CompBrake Solid Top Mounts

[Simbo]

Hey guys... Does anyone have any experience / comment on CompBrake solid top mounts? I need to replace my current Kam Racing (adjustable) mounts due to the internal bearings being shot (MOT issue) and wonder whether the camber / castor adjustment afforded by the adjustable mounts is really worth the extra cost? Price difference is more than £120 so fitting camber bolts seems a cheaper option for camber adjustment but I'm uncertain whether castor adjustment is necessary for running reduced ride height? Any advice / comments will be gratefully received. TIA

 

[Touring_Rob]

Hey guys... Does anyone have any experience / comment on CompBrake solid top mounts? I need to replace my current Kam Racing (adjustable) mounts due to the internal bearings being shot (MOT issue) and wonder whether the camber / castor adjustment afforded by the adjustable mounts is really worth the extra cost? Price difference is more than £120 so fitting camber bolts seems a cheaper option for camber adjustment but I'm uncertain whether castor adjustment is necessary for running reduced ride height? Any advice / comments will be gratefully received. TIA

Is it just the bearing that's failed? If you you should be able to change that on its own for far less.

They normally use pillow ball bearings and the mounts I've seen it looked fairly straight forward to change them.

 

[Simbo]

Many thanks for your reply.
As it happens, I did buy a pair of replacement bearings (from Kev at Kam Racing) but I came to the, perhaps incorrect, conclusion that they are probably pressed-in and will therefore be difficult to remove. I have to work on my car in the street. So, I was looking for a cheaper alternative that will be a simple swap. But if the bearings are not too difficult to remove then perhaps I'll have a go at replacing them. Have you seen it done...?

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

Many thanks for your reply.
As it happens, I did buy a pair of replacement bearings (from Kev at Kam Racing) but I came to the, perhaps incorrect, conclusion that they are probably pressed-in and will therefore be difficult to remove. I have to work on my car in the street. So, I was looking for a cheaper alternative that will be a simple swap. But if the bearings are not too difficult to remove then perhaps I'll have a go at replacing them. Have you seen it done...?

Are they these ones? Look like the spherical is held in by a nut. Rob knows more than me though!

Edit: Theres just a circlip underneath?

 

[Touring_Rob]

Sorry had just come back from the pub so wasn't making much sense

Pillow ball and spherical are one and the same. I believe the correct term is spherical bearing however lots of top mounts call them pillow ball. No idea why!? Perhaps a yank thing, maybe because it's been confused with pillow block over the years?

Anyway, as the good man Beauvais Motorsport above says. What mounts have you currently got?

If they are as above the circlip can be removed and the bearing will tap out. Ive seen another pattern where the bearing is pressed into an Ali holding plate (normally the ones that give you camber or caster adjustment). However I'd bet they aren't a very tight press fit as they don't really need to be. You could likely tap them out without a press.

Or you could take them to a friendly garage...

Either way. I don't want to spoil your weekend by saying they are an easy thing to remove as I've never done it and don't know what mounts you have

I did come across this, is this more similar to the mount you have? Chap in the video is using a very simple press, there are a few cheap kits on Amazon that would work, but I still think I could have hammered that out

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

'Camber and caster adjustable' And king pin inclination adjustable, svsa, fvsa, strut axis and a host of other things adjustable too

Edit: dont forget scrub radius adjustable, a forums favorite

 

[Simbo]

'Camber and caster adjustable' And king pin inclination adjustable, svsa, fvsa, strut axis and a host of other things adjustable too

Edit: dont forget scrub radius adjustable, a forums favorite

So for most of us mere mortals it’s probably far better to just stick with the original geometry developed and perfected by Renault than to completely mess it all up in ignorance When things are infinitely adjustable are they ever right...? And how do you know...?

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

So for most of us mere mortals it’s probably far better to just stick with the original geometry developed and perfected by Renault than to completely mess it all up in ignorance When things are infinitely adjustable are they ever right...? And how do you know...?

