Powerflex or Polybush?

[wolfie]

About to sort out all the rubber suspension gubbins and thought I'd ask who uses which and is there really any difference between the 2 manufacturers in terms of quality and compound?

[Hans Efde]

Can't tell anything about Polybush, but got a Metro kit from Powerflex and was disappointed by the fit. The lower suspension arm bushes were too loose and the AR bar bushes didn't fit at all. The factory fixed it (thread somewhere on this forum) but the question is how many bad kits are out there.

[Rich]

I initially made my own, then I bought Powerflex and have used them since without problem.

[Jin]

I used flo-flex on the quantum and so did quite a few, about 1/4 the price of the others and never had an issue, the handling felt sharper too

[ACourtney]

I use Powerflex bushes, mainly because I've been using their bushes since I first came across them for my Sierra some twenty odd years ago - Powerflex grew from Power Engineering who were Sierra specialists back then. Sierra 4x4s used to eat through the front bushes in less than a year, which resulted in the front tyres wearing unevenly. The Powerflex ones solved the problem and were still working fine when I sold the car.

I haven't seen the same problems as Hans did, but I don't use polyurethane ARB to subframe bushes. The original MG Metro bushes are nylon and provide a good location for the ARB, but do wear, so I prefer to replace them with new nylon bushes rather than polyurethane.

I can supply Powerflex bushes and I'm usually a few pounds cheaper as I'm not VAT registered.

[Stuart]

The original MG Metro bushes are nylon and provide a good location for the ARB, but do wear, so I prefer to replace them with new nylon bushes rather than polyurethane.

Alistair do you have a preferred brand of anti-roll bar bushes? also do you know if there is a difference between FSK5990K and FSK5991K ? as I've seen both listed on eBay.

Thanks

[ACourtney]

I don't have a specific brand that I look for (just getting Metro parts is enough of a challenge these days sometimes), but the last ones that I bought were FirstLine

Looking up the two part numbers on the FirstLine catalogue,
FSK5990K is described as: Anti-roll Bar Bush Kit - Soft type - axle set and is listed for the MG Metro (1,3) from 1982-84 and 84-90 and for the MG Metro (1.3 Turbo) 1984-90
FSK5991K is described as: Anti-roll Bar Bush Kit - Hard type - axle set and is listed for the MG Metro (1.3 Turbo) from 1982-84

Both are made from nylon so even the soft type will be stiffer than the polyurethane ones.
The idea is that the Anti-roll bar to subframe mounting needs to be stiff to keep the suspension aligned and the compliance should be provided by the bushes in the lower arm. Perhaps the Austin-Rover engineers found the Hard type bushes on the Turbo too firm and dropped them for the series 2, or maybe it was simply an economy measure of not stocking too many different (but visually identical) components.

[Stuart]

That's great thank you. I'll comment on the springs when my brain is working.