12 replies to this topic

[mab01uk]

AROnline: Rover 100 (Austin Metro) suspension upgrade.
"The transformation from Austin to Rover Metro/100 was an engineering triumph. As well as the new K-Series engine, it received a thorough suspension upgrade. This was a remarkable transformation – a few very clever and considered changes turned the car into a dynamic class-leader… Here’s the original May 1990 press release and some background. There was a deliberate policy from Rover of not going into huge detail on the suspension changes, because that might have highlighted the compromises forced upon the original Austin Metro (LC8) by using carryover Mini (ADO15) front suspension bits. I suspect that any cost-saving achieved by doing that was seriously negated by the need for an expensive H-I split dual line brakes with four-pot front calipers…"
More here:-
https://www.aronline...ension-details/

 

[nicklouse]

Interesting. Can’t remember any carry over Mini front suspension parts!

[mab01uk]

Interesting. Can’t remember any carry over Mini front suspension parts!

 

Nor me....unless they really mean it was a similar layout to the Mini?

Edited by mab01uk, 04 September 2022 - 11:17 AM.

[nicklouse]

 

Interesting. Can’t remember any carry over Mini front suspension parts!

 

Nor me....unless they really mean it was a similar layout to the Mini?

 

But it was not that similar. The only similar part was the top arm.

 

lower arm mounting different. Tie bars became an ARB and was attached to the lower arm differently. Was that set up not carried through to the 100? Only real changes to the suspension that I was aware of was the drive flange PCD.

[Spider]

Interesting. Can’t remember any carry over Mini front suspension parts!

 

If I recall the bearings in the top arms, the wheel bearings and CV are the same !!

But nothing of 'substance'.

[R1mini]

I cannot see the anti-dive anti-squat geometry built into the front suspension as the article claims? Could someone explain it to me

 

Cheers

David

[nicklouse]

I cannot see the anti-dive anti-squat geometry built into the front suspension as the article claims? Could someone explain it to me

 

Cheers

David

It will just be the angle the top inboard pivot point to the horizontal and the angle the lower inboard pivot point make and the point that they cross. It’s  just geometry.

[R1mini]

 

I cannot see the anti-dive anti-squat geometry built into the front suspension as the article claims? Could someone explain it to me

 

Cheers

David

It will just be the angle the top inboard pivot point to the horizontal and the angle the lower inboard pivot point make and the point that they cross. It’s  just geometry.

 

Yes that's what I thought but I'm looking at the MGTF subframe in front of me and the top and bottom wishbones are parallel to each other

 

Cheers

David

[sonscar]

Are they parallel to the ground at ride height?Is one set of pivots behind the other?Are they the same length?.All these can help provide dive resistance(suspension is science and magic in varying proportions to me)Steve..

[nicklouse]

 

 

I cannot see the anti-dive anti-squat geometry built into the front suspension as the article claims? Could someone explain it to me

 

Cheers

David

It will just be the angle the top inboard pivot point to the horizontal and the angle the lower inboard pivot point make and the point that they cross. It’s  just geometry.

 

Yes that's what I thought but I'm looking at the MGTF subframe in front of me and the top and bottom wishbones are parallel to each other

 

Cheers

David

 

Are you looking side on or front on?

Edited by nicklouse, 18 October 2022 - 09:33 PM.

[R1mini]

The top and bottom wishbone are parallel looking from the side, The top wishbone ball joint is further back by about 20mm to give the desired castor angle.

 

I will try and find a picture to help my explanation

 

Cheers

David

[mini13]

Depends what you deem as mini part, the funamental design is the same, to the pont that the upright can be used, after all they went o the touble of putting the metro upright assy into the group A homoliugation as a heavy duty suspension component

See pages 22 & 26   https://historicdb.f...560_group_a.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Can’t remember any carry over Mini front suspension parts!

 

Nor me....unless they really mean it was a similar layout to the Mini?

 

 

[eddywestby1275]

As mini13 said, Mini and A-Series Metro have very similar front suspension. The CVs, wheel bearings, and hubs are the same, and brakes could be carried over.

The suspension arms are not interchangeable but they are clearly from the same school of thought. The biggest difference is the addition of a front anti-roll bar and the way it connects to each side.

 

But the K-Series Metro is totally different.

To say it's just the drive flange is simple ignorance.

 

The suspension is still Hydragas, but in the Rover it is a proper double wishbone setup. Rather than the spindly lower arms from the Mini, the Rovers have a genuinely beefy wishbone, totally different geometry, and a different design of upper arm too. 

It was constrained by the old car, but it is from a totally different school of design, and driving an Austin and Rover back-to-back shows a startling difference in their feeling of solidity, turn-in accuracy, and sharpness. They're totally different kettles of fish, but people don't care about real changes and just look at the bodyshell being virtually the same. Sigh.

 

The Mini and A-Series Metro share a lot of parts, relatively, on their suspension. More in fact than the A-Series Metro shares with the K-Series Metro.

 

You can see evidence of this in racing. Despite the fact that the A-Series Metro has been around for longer and was built in greater numbers, almost nobody builds an A-Series Metro racer today. Everybody starts with a K-Series Metro because they are in a different league, handling wise, and that's not to mention the K-Series engine.