Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 05:48 AM |
|
|
New Locost front end design ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dimensions of the following components are required from a Mk IV Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98-'03) or in the US, A4
Golf/Jetta/Bora/R32 ('98.5-'04):
1. 5-stud front and rear hubs.
2. Outer CV/stub axle and axle.
3. Rear bolt-on stub axle.
4. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm-30mm) front discs.
5. Solid (9mm) and ventilated (20mm) rear discs.
6. Aluminium rear calliper.
7. Tie rod end.
8. Manual steering rack.
Maybe you know someone who works in a VW dealership? If you have any trade catalogues with dimensioned diagrams of any of the items, then I'd
welcome that info too.
If you have the parts, but aren't sure how to go about extracting the data, email me and I'll gladly give you instructions on how to
accurately take the measurements.
If you can help with dimensions of any of the above parts, please let me know and specify the model and year please.
I'm also happy (in fact I would prefer) to receive actual parts and reverse engineer them myself, so if anyone can source any of the parts and
post them to me, I promise faithfully I'll return them within a week.
I've seen most of the parts appearing on eBay, so perhaps some of you who are interested in this project would consider buying even one item
each or sharing the cost of one item with others to get this project underway.
Just one of each component is all that's necessary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I'm not being too presumptuous here, but I thought this warranted a thread of its own. In
this thread, BradW made a few suggestions for a new Locost upright, but I believe
if it's worth doing at all, then it may be worth doing a little better. 
quote:
Originally posted by BradW
…. in answer to your question "Would Marc, Mark (I sound like a dog with a hair lip) Brad or Chris be interested in such a set-up? ", yes,
I think that might be an idea, I've thought a few times about something like that.
A few "requirements" I'd thought of would be
1) Cater for 'standard' book wishbones
2) Use book Transit & Maxi/Cortina ball joints
3) Use Sierra hubs and bearings
4) Removable/replaceable Caliper mounting plate
5) KPI of 7 or 8 degrees
6) Relatively easy to manufacture, using laser cutting/milling/turning/welding type of facilities rather than bending/forming.
I'm sure guys can add more to this list, maybe on here we can come up with a 'Locost' uprights and get away from being tied to
Cortina, Sierra or expensive ali uprights.
Cheers
Brad
All your points are noted; however I would question the logic of making any further uprights to fit Book wishbones.
The uprights I posted above were simply intended as a substitute for the diminishing Cortina uprights.
If I were to design an easily made (read composite) upright specifically for the Locost, I think it would be taking a step backwards to base it around
the Book 'bones with their inherent problems.
I feel if people are prepared to make uprights, then they're probably already prepared to make wishbones.
If there's enough interest in a full front end design, then I'm happy to knock one out. I have my outlaws coming to stay for Christmas
AGAIN this year, so that would be an ideal opportunity for me to sneak away for a bit of peace and quiet.
I would like to see a bit more input from others who would be genuinely interested in such a set-up, firstly, so I can establish if it's even
worth my while bothering and secondly, to ascertain what others think about Sierra hubs/bearings and which callipers to use etc.
Interchangeable calliper brackets could quite simply be retained by a bolt-in stub axle and located by keys on the opposite side of the upright.
Anyway, let's hear some dialogue first. Anyone got any views or preferences?
[Edited on 19/11/05 by Rorty]
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 06:03 AM |
|
|
Add prefered wheel size/offset to above list?
Cheers
Fred WB
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 08:22 AM |
|
|
Rorty Thanks again for volunteering your valuable design input. I think yo are in the process of bringing the Locost design into the present. I
suspect basing uprights on Sierras is a time limiting option as even Sierras are getting rare particularly with Pinto engines. If you think your
exisitng design for cortina substitute uprihts is good why not stick with it?
One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless
you have a better idea!.
Further thoughts on wishbone design would also be interesting as there does seem to be a problem with the lower wishbone bending when treated
roughly.
The original 7 used an anti roll bar as part of the top wishbone location is this worth reconsidering 50 years after the original design?
Is it worth thinking about different wishbone lengths to equalise track width when using wider rear axels? Future donors are kikely t be bigger cars
than Sierras that are already wider than the escort.
Thats all I can think of for now, I was planning to build my wishbones before Christmas so now I had better wait!
