edited for the sake of maturity

Edited 16 May, 201313 yr by Lofty79

Solid bushes in my car as standard kit.

Solid bushes in my car as standard kit.

OK, but which, Poly Bush or Cupra.

DB

Well, thanks for all the discussion! TPS were out of Cupra bushes and I didn't want to wait... I ended up with the X style and that has made a massive difference alone!

Atleast I know for future and hopefully next time (if...) I can have the chance to do it myself and fit something more pro!

Had X style in both my Fabs, they were great.

Made a noticeable difference,especially in the SDI.

To answer Mogwe, a solid rubber bush, don't know if they are audi specific though.

They aren't as deep as the bushes on the fabia so I doubt they are the same PN

as the Cupra ones..

Solid bushes in my car as standard kit.

Could that be because it doesn't have a big heavy diesel lump vibrating away in there Gary?

I reckon so.

Well, thanks for all the discussion! TPS were out of Cupra bushes and I didn't want to wait... I ended up with the X style and that has made a massive difference alone!

Atleast I know for future and hopefully next time (if...) I can have the chance to do it myself and fit something more pro!

They'll be absolutely fine, they're much better than the origional design but may need doing again in a few years but worry about it then

I bought my car with the x bushes fitted and 25k on they're still in brilliant condition. I check everything over every 5k and have been expecting them to be worn by now but can't fault them

You're wrong. The cupra bush is a solid one part bush, it restricts movement in all directions including rotation, the Powerflex bush is a solid two part bush, it restricts movement in all directions but allows rotation. The only desirable movement for a console bush is rotation, by design the Powerflex is a better product.

Also considering how easy and obvious it is to check along with how common the failure is then I'm surprised the op didn't notice. The knocking and sloppy handling normally is usually a big clue.

This is simply not true, both the Powerflex and Cupra bushes do exactly the same job and both allow the necessary degree of movement otherwise they wouldn't work. The only real difference is the cost and the fact that you don't need a special fitting toot to fit the Powerflex bush, which, incidentally is why it's designed that way and not for any bogus 'rotational' reasons.

If you have access to the tool or you're paying a garage to do it then you can use the Cupra bush just as easily and save on the parts cost which is what I did and I'm delighted with the results.

This is simply not true, both the Powerflex and Cupra bushes do exactly the same job and both allow the necessary degree of movement otherwise they wouldn't work. The only real difference is the cost and the fact that you don't need a special fitting toot to fit the Powerflex bush, which, incidentally is why it's designed that way and not for any bogus 'rotational' reasons.

If you have access to the tool or you're paying a garage to do it then you can use the Cupra bush just as easily and save on the parts cost which is what I did and I'm delighted with the results.

Here we go again

Could you tell me where exactly I said they didn't do the same job and what exactly was untrue? I explained they do the same job differently. If by 'necessary degree of movement' you mean one rotates freely and the others don't at all and instead uses the flexibility of the bush material and construction till the hex on the wishbone forces it's way beyond the mold aperture or the supports tear then yes it'll work, but it's at the expense of the durability of the bush. In the I and X bushes and neither those or the cupra bush rotate as anyone who has ever removed one and fitted another will tell you. The I would tear because it couldn't rotate but had a lot of lateral flex, the X has less flex and will eventually tear in the same way but it'll take significantly longer, the cupra won't tear but has the least flex for rotation.

Incidentally I had access to the correct bush tool, I still didn't use it. The only way I'd fit standard bushes is by un bolting the console and pressing the bush out/in. Anything else is too much of a ball ache, it's not the official VAG process but its much more efficient.

Now if you could let me know exactly what in my previous post was untrue I'll be happy to admit my mistake as I'm sure you would if you'd made one

Here's an example of a bush that doesn't rotate and the lateral movement I stated was undesirable.

This is simply not true, both the Powerflex and Cupra bushes do exactly the same job and both allow the necessary degree of movement otherwise they wouldn't work. The only real difference is the cost and the fact that you don't need a special fitting toot to fit the Powerflex bush, which, incidentally is why it's designed that way and not for any bogus 'rotational' reasons.

