are a patent design which utilises a solid metal outer case, an inner nylon type lining in which a hollow tube with a central ball type affair sits. In as new condition, THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE MOVEMENT. Worn, well that is another matter. As the suspension rises and falls, the tube and ball rotate within the nylon cup to accommodate suspension geometry changes. The arrangement also allows rear suspension toe angle to be adjusted via the two radius rods which are located at the front of the rear subframe and extend across the car to a bracket on the rear hub carrier. The ball and tube design allows the tube to deflect axially to facilitate toe angle adjustment. If it could not deflect, then side load would be applied to the bush when toe angles are adjusted to make the rear wheels run parallel to each other. You might have seen some of my comments in my posts as regards the installation of Powerflex alternative bushes at these two locations. Powerflex FAILED to understand the function of the two OE bushes in a wishbone and their replacement part for what we call the RG109 patent part has in my opinion a design defect which makes it unsuitable for the purpose. No axial movement is possible with their part and the bush would be subject to bush loading when toe angles are set. Steve Howard fitted a set to his X350 and found it ruined suspension function....So RG109 bushes from Racing Green or NE Jag Spares only. No debate, no arguments.....don`t fit Powerflex bushes in these two locations.
The RG109 after-market bushes are effectively one solid mass from manufacture. Any movement found under leverage will be due to wear and NOTHING ELSE. There is absolutely no compliance softness built into this bush type.Typical faults are usually semi-seizure due to mileage from about 70k. Creaking and groaning are a symptom of the condition. This may also be accompanied by bush wear due to the tube and ball grinding into the internal nylon cup.
Twenty five years ago, only Jaguar wishbones were available at something like £750 each plus VAT. There were no other options on the after market and the RG109 bushes had yet to make an appearance. Owners were between the Devil and a hard place with dealers charging around £2k to replace two new wishbones. Gradually we saw complete after markets wishbones make an appearance followed in 2009, the RG109 bushes. These parts were not Jaguar approved and my article in our magazine around 2010 caused a minor firestorm. Jaguar were not happy about removing and fitting new bushes as they said a wishbone would crack under the strain. What a joke. One has to ask then why front wishbone component bushes could be replaced with Jaguar supplied bushes in near identical castings? I endured a minor attempted dressing down from a Jaguar employee for showcasing the availability and easy fitment of the RG109 bush in rear lower wishbone units. I told the fellow exactly where to go and heard nothing more! The logic of his argument did not hold any credence or engineering rational. It was total nonsense. If the fellow could have given me five reasons why we should not recondition, I could have given him ten reasons why reconditioning was safely and easily accomplished! His reasoning was built on a bed of soft uninformed toffee....
And another thing! Jaguar did not design the suspension. Ford owned Jaguar at the time and Jaguar were instructed to use the American designed DEW98 floor pan and suspension components from the Lincoln saloon of the period. That same chassis was found on the Ford Thunderbird Retro Coupe. The first Jaguar rendition appeared on the early S-type in 1999 but was modified by Jaguar for 2002.5 S-types onwards. The modifications were largely for the front suspension and the rear suspension remained as for the Lincoln. The 2002.5 front suspension modes were also built into the new X350, then the XF and latterly the X351.
I can`t advise which after market replacement wishbones to buy or fit. That has to be your decision. Similarly I can`t comment on pricing other than to say you pay the money and make your choice. I know where we stand with the RG109 from RG and also where we stand with the Metalastic replacement from Powerflex. Given a decent and competent local independent Jaguar garage who understands and has previously overhauled these wishbones, I personally see no reason for buying complete new wishbones of possible dubious quality. OEM they may be sold as...but are they really OEM quality? Check carefully before buying.
I hope this post helps clear some of the fog.
