Version R Subframe - ARB Brackets

[spetz]

Have you compared the Evo V or VI LCAs as these are aluminum I believe and the Evo IV being cast iron?

[FTODreams]

Not all evo V or VI arms are the aluminium type. Only some are. They're identical arms bar that. The evo guys here don't like the aluminium arms because they're supposedly much easier to damage (or so they tell me).

Let us know with an in-depth review. I organised with Josh to get the purple series with 6/4kg springs. So when I get mine I'll throw up a review as well.

If you believe they're still flexing maybe get a fabrication joint to make a solid unit out of cast steel or 306 stainless steel. Might be a hefty fee. I got some guys who I can go through from work who would do it but they wanted $300 so I just said f**k it for now.

[spetz]

I'll write up a review on the MCA Reds if people are interested but these are custom valved and springed for all customers so I am not sure how beneficial that'll be for people here, not to mention the car is unregistered and will only ever be driven at Winton (and hopefully Wakefield at least once).

As for the aluminum LCAs I am sure they aren't as strong but that's the price you pay for a lower unsprung weight.

Since I am using an OEM GPX rear swaybar I think the brackets should be fine.
My Whiteine swaybar had the whiteline reinforced brackets so I will try pushing both to see if I can notice any more or less flex in each.
Not scientific or anything but I think just because a part is aftermarket and marketed as reinforced doesn't mean it'll be strong than stock. Perhaps had I used OEM rear brackets then my understeer would go away.
I may at some stage upgrade to Version R swaybars but that'll be later as I have aid for another set of springs for the Reds which I will order after driving it with the current 9kg/9kg setup

And to answer my original question here an easy/cheap way of getting a Version R front swaybar to fit would be to use Lancer CE brackets and buy Superpro 20mm bushes (stock CE bushes are 18mm).

[FTODreams]

I'm pretty interested so by all means when you have the time.

That is quite interesting. At some point ill chuck a gopro or something under mine so I can have a look at the whole set up and how it moves/flex's.

To answer your original question as well before I got side tracked. MR369446 is the Evo bracket if you wanted it and is $5.39-$6.98 on Amayama. Then you can just use the original 20mm bush the evo or gpvr come with.

[spetz]

I can only speculate that it is due to flexing.
But I think it is accurate as the end link is not at a 90 degree angle to the swaybar or the LCA which means when force is applied it will go to the path of least resistance first which would (in my opinion) be flexing the bracket backwards or forwards depending on the end link angle direction.

With the front bracket the Lancer CE bracket can take superpro D bushes up to 23mm from memory so all I'd need is Lancer CE brackets (which I have already) and 20mm D bushes.
Without having driven the car with the MCAs and the GPX swaybars it's hard to say what I will do. I might just want to add the GPvR rear 20mm swaybar and leave the front as is... or change both to VR and adjust the handling with difference spring rates etc

[FTODreams]

Yours isn't at a 90 degree angle? Mine is definitely at a 90 degree... But yes it definitely would apply a force in the wrong direction than desired if that was the case.

You know it might be the case that lancer/evo brackets are the exact same... hahahaha.

Yeah I'd definitely agree with that. It's gonna be very different. I've always been inclined to actually remove the front sway bar and just run a rear sway bar. If I had track springs. I had my front one disconnected for a long time and bar the additional body roll on the front the handling was actually more preferred than any set up I've had to date. Just couldn't dive into a corner too hard.

[spetz]

OEM it may be at 90 degrees but with the whiteline swaybar once you adjust it to softer/stiffer it goes away from 90 degrees.
The front isn't too affected as the brackets are solid on the subframe and the end links are really long so the angle is minimal.

In the rear though the brackets are long and the end links are short hence the angle becomes an issue.

No front swaybar seems a bit far tbh. I think with my stiff rear springs and OEM swaybars it should be fine.

My alignment is pretty aggressive too and I run semi slicks.
If it still understeers I'll be ordering a 20mm VR swaybar.
Then going stiffer rear springs if there is still understeer

[slippercream]

Hey guys - sorry to resurrect a dead thread. But I figured this was a good technical discussion from which to add to anyway, instead of creating a new one.

Question: Will swapping out the front LCA to that of an Evo V to VI cause the track width to increase by that much? (20mm on each side)

I'm finding it a challenge to ascertain whether the front track width changes if one swaps to Evo LCAs. Furthermore, a quick search tells me that the Evo IV track is indeed 40mm less than the Evo V. So... is this because the width of the CN9A (Evo IV) LCA is less than that of a CP9A (V to VI)? I suspect this isn't so - and that's why I'm asking.

Furthermore, my research tells me that interchangeable suspension parts for the front FTO suspension are with the Evo IV. However, I can't imagine that the GPvR has a 40mm wider track than the GPX (which is what I have). But if it's simply because of the front control arms are shared with the CN or CP Evo, then this would make sense.