If you have access to the tool or you're paying a garage to do it then you can use the Cupra bush just as easily and save on the parts cost which is what I did and I'm delighted with the results.

I think you are deluded. The powerflex is a far better design. The fact it allows fluid movement in the correct plane should be obvious. the cupra bush is constantly twisting with the wishbone rather than allowing the correct movement.

I think you are deluded. The powerflex is a far better design. The fact it allows fluid movement in the correct plane should be obvious. the cupra bush is constantly twisting with the wishbone rather than allowing the correct movement.

None of the bushes actually twist, what exactly do you mean?

None of the bushes actually twist, what exactly do you mean?

Of course they do. The wishbone wants the centre of the bush to rotate.

I wouldn't mind a spin in someone's car with powerflex bushes, preferably not lowered at all.

I don't want the hassle of getting them and then regretting it because they vibrate too much for my liking.

Of course they do. The wishbone wants the centre of the bush to rotate.

No it doesn't, the wishbone is just a hinge remember, it doesn't move much relative to wheel travel, and during normal driving on a smooth road it barely moves at all. The wishbone pivot can move freely the few degrees it needs to move within the bush since it is a steel pin inside a hard hexagonal rubber hole and not much of the pin is actually in contact with the rubber itself. The hexagonal hole shape serves two purposes, to reduce friction between the pivot pin and itself and to allow the head of the pivot pin to be passed through it more easily and still be positively retained.

No it doesn't, the wishbone is just a hinge remember, it doesn't move much relative to wheel travel, and during normal driving on a smooth road it barely moves at all. The wishbone pivot can move freely the few degrees it needs to move within the bush since it is a steel pin inside a hard hexagonal rubber hole and not much of the pin is actually in contact with the rubber itself. The hexagonal hole shape serves two purposes, to reduce friction between the pivot pin and itself and to allow the head of the pivot pin to be passed through it more easily and still be positively retained.

I can see this is a waste of time as you just dont get it.

None of the bushes actually twist, what exactly do you mean?

Did you take a look at the bush in the picture? The supports are both off centre and it's got a gaping tear top and bottom, that was my car shortly after I got it parked up and with the rack on full lock. Now look at the position of the wishbone, it should be dead centre but it isn't, i'd also point out that if I did the same photo but with the wheels on opposite lock it had similar tears on the other side of the bush and that was sufficient for the wishbone to strike the inner face of the console as it did it on the test drive. It's fair to say the wishbone has moved quite a lot, certainly a lot further than you suggest, this was obviously a knackered bush though it shows how the wishbone is trying to move along a horizontal axis when cornering which is not good. While I can see what you're getting at by describing it as a hinge, hinges have a free range of motion well past 180 degrees in most cases before they're fitted, a hinge rotates round a circular pin, in this case your pin is hex shaped and your bush (or hinge as you make the comparison) is fixed and can't rotate, its also hex shaped so its really not anything like a hinge. The only thing this setup can do is twist the bush and rely on the flex in the material to compensate.

The bush fits in the console with what is in effect an interference fit, that is to say that the tolerance is so tight the bush will not easily fit in the console, let alone rotate, it has to be forced in/out hence the need for a press or the special tool. Now consider what happens when your suspension compresses, the hex end of the wishbone starts to rotate but can't, as the bush is rubber you get a slight give as the bush is twisted, as the force increases anti-clockwise the resistance increases, taken far enough the whole hex will slip round and skip in the bush, if you don't believe me jack your car up and look at the bush and it's alignment on the ground vs in the air, the bush won't move, the wishbone will. When the suspension decompresses, the bush twists back the opposite way. In the case of the I and X bushes they tear over time, it's a poor design that's driven by price, not function, the X bush is still of a poor design but will last long enough in normal service for most people, the cupra bush is just the final stages of a poor design and while it should last all 3 have the same inherent flaw, they are not capable of rotation.

