[shep]

i think i would like to link my car however i dunno anything about how it works.

what are the advantages (or not) of 3/4/5 link setups?

has anyone used factory arms (from anything) if so what?

i have done a heap of reading on seppo sites however they dont make what i am after
and i dunno what the bits are called.

[smiffkid]

im not a genius on this stuff, but i have also been looking into it a bit lately,
if u can build a 4 link setup with an A frame i believe would be the best out come, also make the lower arms as long as possible, it aids in handleing and flex,

[shep]

smiffkid wrote:

im not a genius on this stuff, but i have also been looking into it a bit lately,
if u can build a 4 link setup with an A frame i believe would be the best out come, also make the lower arms as long as possible, it aids in handleing and flex,

whats a A frame?

[monley]

http://www.trail-gear.com/images/trail-link-4-600.jpg

4-link

[tanshi]

a-frame is what vitaras have in the rear standard

range rovers have this too.

[TZAR]

This could be a god comparasion between Joeblows work and sheps.....

[Damo]

shep wrote:

i think i would like to link my car however i dunno anything about how it works.

what are the advantages (or not) of 3/4/5 link setups?

has anyone used factory arms (from anything) if so what?

i have done a heap of reading on seppo sites however they dont make what i am after
and i dunno what the bits are called.

I coiled the back of my old ute, I used Rover lower trailing arms and upper a-frame. I made the lower arms a lot longer, a bit too long actually. From memory they ended up about 1100 long. Because of the difference in the length between the uppers and lowers it makes the axle steer when articulated.

[Gwagensteve]

Damo brings the tech! There is a relationship between upper and lower link lengths - upper links should be about 80% of lower links to avoid excessive axle rotation and axle steer.

So few posts - so much misinformation in this thread.

Shep - have a think about what you want the car to achieve. In some way, this will inform how you want to set the suspension up.

Link counting gets a bit confusing. I'll try and help to explain it.

Links run in two directions - fore-aft along the car, and across the car. The link that runs across the car is known as a Panhard Rod. Most factory coil suspensions run a panhard rod, except for Range Rover rear and Vitara rear.

A panhard rod stops the axle from swinging from side to side. If you design a suspension with a panhard rod, the fore-aft links (of which there can be 2, 3 or 4) can be parallel to each other - they are doing nothing to hold the axle in place side-to-side, only fore aft.

If you don't run a Panhard rod, the fore-aft links have to also control the side-to-side location of the axle.

This is done two ways - by running an A frame - two attachment points at the chassis and one at the axle, or by what's known as "double triangulated" where the upper and lower links taper in opposite ways, if viewed from above.

An A frame or Double triangulated 4 link are suitable for use in the rear only. In the front, you need a panhard rod because the axle has to move in the same side-to-side arc as the steering drag link or you'll get bumpsteer.


I mention all this because depending on who is talking, links are counted different ways.

A Three link normally means three fore-aft links plus a panhard rod
A four link normally means four triangulated fore-aft links (no panhard)
A five link means four non-triangulated fore-aft links and a panhard

An A frame means three fore-aft links - two longer lower links and an A frame from the chassis to the axle housing

so as you can see, sometimes the panhard is counted and sometimes it isn't.

You haven't mentioned one option altogether - Radius arm.

Radius arms are used on the front of every coil suspension live axle car except jeep, and in the rear of late discovery's, Jimny, coiler, bundera, and Gwagen,

A radius arm setup runs two radius arms and a panhard. The radius arms bolt to the axle at two locations so only two of them are required to locate the axle fore aft, with a panhard to control side-side location.

I run Range Rover radius arms on the rear of my trayback. I did is because I'm still leaf front and wanted some roll stiffness in the rear to balance the car front to rear, and that's why I said you need to think about how you are using your car to make a decision about how to set the suspension up.

It's easy to build a very flexible link suspension that also makes the car very difficult to drive on road, or with a load, or when towing, for example.

If you want to retain road usability, it makes sense to replicate a factory setup rather than look to the rock buggy builds which are quite one dimensional. For me, axle location was more important than travel - I have no axle wrap, and no wheelhop under power - ever, along with the highest possible ground clearance. Travel was a secondary concern.

Just some thoughts.

If you want to link the front, that's much more complex as you have to take into account steering geometry and packaging - it gets very tight in the front end. IMHO the big gains are in the front end though - there's scope to massively improve the handling of the car through accurate caster control and steering response.

[Damo]

Oh, and the Rover a-frame is a cast lump and farkin heavy. And rovers probably aren't very common on Elcho.

I imagine there are a few donor 80 series and GQ Pootrols around there, they have radius arm + panhard in the front.

I reckon that would be the easiest to fab and the hardest to fuck up

[shep]

righto.
now i know what it is called the radius arm setup is what i have been thinking.
at the dump there are gen2 pajero's that seem to have long arms and also a couple of GU's
there is a 80 however all its arms are bent.

i want suspension that i can tune for when i am empty and when i am loaded so i am thinking
radius arm with pajero bits, front and rear with coil overs. sound doable?

also my car as it is now has shitloads of rear steer and i dont want the new to do it.

i am moving back to katherine soon so will have access to wheel alignment stuff
so i would like to do it right.

[want33s]

Steve built a car a few years back with Poojero arms... Reckoned it was shit.

[Rusho]

So your going to turn your leafy into a coily

[shep]

want33s wrote:

Steve built a car a few years back with Poojero arms... Reckoned it was shit.

do ya know why it was shit? hay steve why was it shit?