It changes so much its makes your brain want to explode. Setup something and do temp checks etc, its whats most do and the most you can do, unless you do 3d scanning of the chassis or coordinate measurement like with a faro arm and have the entire car in cad or some kinematics software, then you can really understand whats happening.

"When things are infinitely adjustable are they ever right...?" Thats why they never stop developing, theres always performance to squeeze out. 'How do you know' Lap times, tyre/brake wear I guess, Im no expert I have to admit but so far Ive spent a probably more than I should have studying and on equipment. Ive had some pretty big setbacks this year but I have a rather decent 3d scanner and want to scan the clio chassis, hubs, arms etc so for once and for all we can know exactly whats going on!

One thing I want to find out it is what happens to the side view swing arm instant centre with roll centre correction because Ive heard of poor tyre wear and the need for a lot of camber, implying, theres little dynamic caster and caster in general when you fit a kit of some kind, if you were to add more caster as well then that may cancel things out due to the svsa strut axis shortening the instant centre, but see its things like this that you need to bare in mind and how they can negatively effect other areas of the suspension kinematics. I hope my computer is powerful to have the scan of the car..

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

@Tory-ing_Rob I think I have Alzheimers have you ever fit a digital readout to a lathe/mill? Its one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the columns

 

[Simbo]

You obviously have an in-depth knowledge of suspension kinematics and a thorough appreciation of the impact of subtle geometric changes - and are prepared to go to, it seems looking forward to, great lengths to expand your knowledge, which is all very commendable and I wish you every success. But your comments seem to simply bring me back to my previous (tongue in cheek) summary that many of us stand a good chance of easily spoiling what is widely regarded as a decent handling standard car.
I use my standard-engined 172 Cup only for hill-climbs and bought it a couple of years ago from a hill-climber / sprinter who had spent the previous 5 years attempting to optimise the front & rear spring / damper rates, suspension ride height / camber / castor etc. etc. Consequently, the car is fitted with BC coilovers, bump-steer kit, adjustable top mounts, PMS rear anti-roll bar, front wheel spacers in combination with no rear wheel spacers to help minimise understeer, and the wheels are fitted with R888Rs.
I am now in the period of the car's ownership where things are beginning to require replacement and, perhaps in naive ignorance, I am thinking that there must surely, by now, be a well known, well documented, widely acknowledged, near-ideal set-up for such an extremely popular track / hill-climb / sprint / competition car that suits spirited driving for most tarmac conditions? So, let's say with a 25mm reduced ride height and with a minimal amount of fuel on board, what are the ideal camber / castor / toe angles in combination with ideal tyre pressures to optimise turn-in? Basically, we are all starting with the same chassis (with or without the stiffness of a roll cage) so why are we all spending years seeking the holy grail as individuals? In isolation? There are huge amounts of "go-faster" goodies being pushed by no-end of suppliers but the Mk2 Clio has been around for more than 2 decades now, so... surely, the magic configuration (that works for most) has been formulated by now? So, if anyone on here is prepared to share the magic, I'd love to hear from you. TIA

 

[Touring_Rob]

