[Wolf]

So I searched on the forum and saw their is a design flaw in the rear lower arms of the ngv, The one thing that popped up was the bushes getting replaced. I looked on superpro and they had 3 different bushes for the rear arm. Which one will I need for a 2" Lift. Is their any other options in different arms or just have to cope and run the poly bushes.

[Gwagensteve]

I believe it’s the rear bush on the front lower control arm that’s the problem.

Keep lift at 45mm or under and run the stock bush. Lifted NGV’s always give up wheel travel due to bushing bind, no reason to use a stiffer/offset bush and make the problem worse.

[fordem]

Wolf wrote:

So I searched on the forum and saw their is a design flaw in the rear lower arms of the ngv, The one thing that popped up was the bushes getting replaced. I looked on superpro and they had 3 different bushes for the rear arm. Which one will I need for a 2" Lift. Is their any other options in different arms or just have to cope and run the poly bushes.

The three different bush sets are one standard and two with offset for alignment correction (this information is actually right there on the website) - you would use the standard set unless your particular vehicle has a problem requiring use of the offset bushes.

I have not used these bushes myself - they are an odd "sliding" design and based on my experience with conventional poly bushings, I have my doubts on their longevity.

[Wolf]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I believe it’s the rear bush on the front lower control arm that’s the problem.

Keep lift at 45mm or under and run the stock bush. Lifted NGV’s always give up wheel travel due to bushing bind, no reason to use a stiffer/offset bush and make the problem worse.

How much flex does it usualy sacrifice? Gunna have some kit in the back so ill be opting for the heavier springs

[Gwagensteve]

A lot. The ngv’s we’ve ramped with aftermarket suspension would have 30-40% less travel than stock due to the effect of stiffer springs.

[Wolf]

Gwagensteve wrote:

A lot. The ngv’s we’ve ramped with aftermarket suspension would have 30-40% less travel than stock due to the effect of stiffer springs.

And no options to fix said issue? I would have guessed a geometry problem according to the bush problems

[Gwagensteve]

No, because Suzuki copied a front wheel drive car design which inherently isn’t designed for wheel travel- the bush is in the wrong plane.

Replacing it with a uniball is theoretically possible but would be a major fabrication job, and it’s only part of the problem. IFS designs with McPherson struts means travel at the wheel is almost identical to travel at the strut, so the effective spring rate for articulation is the same as for vertical travel. That’s not the case for a live axle.

[Brenno]

Is this the same for Pajero front ends Steve, haven't had a real good look at them or do they mimic current era ute ifs

[fordem]

There are two different issues being discussed here - the macpherson strut IFS limiting the travel and the rear control arm bush further limiting the travel.

The Pajeros use a strut front end, either double wishbone or macpherson strut (depending on the model) so that limitation still exists, however, I've not seen any of them with the vertically oriented control arm bush that is the real issue with the third gens.