Mike
In my own practical experience, the different part numbers are irrelevant across the S-type, X350/6/8, XF and X351 range of vehicles. They are all the same ie the same dimensions and can be swapped without difficulty, S-type to 350, 350 to XF etc. This is hard fact NOT fiction. The dimension of the inner rear to near sill mounted Metalastic bush is the typical 281mm on all part number variations. Earlier S-type model wishbones differed very slightly in that the Metalastic bush had softening compliance built into it by way of slots. Later Metalastic bushings did not have the slots and were one solid mass of rubber which made them solid and therefore firmer. Most wishbones now marketed will be of the solid variety.
The Metalastic bush by its very nature will have compliance movement and that is to be expected as part of the design. Unless bush movement is really excessive or the bush is showing signs of degradation, I see no reason for condemning it.
The inner rear bush and also the bush found at the hub carrier is of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT design from the third Metalastic bush. These two bushes are a patent design which utilises a solid metal outer case, an inner nylon type lining in which a hollow tube with a central ball type affair sits. In as new condition, THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE MOVEMENT. Worn, well that is another matter. As the suspension rises and falls, the tube and ball rotate within the nylon cup to accommodate suspension geometry changes. The arrangement also allows rear suspension toe angle to be adjusted via the two radius rods which are located at the front of the rear subframe and extend across the car to a bracket on the rear hub carrier. The ball and tube design allows the tube to deflect axially to facilitate toe angle adjustment. If it could not deflect, then side load would be applied to the bush when toe angles are adjusted to make the rear wheels run parallel to each other. You might have seen some of my comments in my posts as regards the installation of Powerflex alternative bushes at these two locations. Powerflex FAILED to understand the function of the two OE bushes in a wishbone and their replacement part for what we call the RG109 patent part has in my opinion a design defect which makes it unsuitable for the purpose. No axial movement is possible with their part and the bush would be subject to bush loading when toe angles are set. Steve Howard fitted a set to his X350 and found it ruined suspension function....So RG109 bushes from Racing Green or NE Jag Spares only. No debate, no arguments.....don`t fit Powerflex bushes in these two locations.
The RG109 after-market bushes are effectively one solid mass from manufacture. Any movement found under leverage will be due to wear and NOTHING ELSE. There is absolutely no compliance softness built into this bush type.Typical faults are usually semi-seizure due to mileage from about 70k. Creaking and groaning are a symptom of the condition. This may also be accompanied by bush wear due to the tube and ball grinding into the internal nylon cup.
Twenty five years ago, only Jaguar wishbones were available at something like £750 each plus VAT. There were no other options on the after market and the RG109 bushes had yet to make an appearance. Owners were between the Devil and a hard place with dealers charging around £2k to replace two new wishbones. Gradually we saw complete after markets wishbones make an appearance followed in 2009, the RG109 bushes. These parts were not Jaguar approved and my article in our magazine around 2010 caused a minor firestorm. Jaguar were not happy about removing and fitting new bushes as they said a wishbone would crack under the strain. What a joke. One has to ask then why front wishbone component bushes could be replaced with Jaguar supplied bushes in near identical castings? I endured a minor attempted dressing down from a Jaguar employee for showcasing the availability and easy fitment of the RG109 bush in rear lower wishbone units. I told the fellow exactly where to go and heard nothing more! The logic of his argument did not hold any credence or engineering rational. It was total nonsense. If the fellow could have given me five reasons why we should not recondition, I could have given him ten reasons why reconditioning was safely and easily accomplished! His reasoning was built on a bed of soft uninformed toffee....
And another thing! Jaguar did not design the suspension. Ford owned Jaguar at the time and Jaguar were instructed to use the American designed DEW98 floor pan and suspension components from the Lincoln saloon of the period. That same chassis was found on the Ford Thunderbird Retro Coupe. The first Jaguar rendition appeared on the early S-type in 1999 but was modified by Jaguar for 2002.5 S-types onwards. The modifications were largely for the front suspension and the rear suspension remained as for the Lincoln. The 2002.5 front suspension modes were also built into the new X350, then the XF and latterly the X351.
