Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Maintenance & Servicing Workshop Note - Fitting a Panhard Rod

Hi Dave
With your fitting of the attachment point of the panhard rod to the spring base, will that bolt that attaches the rod not hammer out on the chassis cross brace on rebound. Just looking at your first picture of the rod laid out is it not designed for the cross brace to be mounted approximately 25mm further back so that the bolt head will clear the cross brace. It means that the panhard rod will then be at a slight angle to the Chassis brace.
I admit I am not privy to the installation instructions so I may be totally out of order. Hopefully this makes sense. Comments from PGB.
Doug
From deep deep downunder.

Hi Doug.

The crossmember is meant to fit hard up against the rear floor timber. It could be mounted further forward on cars with this fuel tank but not on later cars with much less space.

The six leaf springs make the bottom plate much lower than the four leaf springs. Static test shows minimal clearance so I think it will be fine.

If it knocks, I'll insert some spacers between the chassis and crossmember and file a bit away from the crossmember at the point of contact.

I would agree. After the SSL front conversion, this is the best mod one can make to improve handling.

It made a huge difference to my +4. Can't say on the Roadster as it had one fitted & I then added anti tramp bars to keep it all in line.

Says the man who hasn't stopped modifying since he bought it !

Does he mod the rocker?

I’ve noticed SIFAB are now manufacturing Panhard Rod kits (in Miscellany)

It’s on my wish list to have one installed this year.

Personally I'm not keen on the idea of clamping the leaf springs with the bracket arrangement that the SIFAB uses, I do like the SSL method with the plate under the mounting though.

Dave, top job as ever !

I had a Mulfab one on the S1 and it definitely made a difference

I've been thinking about which is the better clamping method as I'm going to be fitting one soon.

The Sifab (and Mulfab) method of clamping directly onto the spring will in theory alter the movement of the spring but as it's right against the axle mounting I doubt it will have any noticeable effect. It's also well tried and tested over many years and fitments.

My slight worry with the SSL method (and remember I'm a great fan of the SSL front suspension system) is that it might induce some twisting moment into the axle clamping U bolts and I don't know what long term effect that will have on the U bolt tightness.

I think I'll go with the Sifab spring clamping system and see how the SSL method develops.