You obviously have an in-depth knowledge of suspension kinematics and a thorough appreciation of the impact of subtle geometric changes - and are prepared to go to, it seems looking forward to, great lengths to expand your knowledge, which is all very commendable and I wish you every success. But your comments seem to simply bring me back to my previous (tongue in cheek) summary that many of us stand a good chance of easily spoiling what is widely regarded as a decent handling standard car.
I use my standard-engined 172 Cup only for hill-climbs and bought it a couple of years ago from a hill-climber / sprinter who had spent the previous 5 years attempting to optimise the front & rear spring / damper rates, suspension ride height / camber / castor etc. etc. Consequently, the car is fitted with BC coilovers, bump-steer kit, adjustable top mounts, PMS rear anti-roll bar, front wheel spacers in combination with no rear wheel spacers to help minimise understeer, and the wheels are fitted with R888Rs.
I am now in the period of the car's ownership where things are beginning to require replacement and, perhaps in naive ignorance, I am thinking that there must surely, by now, be a well known, well documented, widely acknowledged, near-ideal set-up for such an extremely popular track / hill-climb / sprint / competition car that suits spirited driving for most tarmac conditions? So, let's say with a 25mm reduced ride height and with a minimal amount of fuel on board, what are the ideal camber / castor / toe angles in combination with ideal tyre pressures to optimise turn-in? Basically, we are all starting with the same chassis (with or without the stiffness of a roll cage) so why are we all spending years seeking the holy grail as individuals? In isolation? There are huge amounts of "go-faster" goodies being pushed by no-end of suppliers but the Mk2 Clio has been around for more than 2 decades now, so... surely, the magic configuration (that works for most) has been formulated by now? So, if anyone on here is prepared to share the magic, I'd love to hear from you. TIA

Simbo, I haven't read @Beauvais Motorsport's reply properly yet but if you are happy with how the car drove before the top mount debacle and know what the setup was before then my personal advice would be to just replace the bearings, set top mounts back to where the were originally and take it to a good company for an alignment - ideally telling them what the last settings were (maybe you have paperwork covering it).

 

[Touring_Rob]

@Tory-ing_Rob I think I have Alzheimers have you ever fit a digital readout to a lathe/mill? Its one of the last pieces of the puzzle for the columns

I have not no. I have repaired and recalibrated one on out shonky mill at work, and oddly fitted a single read out to a pillar drill when we had a lot of set depth holes to drill once but I've never fitted a full DRO kit - it doesn't look too difficult tbh as long as the digital scales are parallel to the relevant axis

I was pretty impressed with the cheap Chinese scale I used to repair the mill too.

 

[Simbo]

Sorry had just come back from the pub so wasn't making much sense

Pillow ball and spherical are one and the same. I believe the correct term is spherical bearing however lots of top mounts call them pillow ball. No idea why!? Perhaps a yank thing, maybe because it's been confused with pillow block over the years?

Anyway, as the good man Beauvais Motorsport above says. What mounts have you currently got?

If they are as above the circlip can be removed and the bearing will tap out. Ive seen another pattern where the bearing is pressed into an Ali holding plate (normally the ones that give you camber or caster adjustment). However I'd bet they aren't a very tight press fit as they don't really need to be. You could likely tap them out without a press.

Or you could take them to a friendly garage...

Either way. I don't want to spoil your weekend by saying they are an easy thing to remove as I've never done it and don't know what mounts you have

I did come across this, is this more similar to the mount you have? Chap in the video is using a very simple press, there are a few cheap kits on Amazon that would work, but I still think I could have hammered that out

Many thanks for taking the trouble to post the video. All looks very easy with the simple press.
My current top mounts are the Kam Racing adjustable type with the 3 little socket-cap screws securing the eccentric / orbiting top plate to the main body. The camber & castor are changed by simply rotating the eccentric top plate prior to securing in place with the 3 cap-screws.
Cheers!

 

[Simbo]

Simbo, I haven't read @Beauvais Motorsport's reply properly yet but if you are happy with how the car drove before the top mount debacle and know what the setup was before then my personal advice would be to just replace the bearings, set top mounts back to where the were originally and take it to a good company for an alignment - ideally telling them what the last settings were (maybe you have paperwork covering it).

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

@Simbo Sorry I didn't realise you had the adjustable ones. I run the same with ast coilovers, where have you set then?

I would listen to Rob 100% of the time though it seems every time I've asked him something hes been right..

 

[PhillipM]

Honestly they're loose enough you could probably just knock them out with a socket or a punch through the holes and a hammer, even working on them outside on the street, they're not that big a bearing and it's only an alloy housing.