Caber
|
|
|
niceperson709
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 08:45 AM |
|
|
Hi Rorty
my main sugestion is that your design should not be a welded fabricatin because there are a number of countries like here in OZ that will not allow
such uprights to be used on the road .
any way what os wrong with Toyota Lite / hi ace I'm using them and they work fine 
Best wishes IAIN
life is not the rehearsal , it's the show so don't sit there thinking about it DO IT NOW
http://iainseven.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 09:10 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless
you have a better idea!.
Caber
More caster wont help much with respect to self centering (it will give some extra at high speed but with the fall back of less sensitive steering)
From my experience the hughe "steering radius" given by the cortina uprights is the worst enemy, and not so easy to solve.
|
|
|
Nisseven
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
I found when reserching an alternative to the Nissan uprights that the cortina ones have a massive scrub radius which most people seem to agree is
undesirable and is possibly part of the reason that the don't self centre well. By using a custom hub it was possible to reduce this but without
using a very large offset in the wheel still impossible to get right. There could be two reasons for this:
a, There is not enough KPI and
b, the front rack design means that the tie rod end does not allow the brake disc to be moved inwards. This may be the reason most late model
production cars use a rear rack design.
I would agree that restricting oneself to book design wishbones is not necessarily a good idea.
Just my thoughts.
Bruce Kelly
|
|
|
BradW
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
Hi
You are quite right Rorty, some of my reasoning was to allow compatibility with existing parts/designs, we would be better with a complete
redesign.
From my side (South Africa) I would be perfectly happy producing new wishbones and uprights to meet the new design, we (www.locost.co.za) are
already serving a growing market place for both homebuilt and 'kit' chassis, and are committed to promoting the Locost concept.
In answer to your questions, and to try and add some reasons to my "requirements"
If you are prepared to put your experience and knowledge into producing a new design I, for one, will follow through with the manufacturing and sale
of items to suit the design.
My reasoning behind the Sierra bearings was that they are easily available items, from both Auto and bearing companies.
The 'book' ball joints again are readily available and seem to fulfil the purpose without problem.
A removable caliper plate would allow use of a wide range of calipers.
I look forward to more input on this and will offer my assistance wherever possible.
Thanks Rorty...
Brad
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 12:26 PM |
|
|
There is an extra issue with fabrication of uprights, compared to wishbones, in that it's a 3 dimensional part, mirror imaged on the other side
so it would be difficult for an amateur builder to jig up to get adequate dimensional accuracy. I think that's why some who are happy to
fabricate 'bones would be wary of uprights. The alternative approach (wot I did) was to select a different donor vehicle, the mx5 suited me as
bits are reasonable and plentiful (esp. in USA) & it's rear drive IRS already. Mind you it's far from ideal - esp. with rack in same
plane as lower wishbone! & a lot of the bits are rather heavy. On reflection I can't think of any other common cars that suit our
purpose...
Bob
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
If you think your exisitng design for cortina substitute uprihts is good why not stick with it?
One major issue with the Locost design is the poor self centering. A front end with a reasonably variable castor angle may be a help with this unless
you have a better idea!.
Further thoughts on wishbone design would also be interesting as there does seem to be a problem with the lower wishbone bending when treated
roughly.
The original 7 used an anti roll bar as part of the top wishbone location is this worth reconsidering 50 years after the original design?
Is it worth thinking about different wishbone lengths to equalise track width when using wider rear axels? Future donors are kikely t be bigger cars
than Sierras that are already wider than the escort.
Thats all I can think of for now, I was planning to build my wishbones before Christmas so now I had better wait!
Caber
Right or wrong, my plate upright is just a Cortina upright with a little less weight, so it comes with all the original Cortina's misgivings.
I haven't built a Locost, but from examining the Locost front end, I can see there is definitely room for improvement.
Is it necessary to redesign the wheel? I'm not the person to ask as I dont have one of these cars, I'm only reacting to recent feedback. I
know if I did have a Locost, I would certainly change a lot of it from the Book design.
Obviously, a strong lower wishbone would be esential.
I'm not familiar with the original Seven's anti roll bar set-up, but I think for the average builder, it would be wise to steer clear of
anti roll bars.
