Fast Marina Magazine

Hi,

having a problem with GRO at the garage, I've been having the front suspension sorted, new trunnions etc. The guy is having a problem with the top ball joint. I ordered a replacement motaquip one off ebay here: https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 1736850999

This is listed as a 1971-75 car type, but he is having trouble fitting this along with the new superflex bushes for the lever eyes, I ordered ones for the early larger eye which are on my car. Can anyone advise if this is the wrong type? or were they modified to remove the bushes? The ball joint will all fit fine but when it comes to fitting both this and the bushes they seem incompatible.

any advice?

I can't recall seeing the bit I have circled below in my '71 coupe (and the flat nut come to think of it) when I stripped the top ball joint to fit a new dust cover. But the rest of it looks the same and it may be one of those BL things where they changed it a year after production started after realising they were having certain issues. The bushes you've ordered sound ok too. I've taken some pictures of the repair operators manual so hopefully that'll help you out with diagrams, etc

Without seeing it it's obviously hard to say what's going on but it might be that as the poly bushes are more rigid that the rubber, they may need crushing by hand to get the top nut bit started so you can then do it up with a spanner, but that's all I can suggest I'm afraid. I'm sure someone else will come along with a much better idea.

Alex

Thanks for the diagrams Alex! Yeah looks odd to me, also looks like all the kits on ebay have this part also so I too wonder if they changed the design. Been told it all fits together okay without the bushes but to me it looks like the damper arm sits lower than it should without as they also act as spacers.

I do wonder if they were made to eliminate the bushes? I highly doubt it as metal on metal in that area sounds a bit odd to me but equally it is impossible to fit all this along with the bushes. Confused? I am!

No bush needed. I have them fitted to my car. Works fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for clearing that up, good to know it should be like that as it has been a bit of a head scratcher as the kits came with no paperwork!

cheers
Bren

The extra bush, is that to convert the large hole shocks to the small hole?
I don't have small hole shocks on mine.

Exactly right Paul, the kit shown in the pic is the conversion steel bush type, to eliminate the rubber/polyurethane top hat bushes from the ‘big hole’ shock absorbers.

It became recognised that the top rubber bushes were having no or a negative effect on the suspension allowing the top of the upright to wobble about to no purpose. The extra steel bush eliminates the need for the top hat bushes.

That's the kit I used on PTH the other week. Didn't know there was originally a rubber bush in there! When I did mine it had those adapters in there so must have been done once before then. I did think it odd why BL just didn't use the small hole arms to begin with

Short history lesson, in 1970 ish, the big thing was avoiding Noise, Vibration & Harshness (NVH). If you ever drove a Mk1 or MK 2 Cortina and then the Mk3 (coke bottle) Cortina you’ll recognise the difference. All the manufacturers built loads of rubber into suspension, engine & gearbox bushes, to reduce NVH, including ‘voided’ bushes or as we call them ‘bushes with holes in’. The same was happening in America.

The downside was wallowy handling and dodgy cornering etc.

BL weren’t immune from this trend, particularly as the Marina designer was ex-Ford. The top suspension arm was a case in point, uneccessary rubber which was later deleted with the MK2 ‘small hole’ lever arm shockers. The suspension kit you are using was an attempt to update Mk1 Marinas to MK 2 spec, by adding a steel bush, where the rubber used to be.

Can later arms work with early cars? Can't find the post now but I seem to remember a topic about this. Something to do with later lever arms creating too much negative camber unless the uprights are also changed.

Close, but not quite, very early cars (Josh will know the date or last chassis number), had different geometry, the trunnions were different and the upper and lower arm held the upright at a different angle. If you fit just later trunnions to those, you get loads of negative camber. Way too much for road use.

You can add these ‘delete upper bushes’ top swivel pin kits though.

To switch a very early car to later suspension, you need a later cars upper and lower arms, uprights and trunnions. It could be a later Mk1 or any Mk2, Mk3 or Ital including the telescopic version.

I've never tried a later shock absorber on an early upright. My N reg saloon had an early shock fitted on one side though. The angle the arm sits at is different. If you look at where your upper bump stop is on your inner wing Gareth, you may notice in the surround of the inner wing cut out where the shock sits there is a section with a curve. This is so the bump stop could be moved for the revised suspension.

As Chris says you can fit later trunnions on early legs but you end up with lots of negative camber. You can overcome this by spacing out behind the shock absorber with some big washers. CVF had later trunnions on an otherwise correct early setup, although I have now put a set of early trunnions on and removed the spacing washers.

You can also increase negative camber but retain the early legs and shocks by fitting the revised trunnions BL made for the TC models which were recalled.

Ah, so the very early cars just went straight up. I know what you mean now by no room for the bump stop. TTM has late trunnions with early dampers, still with the rubber in them I just noticed! I'm assuming the uprights are early, which as you and Chris said, will give the car lots of negative camber then.
Sorry, hijacking the thread a bit Good to know there's a way around later trunnions causing too much neg camber by fitting washers behind the dampers