 

[Simbo]

Yes, agree that would be the logical approach. However, whilst the car drove OK... I feel I should iterate through various set-ups to determine whether it could be better! Which will be nothing more than trial and error, and hence very time consuming. So, I am just curious as whether there is a known and widely accepted configuration that generally works - at least as a good starting point. Hence my initial idea of going back to the original factory geometry so see if it's any better or worse than my current non-standard set-up. Basically, did the previous owner lose his way with all this and did I inherit something poorer than standard. To be honest, I have no idea.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

You obviously have an in-depth knowledge of suspension kinematics and a thorough appreciation of the impact of subtle geometric changes - and are prepared to go to, it seems looking forward to, great lengths to expand your knowledge, which is all very commendable and I wish you every success. But your comments seem to simply bring me back to my previous (tongue in cheek) summary that many of us stand a good chance of easily spoiling what is widely regarded as a decent handling standard car.
I use my standard-engined 172 Cup only for hill-climbs and bought it a couple of years ago from a hill-climber / sprinter who had spent the previous 5 years attempting to optimise the front & rear spring / damper rates, suspension ride height / camber / castor etc. etc. Consequently, the car is fitted with BC coilovers, bump-steer kit, adjustable top mounts, PMS rear anti-roll bar, front wheel spacers in combination with no rear wheel spacers to help minimise understeer, and the wheels are fitted with R888Rs.
I am now in the period of the car's ownership where things are beginning to require replacement and, perhaps in naive ignorance, I am thinking that there must surely, by now, be a well known, well documented, widely acknowledged, near-ideal set-up for such an extremely popular track / hill-climb / sprint / competition car that suits spirited driving for most tarmac conditions? So, let's say with a 25mm reduced ride height and with a minimal amount of fuel on board, what are the ideal camber / castor / toe angles in combination with ideal tyre pressures to optimise turn-in? Basically, we are all starting with the same chassis (with or without the stiffness of a roll cage) so why are we all spending years seeking the holy grail as individuals? In isolation? There are huge amounts of "go-faster" goodies being pushed by no-end of suppliers but the Mk2 Clio has been around for more than 2 decades now, so... surely, the magic configuration (that works for most) has been formulated by now? So, if anyone on here is prepared to share the magic, I'd love to hear from you. TIA

My car has a manual rack with modified parts and quick ratio gearing. Im very personal with ergonomics @Mbeau will tell you as hes sat in my car as the wheel is very close to the driver in a leaned back position. I also would never run without rear spacers or the 630lb springs I have on the rear as the balance is perfect for me, I run 513lb front sprints and any lower the outside wheel loads to much as I have a low roll centre which wants to (crude way of putting it) 'pull' the wheel down. I have my adjustable mounts set full to caster then some increase in track and king pin inclination (which inadvertently lowers some of the positive scrub radius) with adjustable wishbone bushings. I run 16mm front spacers. Around 2.5deg camber and 0.1mm toe out front, rear is standard because I want to first sort out (see next sentence). The weak leak in my setup without any need to go into depth is the too little rear coilover travel length and too much mechanical trail. Also theres not enough throttle pedal resistance, I looked at the springs inside one a while ago and measured them to order some others but never got round to it.

 

[PhillipM]

Yes, agree that would be the logical approach. However, whilst the car drove OK... I feel I should iterate through various set-ups to determine whether it could be better! Which will be nothing more than trial and error, and hence very time consuming. So, I am just curious as whether there is a known and widely accepted configuration that generally works - at least as a good starting point. Hence my initial idea of going back to the original factory geometry so see if it's any better or worse than my current non-standard set-up. Basically, did the previous owner lose his way with all this and did I inherit something poorer than standard. To be honest, I have no idea.

Honestly top mounts generally alter geometery so little it'd be hard to say it could be anything drastically out.

 

[Touring_Rob]

Honestly top mounts generally alter geometery so little it'd be hard to say it could be anything drastically out.