As most people seem to be favouring the Sierra rear end in one guise or another, it would certainly make sense to widen the front track.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by niceperson709
Hi Rorty
my main sugestion is that your design should not be a welded fabricatin because there are a number of countries like here in OZ that will not allow
such uprights to be used on the road .
any way what os wrong with Toyota Lite / hi ace I'm using them and they work fine
There are only a few options available to those wanting to make their own uprights; they can be cast (very expensive - unless done cooperatively),
they can be machined from billet ( same drawbacks as cast ones), they can be folded from plate (with minimal welding, and not expensive) or they can
be fabricated from lots of laser-cut keyed parts (lots of welding).
As you say, existing production uprights (from whatever source) would be the first choice as long as they are suitable and plentiful.
If it was a perfect world, we'd all have a shed full of billet, a CNC lathe and two 5-axis milling machines each! 
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
There is an extra issue with fabrication of uprights, compared to wishbones, in that it's a 3 dimensional part, mirror imaged on the other side
so it would be difficult for an amateur builder to jig up to get adequate dimensional accuracy. I think that's why some who are happy to
fabricate 'bones would be wary of uprights. Bob
Bob, I hear what you're saying, but the glory of laser-cut (or water, or plasma) parts is that they can be keyed together with such accuracy
that it's impossible to make a mess of them.
I wouldn't recommend anyone just cut some lengths of flat bar and try to cobble an upright together because it would definitely end up all over
the shop.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
It wouldn't be difficult to devise a new front end like any good open wheeler track car with pinpoint steering and vastly superior geometry to
the current Locost, but it would most likely require many custom made parts.
I don't think that's going to suit many people's aims or budgets. We shouldn't lose focus and design something out of keeping
with the Locost theme.
I'm not worried about the geometry; it will end up being dictated by in large by the sum of the parts, but I'll certainly aim to improve
every aspect where possible.
While it might be attractive to purchase just one donor car, I think very few people these days actually follow that route. I see Sierra parts
combined with bike engines, Escort racks and Polo radiators etc. etc.
Why not choose a "new" rack too while we're at it as the Escort ones are seemingly dying a death.
Perhaps a shopping list would consist of:
- Wheel (make/model/size/PCD?)
- Tyre (width/aspect ratio?)
- Hub (make/model - future availability?)
- Brake disc (same as hub/aftermarket?)
- Calliper (same donor as hub & disc/aftermarket? Not that important right now)
- Balljoints (how long are the Transit/Cortina and Maxi ones goint to be around for? Should we switch to VW - they're global)
- Rack (is there a nice quick-ish rack that's close to the right size and readily available? Don't forget the track will probably be
wider than stock)
It's your car, so I need opinions and suggestions for components before I can draw the first line.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
BradW
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 02:14 PM |
|
|
Hi Rorty,
As you have noticed the Sierra is common donor for the rear end, the wider track still suits the ‘book’ chassis and gives the benefits of the extra
width, the diff mountings and bearing carriers make it easy to adopt to suit our chassis.
You maybe should add Track to your shopping list, I think the Sierra defines that.
As to the rest of your list, these are my answers, please guys bear in mind this is coming from South Africa were different things are available or
not as the case may be
1. Wheel – Make and model aren’t too specific, following a Sierra rear out here a common choice would be a 15” diameter in a 6” or 6.5” width, with
an ET35 offset and a 108 4 stud PCD, luckily after market Alloys here in SA can be had quite reasonably, the 15J6.5 is reasonably common with the Ford
pitch and offset, we don’t want different front and rear wheels so these would suit any of the Excort, Cortina, Sierra, Sapphire, & Falcon rear
ends.
2. Tyre – a 195/55 15 offers an economical/comfortable/sporty ride, giving a rolling diameter of 576mm.
3. Hub – Availability, especially as after-market options, would probably point to the Cortina/Escort style, although the manufacturing of the stub
axles adds a complication to the upright.
4. Brake disc – As you suggest following the standard sizes of the selected hub
5. Calliper – with a removable mounting plate as you say this isn’t too important, but goind with the Low Cost options the ‘standard’ would be the one
which comes with the donor hubs.
6. Balljoints – Here I have to admit a business leaning, being difficult to obtain here in South Africa I regularly import QH balljoints in bulk to be
able to offer realistic prices, a recent order having an out of stock delay proves that at least QH are still having them manufactured, If someone
could suggest a make and model of VW items I will investigate availability and cost here in SA.
