re-configure suspension - Page 2

Eskimo · 10-10-07, 08:07 PM

Mace made some good points, but certainly, if nothing else... the top mount on that axle side link should REALLY be turned 90° so the bolt is up & down.. the way it's setup now puts a shit-ton of sideload into the joint and will wear it out quickly...

rondog · 10-10-07, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCOwner

What coils are you using? Did you ever consider coilovers in the front?

They are slee 4" springs for an 80.Going to a stock hieght slee coil for lower stance.Money was the issue on the coilovers! was able to get all 4 coils for $400.00.

rondog · 10-10-07, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CruisinFJ60

what is the advantage of the 80 axles over 60 axles?

I was basically going for the width factor as well as the high pinion front. The 80 axles are 6 " wider than 60 axles, plus I'm going to use the rear disc 80 axle.

rondog · 10-10-07, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Mace made some good points, but certainly, if nothing else... the top mount on that axle side link should REALLY be turned 90° so the bolt is up & down.. the way it's setup now puts a ****-ton of sideload into the joint and will wear it out quickly...

Yeah after listening to many inputs and the "wise-owl Mace" I think I would have better results with the 3 or 4 link, panhard set-up.

THANKS EVERYONE!!

Mace · 10-10-07, 08:42 PM

Donno about the wise thing.

Eskimo was talking about side loading. because you are using that single joint to locate the links you really want the majority of the forces (laterally) to be on the metal art of the joint. Not parallel to the bolt.

I firmly believe that your wishbone with shorter coils will perform well. As long as you strengthen it.

80 series front axles are nice. But your choices for hy steer are seriously limited. I would stick with the 60 series axle and perhaps spacers..

Or, widen a 60 series axle. You have the fab skils and capability. 30 spline inners are available at whatever length you want. You would probably save money by just going this route..

lowtideride · 10-11-07, 06:21 AM

MY vote would be to keep the 60 series axles as well. Or at least just the front 60 series axle. It seems that the front R&P don't hold up very long under a rock rigs. The 60 series axle has a beefer R&P with a lot of after market support i.e. Hysteer, 6 Shooters, Rock rings, etc etc...

Tapage · 10-11-07, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowtideride

MY vote would be to keep the 60 series axles as well. Or at least just the front 60 series axle. It seems that the front R&P don't hold up very long under a rock rigs. The 60 series axle has a beefer R&P with a lot of after market support i.e. Hysteer, 6 Shooters, Rock rings, etc etc...

and with 2" wheel spacers per side you get 4" more wide axle .. easy.

cruiser boy · 10-11-07, 09:26 PM

I have 2 cents.....Here is what I did and it is VERY streetable.I took shelby tube and suspension grade hiems and built -Y- links with a panhard bar,16 inch coil over sway-a-ways,on 37s full width 60 front 14 bolt rear w/rear spring over. Last weekend we did nearly 500 miles. Runs well a 70 , And will flex like gumby

Mace · 10-11-07, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiser boy

I have 2 cents.....Here is what I did and it is VERY streetable.I took shelby tube and suspension grade hiems and built -Y- links with a panhard bar,16 inch coil over sway-a-ways,on 37s full width 60 front 14 bolt rear w/rear spring over. Last weekend we did nearly 500 miles. Runs well a 70 , And will flex like gumby

Radius arm suspension..

bustanutley · 10-11-07, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mace

I firmly believe that your wishbone with shorter coils will perform well. As long as you strengthen it.

Ditto, it would be no different on the street, steering wise, than a leaf sprung truck (axle moves straight up and down). Just get your DL flat with the world and you will be ligit. The angles on my truck are correct and I get zero bump steer, leaf sprung mind you.

And ditto what eskimo said, that joint is not disigned to take loads side to side the way you have it set up.

cruiser boy · 10-12-07, 12:10 PM

if you are going to run at hiway speeds you really need a panhard bar!

Mace · 10-12-07, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiser boy

if you are going to run at hiway speeds you really need a panhard bar!

How you figure?

CruisinFJ60 · 10-12-07, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiser boy

if you are going to run at hiway speeds you really need a panhard bar!

see post on pages 1 between mace and I.
Its been discussed.

cruiser boy · 10-12-07, 06:14 PM

Well I'm no engineer but I have been around a day or two....I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I do know that if 4 link w/out a panhard bar was such a great idea you would see alot more oem"s doing it..TWO MUCH SIDELOAD. There isn't enough room to do a 4-link properly with the correct angles to eliminate sideload problems without having rear stear issues. I have built several tube chassis crawlers with 4-link and no panhard bar,but I wouldn't drive it at 70 on the freeway. When I built my cruiser I wanted highway saftey and alot of flex. I spent alot of time measuring and figuring and all I could fit and be SAFE was a y-link with a panhard bar. I flex over 1000 on a ramp and it drives like a car.....Why would you do anything else.....If You want it safe and streetable.....Just my take on it.....and he did say he wanted it streetable..........Rod

cruiser boy · 10-12-07, 06:20 PM

And by the way I'm just talking front...I have anouther theory on the rear hehe.....Rod