I can`t advise which after market replacement wishbones to buy or fit. That has to be your decision. Similarly I can`t comment on pricing other than to say you pay the money and make your choice. I know where we stand with the RG109 from RG and also where we stand with the Metalastic replacement from Powerflex. Given a decent and competent local independent Jaguar garage who understands and has previously overhauled these wishbones, I personally see no reason for buying complete new wishbones of possible dubious quality. OEM they may be sold as...but are they really OEM quality? Check carefully before buying.
I hope this post helps clear some of the fog.
Mike
X350 Co-ordinator
2004 XJR
2004 XJR
Re: Rear wishbones, again but different.
Thanks for your reply Mike. I haven't responded before now as I was doing some more research and waiting for delivery of new wishbones which I ordered courtesy of E-Bay.
Thanks for confirming, as suspected, that these wishbones are basically all the same (apart from some early types with the 59 mm outer bush), despite there being many different part numbers and prices. For example, my local main Jaguar dealer quoted me part nos C2C39585 and CPC39586 for my VIN for my 2007 XJR, but part numbers C2P16878 and C2P16879 for my sons VIN for his 2007 XKR. I know both the XJR and XKR wishbones are identical with the same 5B530 RH and 5B531 LH numbers cast into them as I have both cars here which I've checked. From my other experiences it's not unusual for manufactures who have numerous components across a range of products to end up with different parts numbers and pricing for exactly the same item.
Roger Sambrook who I know you've swapped a lot of info with on the forum, is a good friend and lives just a few miles from me so as you can imagine with his 2005 superV8 and my XJR we've shared a lot of experiences/work with our cars. In discussing this with Roger he advised there are something like six different part numbers shown for X350/8 XJ wishbones in the Jaguar parts catalogue, to add to the proliferation of part numbers for the same item.
While trawling t'internet, I noticed when studying the numerous photos that all wishbones which were described as being for XF's all appear to have rubber bushes at the outer hub end instead of spheri-bushes, and I think that's the case, making the XF different to S type, XJ and XK in that respect.
With the casting being the same, and the rear and outer spheri-bushes being the same (apart from XF as mentioned), that just leaves the forward metalastic bush that might account for any difference, if there is any difference. This could be plausible as it's conceivable that Jaguar may have varied that bush's compliance depending on whether it's for a soft riding sovereign compared to say a tauter XJR. However, even that doesn't seem to be the case as the part numbers vary for different VIN ranges and so that takes no account of the different model types.
Incidentally, the forward metalastic bushes on the original wishbones on both my 2007 XJR and son's 2007 XKR have the two vertical slots in the rubber, as do my new wishbones, and all the other photo's I've seen so I don't believe they were all changed to solid type after just the early ones as you indicated.
The new wishbones I bought were described as being specifically for an S type, but as they referenced (among other numbers) the C2P16878/79 which I'd already had confirmed by the Jag dealer as being for an XKR, and which I therefore knew were the same as my XJR, I went ahead with the purchase.
The wishbones appear to be excellent quality (time will tell when fitted) and although packaged as First-Line products, the Part numbers are FCA7222/3 which I'm fairly sure are actually Borg and Beck which is a reputable make, so that gives me a lot of confidence. The spacing between bushes is spot on at the required 281mm.
At £150 the pair new they were less than just the bushes on their own, plus that included six 10.9 bolts/nuts which would have been around another £50 if bought separately. Some pictures attached.
Incidentally, that's my car on page 68 of the Sept magazine.
Thanks for confirming, as suspected, that these wishbones are basically all the same (apart from some early types with the 59 mm outer bush), despite there being many different part numbers and prices. For example, my local main Jaguar dealer quoted me part nos C2C39585 and CPC39586 for my VIN for my 2007 XJR, but part numbers C2P16878 and C2P16879 for my sons VIN for his 2007 XKR. I know both the XJR and XKR wishbones are identical with the same 5B530 RH and 5B531 LH numbers cast into them as I have both cars here which I've checked. From my other experiences it's not unusual for manufactures who have numerous components across a range of products to end up with different parts numbers and pricing for exactly the same item.