7. Rack – Even here in SA MK II Escort racks are readily available at a reasonable cost, also looking at the popularity of the RWD Escorts in
competition I think this rack is a good choice, there are many Quick Racks available, Rally Design and QH both do standard and quick racks, the
‘normal’ turned extensions are easy enough to manufacture so we can adjust the uprights providing the chassis mounts line up with the rack pivot
points. Of course the other option is to change the Locost from front steer to rear steer, then we could look at Fiesta, Focus, VW and many other FWD
options.
As usual answers raise more questions J, but I think we are going in the right direction
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 07:17 PM |
|
|
A very good idea
A few comments on some of the issues raised.
(1) As Sierra hub/stub axle parts availability is already on the wane, no reason why the equvalent parts from a FWD Ford or VW Golf couldn't be
used --- just "gut" the cv joint of the cage and balls.
(2) Ball joint availability what about using Land-Rover or Jaguar parts for the top ball joint.
(3) Self-centering issues with the Cortina setup are a lot to do with the lack of king pin inclination. The king pin inclination and caster should
both be increased I don't what the figures should be but I would guess anything up to 7 for the caster with a kpi about 2 or 3 degrees
less.
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 07:44 PM |
|
|
also the hub on a pin , is not as strong as pin through the hub . that contradicts my setup !!
it would be nice whatever you come up with can be made to suit any hubs , and caliper combo . im stuck with 12' kpi with the volvo/strut setup
.
eventually i will need to manufacture some new uprights , but would like to keep the big disc/caliper , and pcd of the volvo .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
(1) As Sierra hub/stub axle parts availability is already on the wane, no reason why the equvalent parts from a FWD Ford or VW Golf couldn't be
used --- just "gut" the cv joint of the cage and balls.
I like the various VW brake options right from the base model up to the high performance ventilated GTI versions and they all fit the same upright.
The problem I see is that the VW front stub axle (CV drive pin) revolves inside the upright as opposed to the more conventional (non FWD) upright
where the hub rotates around the stub axle.
The trouble would arise from welding the upright parts to the bearing housing and keeping it all true and distortion free. Not a problem per se for
manufacturers, but definitely not a DIY option for the masses.
You could argue "why not just use the existing VW upright". Well, OK. Maybe. It has a strut connection at the upper end and I'd have
to look at it to see if an adaptor could be made that would still perform within the whole setup.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident(2) Ball joint availability what about using Land-Rover or Jaguar parts for the top ball joint.
Sounds fine by me, are they male types? I know Land Rover and Jag are available in the US, but what about SA et al? Do you have any pics of them?
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident(3) Self-centering issues with the Cortina setup are a lot to do with the lack of king pin
inclination. The king pin inclination and caster should both be increased I don't what the figures should be but I would guess anything up
to 7 for the caster with a kpi about 2 or 3 degrees less.
I agree with your figures, but as mentioned further up the thread, the final figures may be determined by what ever components are settled on.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 09:59 PM |
|
|
Sorry, these posts got out of order.
quote:
Originally posted by BradW
6. Balljoints – Here I have to admit a business leaning, being difficult to obtain here in South Africa I regularly import QH balljoints in bulk to be
able to offer realistic prices, a recent order having an out of stock delay proves that at least QH are still having them manufactured, If someone
could suggest a make and model of VW items I will investigate availability and cost here in SA.
7. Of course the other option is to change the Locost from front steer to rear steer, then we could look at Fiesta, Focus, VW and many other FWD
options.
The VW Golf lower BJ is a Locoster's dream; it's a bolt on affair and has a spigot, not a taper stud (see below).
Changing to a rear steer rack would certainly open up possibilities. Not only could the calliper brackets be made interchangeable, but the steering
arms could be made as separate items so they could be either LH/RH or front steer/rear steer. Different lengths could be incorporated which would mean
the basic upright would be common to both sides of the car which would cut upright manufacturing costs and would also allow custom steering ratios
too!
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 10:03 PM |
|
|
Oops! I forgot the pic of the VW Golf lower BJ.
 
Rescued attachment Golf_balljoint-lwr_01sml.gif
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 7/11/05 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
also the hub on a pin , is not as strong as pin through the hub . that contradicts my setup !!