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to change the geometry of the suspension (and therefore additional strain on hubs) by adding additional width, just because I want to add stiffer swaybars or mount "better" brakes.

Appreciate the input.

[Vectose]

The EVO arms cause the wheel to sit further forward in the guard (more caster). I had to use caster correction bushes pressed in the "wrong" way to reduce it, but it still sits a fair bit forward comparead to stock.

EVO 4 arms are forged steel.
EVO 5-6 arms are cast (or forged?) aluminium. (Lighter)

You will also have to press in FTO ball joints to mate to the FTO hubs.

[slippercream]

Got it, thanks Vectose. That's pretty major.

Do you know if there is a difference in dimensions between vR front LCAs compared to the GPX or GX?
For instance, does it cause a different camber (is wider) than that of the GPX?

Perhaps this is all moot. If I wanted to mount Brembos, perhaps I just need to look to fabbing a different mounting bracket to mate with the Brembos. Or, if it's to sport a thicker swaybar... I mean, does one really want a thicker front swaybar... on a FWD car?

I was just trying to determine the path of least ... complexity, if you will... for achieving both. If it's simply a matter of fabrication, I'm cool with just calling a duck a duck. But if the name of the game is reengineering suspension --- or, worse --- jury rigging it to work... well that's a whole 'nother ball game I don't want to play in.

Thanks guys.

[bjk]

If you trust my eyeballing of the centre of the tyre, the track width on my car is 1490mm with the Evo VI arms and hubs, which is unchanged from stock. Like Rob says though, they do add more caster angle (which is good) unless your tyres start clipping the front of the guard/bumper tab (which is bad).

Arguably overkill for a stock-power FTO, but if you find yourself if want of the Brembos, certainly the most bolt in solution is the whole LCA and knuckle from either the V or VI (they are different however, get the VI if you can).

Evo VI Susp.png (995.93 KiB) Viewed 2627 times

[slippercream]

Thanks, BJK - your pics are always so helpful!

That settles the question of track width. I'll reciprocate with comparisons of the LCA if/when I get a pair in. But you both know what I've been pondering And yes, I'm still on the fence about whether to pursue "crazy" with the COTY, or just wait a few years to get another that I can mess with.

Speaking of overkill, what birthed this idea was a silly one. Rotors are causing a shimmy on the front. And so I thought, instead of buying replacement OE diameter rotors, why not just go ultralites? I have some in my modified 4G Eclipse, and they are almost 1/2 the weight of the OE rotor. And while I'm playing dodgeball with ants and worms, why not replace sh*t that's rusted to hell - hence control arms, links, etc.

Anyway - thanks to COVID-19, I'm bored to death. Looking for sh*t to do that probably doesn't need fixing, and a "new" toy is just that - something I can't help but toy with

[slippercream]

I also didn't realize I took pics of the suspension with the car lifted.
To your point, BJK - here's to eyeballing stock castor.

I know - it's silly to measure using pictures. Better than nothing.

I think my camera angle was perpendicular enough to the ground. Looks like stock castor is about 5* positive, lifted. On the ground, on stock height - I dunno, probably within the typical 7* range.

[bjk]

From what I've seen on a few spec sheets of supposedly accurate origins (just on random FTO websites), stock caster is about 2.5 deg. The Evo arms and standard bushes gave me 4.5 to 5ish degrees, and the reversed caster bushes brought them back about 0.75 deg. Might not have been required if I was running a smaller diameter tyre, but I think I still had the 235/45R17s on and it was grabbing the left sidewall.

[slippercream]

Oh god - yes, those would definitely rub! That was the same tire diameter I used during my "test fitting" the Evo BBS wheels.
5* of castor I imagine wouldn't be bad - better in fact for turn recovery stability (how much exactly - only a person who's tracked the car with both setups would know). In any case, thanks BJK - so helpful as always!

[spetz]

Stock FTO caster should be in the 3 degree range I would expect.

The Evo wheelbase is 10mm longer than a standard Lancer sedan.
The Lancer sedan and FTO wheelbase is identical.
So as mentioned the Evo LCA's would extend the wheelbase by 10mm to gain more caster.

I use caster bushes and reverses the coilover top mounts on my car which got me about 6.5 degrees of caster and the car didn't handle well. From everything I read this should not have been the case but a reduction in caster gave me a lot more front end grip.


As for track width, I believe most of the additional track of an Evo is from a different offset wheel however it seems the LCA might add some too

[slippercream]

Interesting - thanks Spetz. I'm all clear for now. Prime example of how suspension tuning is really an art, and where each component can change the effectiveness of the overall solution.

So, to summarize from everyone's input thus far, the effects of switching to Evo IV-VI front LCAs are:

• +10mm wheelbase (spetz)
• +4.5 to 5* castor, associated with additional wheelbase (bjk)
• Possible increase in track width (unknown), but likely not by much
• Castor correction bushings roll additional castor back by about 0.75* (result: +3.75 to +4.25*, based on bjk's readings)