Mace · 10-12-07, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiser boy

Well I'm no engineer but I have been around a day or two....I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I do know that if 4 link w/out a panhard bar was such a great idea you would see alot more oem"s doing it..TWO MUCH SIDELOAD. There isn't enough room to do a 4-link properly with the correct angles to eliminate sideload problems without having rear stear issues. I have built several tube chassis crawlers with 4-link and no panhard bar,but I wouldn't drive it at 70 on the freeway. When I built my cruiser I wanted highway saftey and alot of flex. I spent alot of time measuring and figuring and all I could fit and be SAFE was a y-link with a panhard bar. I flex over 1000 on a ramp and it drives like a car.....Why would you do anything else.....If You want it safe and streetable.....Just my take on it.....and he did say he wanted it streetable..........Rod

So your version of streetable has the caster changing constantly? Y link on both sides? Wristed? How many factory suspensions are built like this now???

Fawk, why not just do a true 3 link with a panhard bar? that way you can have as much travel as you want with no abrupt changes in axle orientation...

I fail to see what sideloading has to do with anything. If you build your suspension properly and with the strongest/most efficient materials what is the issue? Is it a handling thing? You talk about side loading like it is some majic thing. What is your actual concern?

You can build a suspension with a wishbone 3 link, true 3 link with a panhard, triangulated 4 link or 4 link with a panhard bar (5 link) and have it behave beautifully on the street.

It is not suspension type. It is suspension design..

cruiser boy · 10-12-07, 07:48 PM

It's not wristed

cruiser boy · 10-12-07, 08:03 PM

Side load ? magical? Hm...I really don't want an arguement but....do you realize how much sideload there is at 60 mph in a hard turn in a 5000lb vehicle? and it is impossible to get perfect geomitry with any of them....but I do know you can get closer with a 3 link than a four link...mine is essentially a 3-link....not wristed....and before you freak out I'm not saying mine is better...I just know that it's really really tough to fit 4-links under the front and have no rear steer or body sway and have it low enough to all work......maybe I missed something. I Just want it safe.....I wheel with alot of guys that have custom suspension....all the guys with 4 link are hauling them on a trailer....if we go far and it because they all drive TERRIBLE....are they all stupid and don't know what they are doing????I Don't think so.............Rod

Mace · 10-12-07, 08:21 PM

First off, please describe your suspension. Or better, take a pic of it. Because you are arguing with yourself.. You describe a Y link but kinda only on one side, which would make it wristed. Then you call it a three link.

What does rear steer (I assume you are talking about the front end walking under the truck on articulation) have to do with suspension type?

Yes, I do understand the forces involved with a vehicle cornering at 60 mph. It is actually mild compared to what some of the off road trucks see..

Body sway is NOT a matter of link style but by link design.. A TON of other variables should be addressed before building a link system. It takes a reasonable amount of thought, and decision making to find what you can actually do what what you are given.

It IS tough to fit a 4 link under a truck that was not designed for it. Hell, most of the lift 4 link kits are compromises due to available room. But they are still safe. Saying that a panhard bar is the only way to make a front suspension safe is silly.

Your friends have poorly designed suspensions if they handle poorly..

fc187 · 10-12-07, 10:30 PM

Mace · 10-12-07, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fc187

lol

Thanks for the support

cruiser boy · 10-13-07, 08:17 AM

I didn't say that a panhard bar was the ONLY safe way but I think it's safer...but hell Mace sounds to me like you already have this all figured out......is yours streetable and safe and what is it....mine is a y link NOT WRISTED.....so ya its basicly a 3-link...but I can remove bolt on the trail and make it wristed.....but I'm from Idaho ...so what the hell do I know!....I'm just saying that if triangulated 4 link were safer oem would be building it....Rod

CruisinFJ60 · 10-13-07, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fc187

x2

hehe not me this time

Mace · 10-13-07, 12:43 PM

Sigh.. I absolutely do not know everything. My setup is a true 3 link front with a panhard in teh front and a doubly triangulated 4 link in the rear. It is very streetable. But the 40" tires and no fenders make it a bit of a target. Cruises comfortably at 70 and rides better than it ever did.. My 60 has a wishbone 3 link rear that has no lateral movement, but I am not sure how it handles on the road yet (have not finished the motor conversion)

You have a simple radius arm suspension. Very similar to what Bronco's have. It is a very functional suspension. But it is not the only way to do things..

