Page 1 of 2

GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 8:43 pm
by spetz
Hi guys,

I know the GPvR has a different front subframe, and different lower control arms that everyone just accepts as better.
I know the subframe is reinforced in some area which is what makes it better.
And I know the difference with the lower control arms is the rear bush that is round rather than square.
But why is this actually better?

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 9:00 pm
by Vectose
Has the droplink mount for the sway bar on it. Instead of on the strut.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 9:10 pm
by spetz
Thanks Vectose, that doesn't necessarily make it a better setup though

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 10:06 pm
by bjk
Might be worth investigating bushes in general, I don't think many answers will be lurking around FTO parts.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 11:45 am
by Bennoz
The only difference in the arms apart from the droplink mount being welded on, is the tubular section where the rear bush goes on is threaded, so the bush is locked on with a nut.

It wasn't just the vR that got the different rear bushes, pretty sure all face lifts did.

The threaded end helps lock the bush in place so there's less lateral load as well as torsional. I've seen some of those old school block bushes get really fucked up & even twist around in their seat.

This was Shanes race car, fully twisted around 90 degrees - as you can see, that's no good for a bush with an offset hole lol
FLCATwistedBushL.JPG
FLCATwistedBushL.JPG (89.01 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
FLCATwistedBushR.JPG
FLCATwistedBushR.JPG (111.65 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
This one came out of ZFL45H1's car..
2y3avugy.jpg
2y3avugy.jpg (105.62 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
3u7ypeda.jpg
3u7ypeda.jpg (47.12 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
And here's the facelifted variant. Also used on Evos & Magnas
DSC_0087 (2).JPG
Not an FTO, but similar age Mitsi to get the concept.
5b9d409a.jpg
5b9d409a.jpg (79.73 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
Then there's always the step up to the Evo arms. Some minor differences between the early models (III, IV, V) but essentially the same as facelifted FTO, but made from cast material, rather than pressed steep, adding more torsional rigidity. Earlier ones tended to be cast iron, while the latter tended alloy to reduce weight.

Comparison between pre facelift FTO & Evo III arms
DSC_0094.JPG
And here's some pics of vR vs GPX subframe to see the extra bracing they have.
P1170927.JPG
P1170927.JPG (167.28 KiB) Viewed 1756 times
P1170933.JPG
P1170933.JPG (158.06 KiB) Viewed 1756 times

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 1:23 pm
by DODO``
like.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 2:35 pm
by bjk
Bencyclopedia. \o/

Hey Pres, any idea what those two little pegs on the Version R subframe are for?

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 3:19 pm
by Bennoz
Exhaust hanger rubbers

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 3:38 pm
by bjk
Bennoz wrote:Exhaust hanger rubbers
Ahh. Interesting. The more ya know.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 7:09 pm
by ZFL45H1
That was a sad day when that happened lol but I'm glad it was only that. FYI that was from massive laterial load [SMILING FACE WITH OPEN MOUTH AND COLD SWEAT]

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 9:50 pm
by spetz
Thanks Bennoz,

Would there be much of an improvement though with a non-offset bush?

Also, to fit the facelifted LCA, does the car require a facelifted subframe to be fitted?

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 1:36 am
by mezje
bjk wrote:
Bennoz wrote:Exhaust hanger rubbers
Ahh. Interesting. The more ya know.
You can tell you've never seen under the car haha :lol:

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 1:39 am
by bjk
mezje wrote:
bjk wrote:
Bennoz wrote:Exhaust hanger rubbers
Ahh. Interesting. The more ya know.
You can tell you've never seen under the car haha :lol:
I have too, I've been there while Tim does an alignment like twice.

You'll notice the prefacelift doesn't have them, smartass. :tongue:

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 11:48 am
by Bennoz
spetz wrote:Thanks Bennoz,

Would there be much of an improvement though with a non-offset bush?

Also, to fit the facelifted LCA, does the car require a facelifted subframe to be fitted?
Using offset is purely at your preference. If you have the hole at the bottom of the bush, you'll get max positive castor, put it facing the outside of the car, you get max neg camber, somewhere in the middle you get a bit of both. That's how I set mine up.
Evo bushes.jpg
Evo bushes.jpg (205.06 KiB) Viewed 1730 times
Facelifted bushes will fit a non facelift subframe, the mounting points are universal.
P1170938.JPG
P1170938.JPG (157.22 KiB) Viewed 1730 times
P1170939.JPG
P1170939.JPG (166.72 KiB) Viewed 1730 times

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 11:53 am
by Bennoz
mezje wrote:
bjk wrote:
Bennoz wrote:Exhaust hanger rubbers
Ahh. Interesting. The more ya know.
You can tell you've never seen under the car haha :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
bjk wrote:You'll notice the prefacelift doesn't have them, smartass. :tongue:
It should, they both normally have them. I'd say they were removed because of a custom exhaust setup.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 12:27 pm
by bjk
Bennoz wrote:
bjk wrote:You'll notice the prefacelift doesn't have them, smartass. :tongue:
It should, they both normally have them. I'd say they were removed because of a custom exhaust setup.
This thread is just a full on school day.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 12:54 pm
by Vectose
I actually noticed 2 unused hanger mounting points on mine at the front. So 4 in the same location.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 3:53 pm
by bjk
Vectose wrote:I actually noticed 2 unused hanger mounting points on mine at the front. So 4 in the same location.
Mitsubishi welding guy got a bit excited.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Fri May 20, 2016 3:54 pm
by Vectose
Haha nah I think 2 are on the body and 2 on the subframe. I don't think the subframe ones are used.

Re: GPvR LCA Compared to GPX

Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 1:59 pm
by bjk
Vectose wrote:Haha nah I think 2 are on the body and 2 on the subframe. I don't think the subframe ones are used.
Strange. Oh well I'm glad they're not particularly important. :lol: