Wheel Track - Control Arms, Hubs, Trailings Arms swap info

Regarding Rear Sway Bar Types FYI:

Models that use the link kit MR178796 (pictured below list in red)
HNHM GR, 5FM/T
HNHM3 GR-Limited, 5FM / T
HNHM4 GR Sports-Package, 5FM/T
fto-non-mivec-rear-droplink-location.jpg




Models that use the "drop link" type (pictured below list in red)
HNFH GP (Mivec), 5FM / T
HNFH2 GP Special (Mivec), 5FM/T
HNFH3 GP Version-R (Mivec), 5FM/T
HNFH4 GP Version-R2 (Mivec), 5FM / T
HNGH GPX (Mivec), 5FM/T
HNGH2 GPX COTY-Special (Mivec), 5FM/T
HNXM GX, 5FM / T
HNXM4 GX2, 5FM/T
evo23-rear-droplinks-location.jpg
 
Last edited:
Spetz said:
The other difference that the FTO LCAs have is some have sway bar mounts and others don't.
eg, the Version R and possibly GR the swaybar mounts onto the LCA whereas the GPX it mounts onto the damper.

ftoaustralia.com has these details somewhere if anyone needs to know
Click to expand...

Thats the same thing CA-CC and earlier generation CEs right? they have the sway bar fittings on the damper too.
 
samurai blues said:
Thats the same thing CA-CC and earlier generation CEs right? they have the sway bar fittings on the damper too.
Click to expand...
If we are talking about the rear sway bar which is the only one as far as i know that has different mounts (All fronts should be the same across models) then all EVO's from 1 to 6 have drop link fittings same as the stock CE's.

I think Spetz may have said it the wrong way around. Cos drop links mount to the lower arm.
 
Lee I think perhaps you have it the other way around?
From my knowledge all the rears used the same mounting.
And I am certain the fronts have 2 different styles of mounting:
1. The CE type where they hook up onto the LCA with bushes etc (Version R has this style)
2. The GPX and CJ4A style that hooks onto the struts via droplink

Obviously from a leverage/motion perspective the swaybar linking onto the strut has a larger effect than onto the LCA
 
Spetz said:
Lee I think perhaps you have it the other way around?
From my knowledge all the rears used the same mounting.
And I am certain the fronts have 2 different styles of mounting:
1. The CE type where they hook up onto the LCA with bushes etc (Version R has this style)
2. The GPX and CJ4A style that hooks onto the struts via droplink

Obviously from a leverage/motion perspective the swaybar linking onto the strut has a larger effect than onto the LCA
Click to expand...

The pics I provided which are rears suggest other wise.
 
I know the non-MIVEC FTOs has a thinner rear swaybar so perhaps they mounted differently too. Never seen these in person however
 
Based on all the fto front assembly pics. None show a different mounting type. Only the rear. So i dunno.
 
Spetz said:
Lee I think perhaps you have it the other way around?
From my knowledge all the rears used the same mounting.
Click to expand...

There definitely is different rears.
CJ4A is a bit vague, CE Coupes and Mirages are also CJ4a's in essence. Also CJ4A's across all trims and models within use both methods and FTO's also share the same differences.

For instance:
The CJ4A Cyborg ZR between 95 to mid 98 use the same as the CE's which attach via droplink to LCA (Picture below).
134_0103EQ1E7T.png



Then from 98 to 99 they used the direct bolt into the LCA as picture below:
134_0103EQ1G7T.png


However I do not see any different mounting types in the Fronts for FTO's there is however for the Cyborg's, 2 types. 1 type matches the FTO's (1st picture is same mounting type as FTO) the other is slightly different as per below .
1st Type (Cyborg-ZR)
133_1103EP2K7T.png

(FTO)
133_1103BP2A0T.png



2nd Type (Cyborg):
133_1103EP2F7T.png
 
Does anyone know how hard it is to replace a front swaybar in a CE?
Primarily interested in whether the K frame needs to come out to do this?
 
I wouldn't say it NEEDS to come out, but it would make it a lot easier. I dropped mine a bit and had enough room to do the bushes, but I doubt there would have been enough room to get the whole bar out.
 
Is it a real PITA?
Does the engine need to be supported?

I have whiteline front and rear swaybars currently on the car but thinking of going OEM FTO Version R swaybars front and rear (20mm on both sides).

I adjusted the rear whiteline swaybar to the stiffest setting but hadn't noticed any change in handling... I assume that the bar is so stiff that everything else is flexing back there (ie, the brackets that hold the bar) so making it stiffer isn't actually removing any additional roll
 
Nah wasn't too bad, there was definitely more drop in it too so you could undo the subframe bolts all the way, loosen the crossmember bolts so the whole lot drops down, use the 2 side eng mounts to keep everything suspended and you *should* have just enough room to maneuver the bar out.
 
I undid the K frame and dropped it slightly, i didnt take it out, the bolts are quite long so you can drop it 50mm without it coming out.
Only thing you need to do is the steering rack>coloumn nut, take that out so it will come down, otherwise the coloumn will hold it up.

How much you need to drop depends on your spanner/socket set and how small you hands are.
 
So the swaybar can be replaced without dropping the subframe, just getting to the necessary bolts requires it to be dropped?

@pLethora
Can you check when the part numbers for the CE front swaybar droplinks are the same as the FTO Version R?
Just wondering if the FTO Version R front swaybar will connect to the Lancer LCA (since there are swaybar holes there)
 
Spetz said:
So the swaybar can be replaced without dropping the subframe, just getting to the necessary bolts requires it to be dropped?

@pLethora
Can you check when the part numbers for the CE front swaybar droplinks are the same as the FTO Version R?
Just wondering if the FTO Version R front swaybar will connect to the Lancer LCA (since there are swaybar holes there)
Click to expand...

got your answer right here. P/N MR316318 being superceded to P/N 4056A015 (NEWER).

Shared P/N by

CJ4A
[CE Mirage(Asti RS DNDH, RS DNMH, RX Version R DNPH) -- All these starting with D are coupes. Also (Cyborg RS MNDH, Cyborg RS Cup car Base MNDH2, RS MNMH). This set the 3 dr hatch obviously]

CN9A, CP9A, CT9A (Evo 4,5,6,7,8,9)

CU2W, CU4W, CU5W (Airtrek Turbo, the other 2 lazy to check, but defo N/A Airtreks and Outlanders)

DE3A (All the Version Rs, including Aero. Both Auto & Manual)
 
They link differently to the LCA compared to the normal Mirage/Lancer.
They link with the tab like the Evo ones.

I'd need to run Version R FTO LCAs to use the Version R 20mm swaybar or perhaps I could modify my stock LCA by drilling through and using an Evo tabs that just bolt in:
304798d1501791993-make-your-front-sway-bar-adjustable-pic002.jpg
 
Anybody here have experience swapping the 2.4 ch hubs into ce mirage knuckles.

Ive done it, but with problems and forgot to check measurements beforehand of hub widths. And seem to have bearing wobble, caused by not being able to tighten up the driveshaft onto the bearing. Measuring the hubs 2.4ch to 1.5 ce look to be around 10mm difference in spline length. I thought no problem i just got custom bearings with the same inner and outter diameter as the mirage, but with the width of the ch. It didnt click until a week later that having a wider bearing i wouldnt be able to replace the c clip retaining the bearing, i dont like that idea.

Now my question is, how have you guys done the conversion?

The options i see are,
1. Take the ch hubs to be machined down to the same length as a ce.
2. Find a cheap set of fto hubs and redrill then 4x114
3. Find a set of evo 3 / gsr front hubs and lose an arm paying for them as most people will only sell the whole setup including knuckles and calipers.
 
As as ex s40 volvo owner, most of the s40 suspension components are the same as a lancer/mirage/evo

sauce : https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-188031.html
As stated by username dxmachina

Brake components are partly interchangeable - if you look up EVO3 Brakes you'll find that the calipers from Mitsubishi's fire-breathing monster can be fitted straight to an X40 - they even use the same terminators so you can keep the original Volvo brake flexi pipes (or use EVO3 braided pipes on an x40) - however disks on an EVO3 are smaller and their calipers wont fit over a volvo disk.

HOWEVER - its uncertain whether the EVO3 and x40 use the same Brake Master Cylinder: EVO3 brakes are twin pot and mnight need more fluid for the same effect.

Anti Roll Bars and Strut Braces are also interchangeable as the wheel distances and strut pillars are the same - useful as Volvo didn't do a factory fit rear Strut Brace but many evo parts fit, at a cost of compromising the load bay space.

Gearboxes are not shared - x40 uses Renault (most phase 1s, all diesels, most T4s, some 1.6 phase 2s) or Volvo M56 boxes (everything else except.... the GDi which has a Mitsu engine and probably gearbox too)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top