Factories typically use panhard bars because it is super easy to design a suspension that has not bump steer with one.. hell, even my superduty on leaf springs has a panhard bar to reduce bumpsteer. It does not mean it is the only way to go. Far from it.

Why do your firends' rigs behave so poorly on road?

I have said it before and I'll say it again. It is not the suspension type, but the suspension design/geometry that makes it work or not work.. That is all..

CruisinFJ60 · 10-13-07, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruiser boy

I didn't say that a panhard bar was the ONLY safe way but I think it's safer...but hell Mace sounds to me like you already have this all figured out......is yours streetable and safe and what is it....mine is a y link NOT WRISTED.....so ya its basicly a 3-link...but I can remove bolt on the trail and make it wristed.....but I'm from Idaho ...so what the hell do I know!....I'm just saying that if triangulated 4 link were safer oem would be building it....Rod

dont have to get all butt hurt bout this.

What i think mace is saying is that you keep contradicting yourself with what you are saying. your saying its one thing then its another. I under stand that you are saying you can remove a bolt then its wristed bla bla bla.... just take some pics so everyone can see. maybe everyone including yourself will learn something from this discusion.

now as far as why oem doesnt use that type of suspension...
why would they? how many vehicles have solid front axles anymore? couple fords, dodges, heeps... so not many ond really you will prolly find 1 of em on the trail that would need that sorta flex. i would say 99% of those vehicles will NEVER see the offroad. so why would an OEM manufacturer spend so much more money on something that will meerly make it flex up a little better. many of those are work trucks (cept for the heep) it would be a good design but it would not increase the sales numbers enough to make it worth it to the company. and some vehicle manufactures do use a 4 link rear suspension from factory buddy of mine has a 91 toyota previa and it has a 4 link rear with a panhard. its a minivan and an old one at that. but how many minivans have a solid rear axle anymore? better yet much less a RWD.

And i hate to say it but your friends trucks that "have" to be trailered due to how bad they handle is no fault but the builder/ designer. sure it may do great and flex up nice off road but some things need to be taken into consideration for street driving. had the suspension been designed/built better they would be able to SAFELY operate the vehicles at hwy speeds and still have the same flex if not even possibly better

. and the vehicle handle well still. Ive seen lots of people build truggys and buggies with only offroad in mind any theyre intention is to trailer it anyway. so many of em could care less bout street performance so long as the way it acts off road is predictable and functions properly.

thats my $0.02

10-10-07, 08:07 PM	#31
Eskimo IH8MUD Lifer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Danville, PA Posts: 1,154	Mace made some good points, but certainly, if nothing else... the top mount on that axle side link should REALLY be turned 90° so the bolt is up & down.. the way it's setup now puts a shit-ton of sideload into the joint and will wear it out quickly... __________________ Rich in NC FJ - '73 FJ-40 Cruggy - LSx/4-wheel steer Rockwells/4-link/coilovers/42's Build thread --> http://forum.ih8mud.com/hardcore-corner/124040-keeping-low-rockwells-k-under-knife-again.html '01 Chevy 2500HD 8.1 Allison Lux-o-tow

10-10-07, 08:42 PM	#35
Mace what he said Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 10,964	Donno about the wise thing. Eskimo was talking about side loading. because you are using that single joint to locate the links you really want the majority of the forces (laterally) to be on the metal art of the joint. Not parallel to the bolt. I firmly believe that your wishbone with shorter coils will perform well. As long as you strengthen it. 80 series front axles are nice. But your choices for hy steer are seriously limited. I would stick with the 60 series axle and perhaps spacers.. Or, widen a 60 series axle. You have the fab skils and capability. 30 spline inners are available at whatever length you want. You would probably save money by just going this route.. __________________ I am kinda gay....... My Myspace http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endid=75712409 "Mary Poppins: In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game."

10-11-07, 06:21 AM	#36
lowtideride Ride On... Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: North Florida TLCA# 14891 Posts: 6,961	MY vote would be to keep the 60 series axles as well. Or at least just the front 60 series axle. It seems that the front R&P don't hold up very long under a rock rigs. The 60 series axle has a beefer R&P with a lot of after market support i.e. Hysteer, 6 Shooters, Rock rings, etc etc... __________________ www.NFCruiserheads.org 1983 SR5 Hilux... has had no peers for 50 years...