Well, his alter geometry a fair amount I'd say? Rotating plate giving you some odd combo of more/less caster varying with camber. My too mounts (mini) give anywhere between +1 and -4degs which is quite a difference

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

I set mine to fully negative once to see how it would effect the mech trail as it was my daily and was awful to drive 45 min each way. Probably 20% lighter steering but man the steering was horrendous. I set then back to full positive and the drive back was so good, all that self aligning torque and overall stability was a relief to feel again.

 

[Simbo]

Many thanks for all your input, guys. It’s extremely interesting how we’re all searching for the optimal set-up but all seem to end-up with different configurations to varying degrees.
So, going back to basics... can I go far wrong using non-adjustable solid top mounts to maintain factory castor angle but use camber bolts to dial-in just a little more than standard negative camber to help improve turn-in? My car does very little road mileage - hill-climb runs generally take no more than 60 seconds - so not worried about wearing the inner edge of the tyres. Then get the toe-in / toe-out tracking set to standard factory spec after the ride height and camber have been set to non-standard?
So I guess my overall question is..: does reduced ride height detrimentally alter castor angle? In which case, are adjustable top mounts required to get the strut axis back to the standard factory castor angle? If not then, presumably, non-adjustable top mounts will do? But, in basic terms, is this the crux of the question?
Thanks again for all your input. It is certainly a fascinating subject.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

Many thanks for all your input, guys. It’s extremely interesting how we’re all searching for the optimal set-up but all seem to end-up with different configurations to varying degrees.
So, going back to basics... can I go far wrong using non-adjustable solid top mounts to maintain factory castor angle but use camber bolts to dial-in just a little more than standard negative camber to help improve turn-in? My car does very little road mileage - hill-climb runs generally take no more than 60 seconds - so not worried about wearing the inner edge of the tyres. Then get the toe-in / toe-out tracking set to standard factory spec after the ride height and camber have been set to non-standard?
So I guess my overall question is..: does reduced ride height detrimentally alter castor angle? In which case, are adjustable top mounts required to get the strut axis back to the standard factory castor angle? If not then, presumably, non-adjustable top mounts will do? But, in basic terms, is this the crux of the question?
Thanks again for all your input. It is certainly a fascinating subject.

That depends, do you want more or less and which do you see as detrimental? I see less as detrimental..

Dont hold me to this, but reducing ride height from standard will increase caster slightly. It was also increase the rate of dynamic caster (shorter SVSA instant centre), but thats not something Ive delved into too much.

Are you using the standard hydraulic pas system? Because you add too much caster (mechanical trail) you will then start to require more twist in the torsion bar and create a more sloppy/laggy/elastic steering, My theory of why track cars pas systems over heat is because the torsion bar is too thin and the ratio of mechanical steering to hydraulic is way off. So the pas system does more work than it can cope with due to the sticky rubber/increased caster/quick ratio rack and constant high turning forces.

Fitting a thicker torsion bar would balance out the system but then I dont have a cnc cylindrical grinder so I cant trial things my self without spending a lot of money getting other people to do it for me..

The problem with epas is exactly the same, its not setup for a race car, so when people complain of it cutting out during corners or wondering all over the place, its because you are twisting the bar all the way and the motor is at its max. It goes so much deeper down the rabbit hole I shake my head at why Ive looked into this in the first place.

My advice would be to perhaps try out standard caster or just stick with your mounts you have now to save cost, and fit one of these (its all I could find after a quick search) thats if you're running standard hpas, along with cup racer rack bushes. I feel like a stuck record as no one ever trys them out but the original lower joints are sloppy rubber, it makes no sense for them to be and without them being solid I have no idea how anyone can truly drive fast and smooth with the steering going all over the place.

