Interchangeable Suspension Links?

[Jamie]

Are the lengths of the front and rear alloy suspension links the same on the Ruby? I have two different length links for the rear and a spare pair of matched front links. Can I just use the spare front links on the rear?

Regards,

Jamie.

[David Cochrane]

As far as I know, the front links on a Ruby are the same as the earlier cars (1¼" between centres). The rear links are longer (2¼").

[Jamie]

Thank you, David.

That is a shame. I have one long and one short link for the rear, and a spare pair of short front links. I had hoped to use them for the rear. Oh, well, it was worth asking.

I assume, even if they had have fitted, that being shorter, they would have limited suspension travel and reduced the effectiveness of the damping.

Regards,

Jamie.

[Nick Lettington]

https://www.theaustinsevenworkshop.com/c...-absorbers

I have a pair in the garage but at only £8 each, it's hardly worth buying second hand. That said, I found a flap for the Ruby boot lock just now whilst searching for the links. Somewhere I have the J shaped key too! The problem is having three cars in a double garage, two of which are CKD, it's a bit tricky to search! 

Given what they do, and that the sports and export ones are longer anyway, I doubt you'll note one short one on the back!

[Robert Leigh]

Looking at the different parts lists the rear shock absorber links are the same as the fronts on early Rubies, but this is not so on the later cars. The part number is different and I believe this indicates long links on the rear arms, and the arms themselves are shorter than on the early cars. The drawings in the parts lists can be misleading; frequently the drawings were not changed although the part numbers were. The drawings should not be used as a true indication when changes were made.

[Jamie]

Thank you for the replies and information about the different links. My car is a 1935 Ruby, so whether that counts as early or later is, I imagine, anyone's guess. It is tempting to put the short links on, simply because I have them. Does anyone know whether this is likely to cause any actual problems?

Regards,

Jamie.

[Howard Wright]

Hi Jamie

I believe all Rubys were low frame cars with flatter springs and taller torque tube brackets.  The rear dampers were shorter and had longer links fitted.  The longer links ensured that the damper arm was closer to horizontal and provided optimum friction damping.  

Shorter links will fit but, I guess, Austin fitted the long ones for a purpose!  They are not expensive!

Cheers

Howard

[Nick Lettington]

The links are there because the fixed length of the damper arm moving in a radius about the mounting point on the chassis would otherwise prevent the axle moving up and down without following the same arc. Howard may be correct about the arm sitting level, but it isn't going to affect the damping

I suspect the later shorter damper arms require a longer link so they don't reach the end of travel with extreme articulation of the axle, or there's a risk of them going over-centre. That would also explain the reason for longer ones on the sports models. The fronts are further inboard so don't need the same length to achieve the same degree of twist on one axle.

if you were to jack under one side of the axle and lift the car as high as you (safely) dare, you could check whether there is a risk of reaching the limit on the short links, but as Howard (and I) said, they aren't expensive. If it troubles you, I can supply one second hand.

Does this scribble explain it better?
   

[Robert Leigh]

I believe that your car is early Ruby and will have the longer rear shock absorber arms which used the shorter links. These would be similar to the previous box saloons and associated models. It is only the later Ruby type cars with short shock absorber arms which need the longer links.

[Duncan Grimmond]

Nick, pardon my higgorance but what does CKD mean?