It contradicts everything!  I know what you're trying to say, though if the parts work on virtually any production car, they'll be fine
in a much lighter Locost.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
BradW
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 07:50 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Land Rover and Jag parts are extremely expensive here (SA), but we are already importing the Transit/Maxi from the UK, so UK prices would probably
be the influence on that, also the Land Rover joints I've seen here are an imperial thread which may lead to problems with thread cutting and
locknuts, the M18x1.5 of the Transit is closer to a standard thread, although the US may prefer imperial.
Checking my QH catalogue all of the Land Rover Tie Rods/Drag Links use a cone (taper) fitment, most are 11/16 x 16 UNF, although the post 98 Discovery
does not have the thread detailed.
All the Jag joints seem to have female threads.
If we use an existing upright are we not just duplicating our current problem for later Locost builders ?, plus the Golf is McPherson isn't it,
so will we not be adopting the same problems the Sierra upright has ?.
The common (left/right) upright idea with removable steering arms/caliper brackets sounds the best way
Brad
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 08:21 AM |
|
|
Best thread for weeks!!
The hub size (face of wheel to face of disc) is really a pain on the cortina as well as on the sierra, is there any narrower alternatives?
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
Hi Lozec
I think the answer lies in the use of a FWD wheel flange and stub with the bearing mounted in the upright as has been mentioned earlier, I used
Peugeot 205 bits to build mine in a fabricated housing, the distance from the wheel mounting face to the outside of the disc is 14mm.
Wimmera
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WIMMERA
Hi Lozec
I think the answer lies in the use of a FWD wheel flange and stub with the bearing mounted in the upright as has been mentioned earlier, I used
Peugeot 205 bits to build mine in a fabricated housing, the distance from the wheel mounting face to the outside of the disc is 14mm.
Wimmera
Sounds great!! any pictures?
|
|
|
pgpsmith
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
Rorty, if this comes off you’ll be honored throughout Locostdom as One Who Has Solved The Big Problem. Thank you for your generous offer.
1. Wheel Since I have competition pretensions, I’d certainly like to see it accommodate 13” wheels. 6” wide with room to grow to 8” if I progress to
the class that allows it would suite me.
2. Tyre Black. Avons? Anyone with track day experience want to chime in?
3. Hub FWIW, since someone may be willing to sell to the U.S.A., the most common donors here seem to be MX-5 and RX-7 with MX-5s gaining. Could it
accommodate MX-5 hubs? Or (stupid question showing lack of knowledge) if ubiquitous FWD donor (Focus, Golf, Corolla?) is used, could hubs come from
the rear?
4. Brake disc Same as hub
5. Caliper Same donor as hub & disc
6. Balljoint One with a future, VW fine by me. Minority comment: since I have a pull-rod system in mind, I’d like to see it use lower bj’s top as
well as bottom.
7. Rack/ Steering Arm A bolt on rear steering-arm that allows the rod end to be level with the top wishbone to minimize bump steer issues (as
suggested by Staniforth) and allow use of VW, etc. racks, please
8. Track I agree that wide-track is the way to go.
Of course, the front and rear suspensions work together, so… you might as well finish up your IRS while you’re at it. It’s so easy to be
ambitious with someone else’s time.
Regards,
Mr. Pete
Live and don't learn, that's us. - Calvin and Hobbes
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 07:37 PM |
|
|
mx5 = best donor was the conclusion I reached a couple of years ago when I started mine. they're now common & reasonable, a modern design
(no taper roller bearings) & plenty get stuffed by punters unused to RWD!
Drawbacks to mx5 gear - it's all a bit heavy & the steering arms are in an embarrassing location - (actually on the plane of the bottom
'bone - yeah I know some folk might think that's a good thing; it isn't!)
This stuff was designed around 14" wheels so 13" may not work, but I have managed to fit 10.5" discs in them (the stock wheels) so
13" rims might go on.
Stock mx5 uprights and standard book chassis combine to give perfect roll centre control according to my suspension modelling software. I know lots of
folk would say that's not even worth writing down, but it makes me happy ;^)
The other thing that makes it a good donor - they really are common as muck; esp with all the jap imports we got in UK. They last well so they should
be seen in scrapyards for years to come. And it's a world car - sold in large numbers in all the main markets.
Bob C
PS to get round the steering arm issue, I moved the TREs from below to above the steering arms. Obviously the other possibility is a major change to
the bottom 'bone and chassis front, Anyone looked at that?
|
|
|