10-12-07, 08:21 PM	#49
Mace what he said Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 10,964	First off, please describe your suspension. Or better, take a pic of it. Because you are arguing with yourself.. You describe a Y link but kinda only on one side, which would make it wristed. Then you call it a three link. What does rear steer (I assume you are talking about the front end walking under the truck on articulation) have to do with suspension type? Yes, I do understand the forces involved with a vehicle cornering at 60 mph. It is actually mild compared to what some of the off road trucks see.. Body sway is NOT a matter of link style but by link design.. A TON of other variables should be addressed before building a link system. It takes a reasonable amount of thought, and decision making to find what you can actually do what what you are given. It IS tough to fit a 4 link under a truck that was not designed for it. Hell, most of the lift 4 link kits are compromises due to available room. But they are still safe. Saying that a panhard bar is the only way to make a front suspension safe is silly. Your friends have poorly designed suspensions if they handle poorly.. __________________ I am kinda gay....... My Myspace http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endid=75712409 "Mary Poppins: In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game."

10-12-07, 10:30 PM	#50
fc187 IH8MUD Junior Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Stockton Ca Posts: 88	__________________ FCFabrication MY SPACE PAGE

10-11-07, 09:26 PM	#38
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	I have 2 cents.....Here is what I did and it is VERY streetable.I took shelby tube and suspension grade hiems and built -Y- links with a panhard bar,16 inch coil over sway-a-ways,on 37s full width 60 front 14 bolt rear w/rear spring over. Last weekend we did nearly 500 miles. Runs well a 70 , And will flex like gumby

10-12-07, 12:10 PM	#41
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	if you are going to run at hiway speeds you really need a panhard bar!

10-12-07, 06:14 PM	#44
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	Well I'm no engineer but I have been around a day or two....I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I do know that if 4 link w/out a panhard bar was such a great idea you would see alot more oem"s doing it..TWO MUCH SIDELOAD. There isn't enough room to do a 4-link properly with the correct angles to eliminate sideload problems without having rear stear issues. I have built several tube chassis crawlers with 4-link and no panhard bar,but I wouldn't drive it at 70 on the freeway. When I built my cruiser I wanted highway saftey and alot of flex. I spent alot of time measuring and figuring and all I could fit and be SAFE was a y-link with a panhard bar. I flex over 1000 on a ramp and it drives like a car.....Why would you do anything else.....If You want it safe and streetable.....Just my take on it.....and he did say he wanted it streetable..........Rod

10-12-07, 06:20 PM	#45
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	And by the way I'm just talking front...I have anouther theory on the rear hehe.....Rod

10-12-07, 07:48 PM	#47
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	It's not wristed

10-12-07, 08:03 PM	#48
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	Side load ? magical? Hm...I really don't want an arguement but....do you realize how much sideload there is at 60 mph in a hard turn in a 5000lb vehicle? and it is impossible to get perfect geomitry with any of them....but I do know you can get closer with a 3 link than a four link...mine is essentially a 3-link....not wristed....and before you freak out I'm not saying mine is better...I just know that it's really really tough to fit 4-links under the front and have no rear steer or body sway and have it low enough to all work......maybe I missed something. I Just want it safe.....I wheel with alot of guys that have custom suspension....all the guys with 4 link are hauling them on a trailer....if we go far and it because they all drive TERRIBLE....are they all stupid and don't know what they are doing????I Don't think so.............Rod

10-13-07, 08:17 AM	#52
cruiser boy IH8MUD Rookie Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: idaho near lewiston Posts: 41	I didn't say that a panhard bar was the ONLY safe way but I think it's safer...but hell Mace sounds to me like you already have this all figured out......is yours streetable and safe and what is it....mine is a y link NOT WRISTED.....so ya its basicly a 3-link...but I can remove bolt on the trail and make it wristed.....but I'm from Idaho ...so what the hell do I know!....I'm just saying that if triangulated 4 link were safer oem would be building it....Rod

10-13-07, 12:43 PM	#54
Mace what he said Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 10,964	Sigh.. I absolutely do not know everything. My setup is a true 3 link front with a panhard in teh front and a doubly triangulated 4 link in the rear. It is very streetable. But the 40" tires and no fenders make it a bit of a target. Cruises comfortably at 70 and rides better than it ever did.. My 60 has a wishbone 3 link rear that has no lateral movement, but I am not sure how it handles on the road yet (have not finished the motor conversion) You have a simple radius arm suspension. Very similar to what Bronco's have. It is a very functional suspension. But it is not the only way to do things.. Factories typically use panhard bars because it is super easy to design a suspension that has not bump steer with one.. hell, even my superduty on leaf springs has a panhard bar to reduce bumpsteer. It does not mean it is the only way to go. Far from it. Why do your firends' rigs behave so poorly on road? I have said it before and I'll say it again. It is not the suspension type, but the suspension design/geometry that makes it work or not work.. That is all.. __________________ I am kinda gay....... My Myspace http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endid=75712409 "Mary Poppins: In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game."