Rusho wrote:

So your going to turn your leafy into a coily

my LWB is awesome and coily's are gay

[dank]

Look at Gwagens rig Shep, gotta be one of the cleanest and most functional coil conversion 3 link jobs around. Considering he's done all the research I would be hitting him up for more info.

You coud replicate it with 80 series or patriol front radius arms in the rear mounted to the top of the diff housing with a panhard rod. The only thing you have to sort out is the castor angle of the pinion at ride height, weld on some mounts to take the radius arms and get the panhard rod as flat as possible at ride height (drop chassis mounting point low below the chassis rail)

I seriously think you and Ball could knock this up in an afternoon with all the gear ready to go.

Good thing about Rangy and Patrol Radius arms is that they mount with a pin at the chassis end which means it won't bind up as much as a bush style mountwhen flexing up.

There are obviously other options but I reckon radius arm and panhard will give you good high speed handling and more flex than you'll know what to do with.

[atari4x4]

shep wrote:

righto.
now i know what it is called the radius arm setup is what i have been thinking.
at the dump there are gen2 pajero's that seem to have long arms and also a couple of GU's
there is a 80 however all its arms are bent.

i want suspension that i can tune for when i am empty and when i am loaded so i am thinking
radius arm with pajero bits, front and rear with coil overs. sound doable?

also my car as it is now has shitloads of rear steer and i dont want the new to do it.

i am moving back to katherine soon so will have access to wheel alignment stuff
so i would like to do it right.

have you let the mayor of Katherine know you're returning, doubt they'll be ready for the new & improved Elcho Shep

personally i'd be looking closely at Tim's BlueSuzy II, i think it's a pretty good compromise between a flex monster & a tuff tourer

[31zook]

dank wrote:

Look at Gwagens rig Shep, gotta be one of the cleanest and most functional coil conversion 3 link jobs around. Considering he's done all the research I would be hitting him up for more info.

You coud replicate it with 80 series or patriol front radius arms in the rear mounted to the top of the diff housing with a panhard rod. The only thing you have to sort out is the castor angle of the pinion at ride height, weld on some mounts to take the radius arms and get the panhard rod as flat as possible at ride height (drop chassis mounting point low below the chassis rail)

I seriously think you and Ball could knock this up in an afternoon with all the gear ready to go.

Good thing about Rangy and Patrol Radius arms is that they mount with a pin at the chassis end which means it won't bind up as much as a bush style mountwhen flexing up.

There are obviously other options but I reckon radius arm and panhard will give you good high speed handling and more flex than you'll know what to do with.

X2 well said

[Joe]

TZAR wrote:

This could be a god comparasion between Joeblows work and sheps.....

[Gwagensteve]

I'll just reiterate that my Radius arm setup has lots of travel but not all that much articulation. That's the advantage AND disadvantage of a radius arm setup. The result of this is that combined with leaf front gives really nice balance front to rear - the front works really hard, unlike most coiled rear ends, and at speed, the car has really good handling.

The high roll stiffness of a radius arm setup means there's no need for a swaybar, so the part count is really low - it's two springs, two shocks, two radius arms and a panhard - and that's it.

I wouldn't bother with coilovers - they are a waste with this setup - it's not a race car. There's more than enough travel available with a 10"+ travel shock and a rear vitara spring.

We're about to start a similar setup on the rear of a SWB tomorrow, and I think we will be running the shocks outboard of the chassis and pointing forward like a defender/range rover and coil buckets from the rear of a vitara, which cuts down the amount of fabrication.

If the amount of articulation the radius arm setup isn't working for you or doesn't float your boat, then it's pretty easy to add a third link and remove one of the radius arm mounts on the diff, then roll stiffness drops to nothing, but antisquat becomes adjustable (not the case with radius arms) because the panhard and bracketry is already done. Expect to add a swaybar and deal with tuning roll stiffness if you go down this path though.

Steve.

[smiffkid]

Radius arms are a good setup, imo it would be better to run an 80 series radius arm rather then nissan, as u will have more flex with an 80 series arm due to the different chassis mount points,
would be pretty easy to set up the diff to suit radius arms, the hardest thing would be getting the panhard in the right spot

[shep]

i am thinking coil overs as they have adjustable spring pre load. when i
travel i carry around 6-700kg however i dont want to have to put up with the
bum dragging on the ground that comes with the weight.

i dont really care about articulation, well within reason anyway.

most of my driving is up to 100kph on crap gravel roads and slow tracks that dont really need 4wd,
most wheeling i do is crawling in 1st or 2nd low and lockers will more then make up
for a lack of flex.

[smiffkid]

in that case run some nissan arms if u have access to them,

[royce]

how about airbags rather than coilovers?

you can wind up the preload on a coilover but its still the same rate so will be pretty sloppy

[shep]

royce wrote:

how about airbags rather than coilovers?

you can wind up the preload on a coilover but its still the same rate so will be pretty sloppy

linked with air bags?

[royce]

cant see why not

[shep]

actually i might have a look at that. height for river crossings and low for the highway.

[smiffkid]

wat if u ran a hydrolic coil over

[shep]

smiffkid wrote:

wat if u ran a hydrolic coil over

aren't they all hydrolic? isn't that where the dampening comes from

[ball]

shep wrote:

linked with air bags?

add a blow off valve and milo tin exhaust for the full ricer experience.

[shep]

ball wrote:

shep wrote:

linked with air bags?

add a blow off valve and milo tin exhaust for the full ricer experience.

no rice for me

[smiffkid]

some coil overs just run the coils as such others run a full hydrolic set up so u can lift and lower them and do all sorta of weird shit, look at pete antinecs car