Now I mentioned that the wishbone is off centre in that pic, under load and at low speed it hit the inner edge of the console when turning, again the I bush is more susceptible to failing like this but even before it does its still undesirable, same with the X and the cupra is the least susceptible of the lot allowing very little movement but they all do it to a greater or lesser extent as they wear/age and eventually tear (except the cupra I'd imagine, not seen one do enough miles before), this doesn't help tracking, tyre wear or cornering let alone do the bush any good.

That pic I posted was from my car when I got it with 21k on the clock, the pic below is from the same car with 43k on the clock again at full lock after 22k with Powerflex bushes. Using the same example, the suspension compresses and the inner bush rotates smoothly anti-clockwise in the outer bush, the suspension unloads and it moves smoothly back clockwise with no significant resistance or friction and no limits on how far it can go other than the range of travel in the wishbone/suspension strut. You also get virtually no play so the wishbone is kept dead centre. It rotates, this is the one type of movement you want a console bush to allow in this application.

Also your point about ease of fitting for Powerflex is correct but not totally accurate, they are a very easy to fit, but that's not the reason they developed the two part bush, its a byproduct of the improved function, not the principal reason behind it or at least that's the line one of the technical team I spoke gave me when I asked last year.

Again as with the previous posts which managed to upset someone, I've tried to keep this simple and inoffensive and straight forward for everyone to follow, i've clearly over explained the whole thing but hopefully anyone still reading now understands the difference.Iif I've made a mistake feel free to point it out as I asked you to last time you suggested I wasn't being honest (you didn't incidentally?).

The day we stop learning is the day we stop breathing

This I wholeheartedly agree with, and see your point. How easy is it to write like that and convey your point without having to be so direct as to say "your wrong" to someone.

In this post i see what you were getting at, but It also in part agrees with my original point. What I meant by 'solid' was the horizontal and vertical movement, unvoided, with no gaps from centre to outside, In which I was not 'wrong'

As i had said before I have fitted these, used them and know them, design and application. They are superior in materials and longevity.

My point, to reiterate, was that, this TOTAL lack of vertical and horizontal movement (centre to edge) or at least minimal, resulted in a rough ride and much vibration being felt.

The cupra bushes whilst inferior by design are there to restrict vertical and horizontal movement, but, have a little more give so that the ride is more satisfactory to the average driver who doesnt go on the track or push theyre vehicle to the limit.

My verdict will still be cupra bushes in this instance are a preferred choice for the average drivers daily commute etc.

I wasnt upset by your previous comments to myself, but didnt agree with your delivery of them, granted after this my comments could have been sugar coated too, but as regards inappropriate response tone, you were the overall protagonist there.

That last post of yours was a great way to put over your point, polite, explanatory, and inoffensive. Had this been the original tone, the debarkle would not have occurred.

Edited 17 May, 201313 yr by Lofty79

I still maintain that the bush itself does not try to twist, the steel pivot simply acts like a cam against the inner walls of the bush, since the Cupra bush is rubber it is self-lubricating and the cam action actually promotes this self-lubrication. The Powerflex bush is polypropylene and therefore not self lubricating which is why you need to use the sachet provided to lubricate it during installation.

Remember that the hexagonal bore in the bush will allow sixty degrees of rotation before acting as a detent upon the pivot, the Cupra bush has an installation arrow to ensure it is pressed in correctly, installation orientation is irrelevant with the Powerflex design making it even easier for an untrained home mechanic who perhaps lacks the specialist fitting knowledge imparted by formal training.

I am not claiming one is better than the other since both are clearly superior to the ghastly OE fitment whose sole purpose was to increase lateral deflection in the front wishbone during hard cornering, this has the effect of discouraging ordinary drivers from such spirited driving by amplifying the sensation of understeer before the tyres actually start to slip.

rover220, I honestly do get it, it's communicating these concepts which is difficult and time consuming although that's my fault for assuming everyone picks things up as quickly as I expect them to.