Bague fixation cremaillere Clio Cup, Clio Gr N et Clio 2 RS

Retrouvez toutes les pieces de Clio Gr N Renault sport parmi nos produits pour l'entretien, la préparation et l'optimisation sur www.optimiz-access.fr Pièces et Accessoires Spécialiste Renault Sport Optimiz Access

www.optimiz-access.fr

Ball Joint Link Steering Column RENAULT Twingo (2009) 1.2 Petrol 43KW 3P | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Ball Joint Link Steering Column RENAULT Twingo (2009) 1.2 Petrol 43KW 3P at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk

18053 STEERING CLUTCH STEERING JOINT Renault Twingo II (CN) 2008 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 18053 STEERING CLUTCH STEERING JOINT Renault Twingo II (CN) 2008 at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk

 

[Simbo]

You make a very good point about overworking the PAS... yes, I understand that reducing the ride height will increase castor - the strut upper mounting is brought closer to the ground but all vertical dimensions associated with the wheel / hub are unchanged so, due to the upper mount being offset slightly rearwards from the hub (creating the castor angle) the strut axis becomes even more inclined, thereby increasing the castor angle. And since the castor angle provides the steering's self-centring effect then, when turning, the PAS has to work harder than usual. Apologies if I'm stating the obvious here, but the penny has only just dropped on that one!
Compared with hill-climb cars, track cars spend far longer periods of time with the steering other than straight ahead. However, far greater steering inputs are required during hill-climbs since many of the 'corners' can be relatively sharp, some negotiated in only first or second gear. And... a few times I have experienced my steering going 'dead', just momentarily, during rapid steering input. Of course, this could simply be a symptom of a poor / tired PAS system, but in light of the above... increased castor angle will only exacerbate the problem. Consequently, I'm currently leaning towards using my adjustable top mounts simply to negate the impact of the reduced ride height and to regain the factory castor angle. (Is this the primary, intended, purpose of adjustable top mounts...?!!)

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

All I can say is if you truly want the answers, get yourself a copy of 'Steering handbook' by Manfred Harrer and Peter Pfeffer, 'Race Car Vehicle Dynamics' by the Milliken brothers and 'Tyre and vehicle dynamics' by H. B. Pacejka.

There are so many reasons as to why things happens, its a minefield.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

 

[Simbo]

A bewildering set of parameters for sure. However, I am not attempting to design a car's suspension and steering geometry from a clean sheet of paper. For a given model, many of these parameters are fixed and I am only trying to understand what I should do to compensate for choosing a lower right height afforded by a set of (stiffer) coilovers. The position of all the suspension upper and lower attachments to the chassis have changed with respect to the road surface, whilst the height of the wheel axis above the road is unchanged. So if, as has been suggested, I were to take my car to a company specialising in geometry set-up, what will they do? I stand to be corrected but, I don't imagine many of your listed parameters will be measured or quantified? They are what they are for a given model, as designed and 'sized' by those clever engineers at Renault. Of course, any road car has been designed as a compromise between comfort and performance etc. etc. so there is much scope for 'improvement' if the car is to be used solely for competition and, as you say, the development thereof is endless. Nonetheless, what will the specialist company 'adjust' on my car if I were to present it to them as is? That is, what would be the optimal combination of ride height versus spring pre-load / camber / castor and toe? As I see it, since these are the only variables (other than tyre pressures) that the geometry specialist can play with on my particular car, what would be the end-result for these respective settings? Surely, for given (common) models of track car, these geometry set-up specialists know what geometry combinations generally work best before they even see your car? So, I guess that's where I need to go...?! Unless some kind individual can enlighten me in the meantime...?
Thanks again for your extensive input. It has been most informative.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

Those graphs were just an example taken from the Steering Handbook. You have self aligning torque as well as mechanical trail and a host of other things that can alter the steering.

If you read 30 pages of Race car vehicle dynamics every single question you asked is there, but then obviously the optimum setup to find is up to you to find out through equations and £££. Sorry I cant be of much help, and I dont know of a specialist that could properly set up a car from scratch without spending more than its worth.

If you are still interested in clios when I have a full scan of the car I can offer more help.

All I have which serves nothing more than to just look at.. A 'cup racer' hub scan. This was the scanners first test to make sure I knew its performance was satisfactory, which it is.

 

[Simbo]

The scan is certainly impressive. But as you obviously realise... I'm looking for a cheap / quick fix...! From what I've read, it seems that many trackday Clio 172s run with about 2.5 / 2.8-deg negative camber - and since reduced ride height tends to increase castor I think, as a starting point, I'll set my castor back to factory spec (benefit of the adjustable top mounts) and experiment from there - with incremental adjustments back to the current castor angle. But I guess with each incremental castor adjustment, a toe correction will also be required?

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

The scan is certainly impressive. But as you obviously realise... I'm looking for a cheap / quick fix...! From what I've read, it seems that many trackday Clio 172s run with about 2.5 / 2.8-deg negative camber - and since reduced ride height tends to increase castor I think, as a starting point, I'll set my castor back to factory spec (benefit of the adjustable top mounts) and experiment from there - with incremental adjustments back to the current castor angle. But I guess with each incremental castor adjustment, a toe correction will also be required?

If you move the top mounts then every thing changes so you will need to yes, including camber and king pin inclination , which also increases self centering when added, but reduces scrub radius also, and a host of other changes happen too.... Thats the problem with the type of top mounts you have (that I also have) you really need some that are infinitely adjustable, pure motorsport do a kit that you have to weld in but I have no experience of said kit.

 

[Jackie]

Interesting discussion. Most of it was right over my head towards the end there.

Sorry to butt in, but Is there an upgraded top mount that people generally prefer over standard?
Few years ago I replaced my original Renault top mounts with Febi ones, was barely any different.

I've now just done a complete suspension refresh including Cooksport springs, cup dampers, wishbone and arb bushes.
And even MOT man put top mounts down as an advisory! Too loose I guess, which is how it feels to me while driving.

There's Gaz ones, comp somethings on eBay,
Powerflex, some other one that has a matching front strut brace.

Would love to hear what you gentlemen would choose.
Don't want all that new suspension money wasted. Thanks for the interesting discussion also.

 

[Jackie]

I'll be looking at some steering rack bushes now too lol. I think there's also one on the column somewhere.

Maybe these plus new solid top mounts would make the car awful on the road however. And that is where 98 percent of my driving would be.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

The one with the strut brace is from pure mortorsport. For steering rack ‘bushes’ you want the cup racer ones, I bought from enay seems they’ve run out, might get some more in as they were cheaper than from optimism access

Pardon our interruption...

Bague fixation cremaillere Clio Cup, Clio Gr N et Clio 2 RS

Retrouvez toutes les pieces de Clio Gr N Renault sport parmi nos produits pour l'entretien, la préparation et l'optimisation sur www.optimiz-access.fr Pièces et Accessoires Spécialiste Renault Sport Optimiz Access

www.optimiz-access.fr

Column joint is to replace to a completely solid version. From electric columns, twingos and some dacias.

2008 RENAULT TWINGO II 07-11 1.6 PETROL STEERING KNUCKLE COUPLING | eBay

THIS ITEM IS A USED 2008 RENAULT TWINGO II 07-11 1.6 PETROL STEERING KNUCKLE COUPLING. TWINGO 2007 -2011 Twingo II Phase 1. That the cooling system is functioning without leaks and blockages, and that the correct new oil filter and oil are installed correctly.

www.ebay.co.uk

That one looks a little dirty but only one I could find on a quick search, I think there is a part number for it but I won’t be at my computer till tomorrow to find it.

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

@Dutchie
Edit: they are in stock from eBay..

 

[Beauvais Motorsport]

@Dutchie Found a cleaner one

Renault Twingo CN0 II CROSS JOINT STEERING SCHOOL BUILT: 2010 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Renault Twingo CN0 II CROSS JOINT STEERING SCHOOL BUILT: 2010 at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products.

www.ebay.co.uk