Roger Sambrook who I know you've swapped a lot of info with on the forum, is a good friend and lives just a few miles from me so as you can imagine with his 2005 superV8 and my XJR we've shared a lot of experiences/work with our cars. In discussing this with Roger he advised there are something like six different part numbers shown for X350/8 XJ wishbones in the Jaguar parts catalogue, to add to the proliferation of part numbers for the same item.
While trawling t'internet, I noticed when studying the numerous photos that all wishbones which were described as being for XF's all appear to have rubber bushes at the outer hub end instead of spheri-bushes, and I think that's the case, making the XF different to S type, XJ and XK in that respect.
With the casting being the same, and the rear and outer spheri-bushes being the same (apart from XF as mentioned), that just leaves the forward metalastic bush that might account for any difference, if there is any difference. This could be plausible as it's conceivable that Jaguar may have varied that bush's compliance depending on whether it's for a soft riding sovereign compared to say a tauter XJR. However, even that doesn't seem to be the case as the part numbers vary for different VIN ranges and so that takes no account of the different model types.
Incidentally, the forward metalastic bushes on the original wishbones on both my 2007 XJR and son's 2007 XKR have the two vertical slots in the rubber, as do my new wishbones, and all the other photo's I've seen so I don't believe they were all changed to solid type after just the early ones as you indicated.
The new wishbones I bought were described as being specifically for an S type, but as they referenced (among other numbers) the C2P16878/79 which I'd already had confirmed by the Jag dealer as being for an XKR, and which I therefore knew were the same as my XJR, I went ahead with the purchase.
The wishbones appear to be excellent quality (time will tell when fitted) and although packaged as First-Line products, the Part numbers are FCA7222/3 which I'm fairly sure are actually Borg and Beck which is a reputable make, so that gives me a lot of confidence. The spacing between bushes is spot on at the required 281mm.
At £150 the pair new they were less than just the bushes on their own, plus that included six 10.9 bolts/nuts which would have been around another £50 if bought separately. Some pictures attached.
Incidentally, that's my car on page 68 of the Sept magazine.
- Attachments
-
-
-
Re: Rear wishbones, again but different.
£75 per wishbone is a bargain when you consider the RG109 replacement cost is £30 a piece. No bush bashing on a press needed either. Fifteen years ago each wishbone was £750 plus VAT! Four or five years ago, Jaguar dropped its OEM wishbone prices to £175 plus VAT each.
One of the sets of wishbones I reconditioned came from a 5 litre MY2011 XFR. Once refitted,those particular arms found their way onto my 04 XJR. My wishbones finished up on an S-type, etc,etc. The XFR Metalastic front bush near the sill was solid with no compliance slots. All of the five assorted S-types, XF and X350 we had in bits in 2015 had the same bush details. Even the XFR had the ball and tube RG109 in the hub carrier and the rear sub-frame mount locations.
The new wishbones you posted above have a slot in the Metalastic bush location. I`ve never seen that before so it appears a newish development. Interesting.
I`d suggest with such low prices for wishbones now being available, the RG109 bush is destined for extinction. Time to sell my bench press!
Mike
One of the sets of wishbones I reconditioned came from a 5 litre MY2011 XFR. Once refitted,those particular arms found their way onto my 04 XJR. My wishbones finished up on an S-type, etc,etc. The XFR Metalastic front bush near the sill was solid with no compliance slots. All of the five assorted S-types, XF and X350 we had in bits in 2015 had the same bush details. Even the XFR had the ball and tube RG109 in the hub carrier and the rear sub-frame mount locations.
The new wishbones you posted above have a slot in the Metalastic bush location. I`ve never seen that before so it appears a newish development. Interesting.
I`d suggest with such low prices for wishbones now being available, the RG109 bush is destined for extinction. Time to sell my bench press!
Mike
X350 Co-ordinator
2004 XJR
2004 XJR
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest