Y-link suspension
- Thread starter FJBen
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
H*(P but what would be the benefits or bad points of this setup?
its called radius arm. Long arms for jeeps up front. Keeps the geometry pretty good up and down and a taller vehicle
Stock broncos and also fj80s use this in stock form up front
link suspension that is easy to implement up front because there are only 2 mounts to the frame. 4 links up front are hard because of steering, engine, ect. Works well for the most part, anti-squat isn't really much in the equation for the front.
The bad is that the links bind each other and are really hard on the mounts, you should have some sort of bushing on one end of the uppers, but they see quick wear.
Stock broncos and also fj80s use this in stock form up front
link suspension that is easy to implement up front because there are only 2 mounts to the frame. 4 links up front are hard because of steering, engine, ect. Works well for the most part, anti-squat isn't really much in the equation for the front.
The bad is that the links bind each other and are really hard on the mounts, you should have some sort of bushing on one end of the uppers, but they see quick wear.
actually a pretty standard front link suspension setup...SpaceGhost ran a similar setup in his comp buggy for a year....
note that the design includes a panhard bar.
Running the y-link on both sides does create some inherent bind since the axle needs to twist as it rotates...I know SG broke at least one upper link on his.
IMO, an easier and simpler method is two parallel lower bars, one similar-length upper bar to the passenger side, and a panhard....added strength of more long lengths and less bind during arcitulation.
Note that design uses bushings throughout to absorb the axle rotational movement.
note that the design includes a panhard bar.
Running the y-link on both sides does create some inherent bind since the axle needs to twist as it rotates...I know SG broke at least one upper link on his.
IMO, an easier and simpler method is two parallel lower bars, one similar-length upper bar to the passenger side, and a panhard....added strength of more long lengths and less bind during arcitulation.
Note that design uses bushings throughout to absorb the axle rotational movement.
- Thread starter
- #4
So similar to the 80's series...like zach said...hmmm interesting...I understand the whole bind theory on it as well. Nothing that I would want to run...
I'm prolly just going SOA front, 4 link/coils rear.
I'm prolly just going SOA front, 4 link/coils rear.
So what are the disadvantages of going to a 4-link w/panhard in an 80 as in this pic? Especially with respect to driving on the highway at a typical speed. I believe NW Sickboy did these Y-arms on an 80 already (https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=9968&highlight=custom+control+arms) but no pics anymore. Thanks for input/advice.
Mike
crap forgot the pic
Mike
crap forgot the pic
Last edited:
Come on, someone has to have at least an opinion...
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Threads
- 110
- Messages
- 1,352
Some type of sleeve on the axle housing to allow the arms to move independently of the axle would make for an interesting set-up. would be alot easier to do on a dana axle because of the round axle housing.
Yeah, this is close to the same topic in the 80's section on "wristing" the front control arms
(https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=54555)
(https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=54555)
I have 4 link front and rear in my BJ70 and like it. Rides awesome on the highway. I had a previous cruiser with Y style radius arms, coils all around, with pins and bushings on the frame and axle... needless to say it doesn't compare to the 4 link... but not bad at the time though... (over 10 years ago).
Super 70
Super 70
Last edited:
Jeezus, I about fell over when I saw someone actually responded.
Thanks Super70, I would love to have you bring your truck over to my place so I could check it out, possibly buy it...
Did you do the 4-link front yourself?
Thanks Super70, I would love to have you bring your truck over to my place so I could check it out, possibly buy it...
Did you do the 4-link front yourself?
Well if I was closer, you could take a look.... but California is a fair drive from me. Nope, didn't do the 4 link myself.... had a friend ( professional ) who does this type of thing full time to build it. Of course there are lots of examples out there of poor 4 link suspensions ... but if they are done right... they are awesome.
Here are some old pics of the suspension near the end of the build up.
Here are some old pics of the suspension near the end of the build up.
I used an old fashioned, homegrown "5 link" on Tiny. Unequal length upper and lower on each side with a panheard bar. Easy to clear steering and engine componets up front, simple, sturdy and redundant. In theory it can not provide as much movement as some other approaches. But I've got a stupid amount of travel at every corner andcan't even use it all so I'm not too worried about that. It is a bit heavier than some approaches (more links) but weight was not a primary concern (the rig has rockwells and 52 inch tires now so...)
When I had Toy axles and 42s on it the rig ran the highway just fine at 65 and worked the trails like a dream.
Mark...
When I had Toy axles and 42s on it the rig ran the highway just fine at 65 and worked the trails like a dream.
Mark...
missed yer post earlier 
The 80-series red 4-link above has the same inherent bind issues...as the axle flexes, it also needs to rotate, and running the upper and lower in such a fashion causes the bind.
A triangulated 4-link reduces much of the bind because while there are 4 mounts the axle for strength, two of these "act" as only one point since they triangulate (usually the uppers)...tri the lowers at the frame-side and you eliminate bind more and reduce flex-steer characteristics as well.
Mark is spot on tho, most link suspensions get stupid travel....I've seen too many done wrong tho...too short of link arms, lowers at too steep of an angle, poor bracketry, lack of double-shear mounting, etc.....there is little that's difficult about building/installing one, but there are certain "rules" to try and follow...
The 80-series red 4-link above has the same inherent bind issues...as the axle flexes, it also needs to rotate, and running the upper and lower in such a fashion causes the bind.
A triangulated 4-link reduces much of the bind because while there are 4 mounts the axle for strength, two of these "act" as only one point since they triangulate (usually the uppers)...tri the lowers at the frame-side and you eliminate bind more and reduce flex-steer characteristics as well.
Mark is spot on tho, most link suspensions get stupid travel....I've seen too many done wrong tho...too short of link arms, lowers at too steep of an angle, poor bracketry, lack of double-shear mounting, etc.....there is little that's difficult about building/installing one, but there are certain "rules" to try and follow...
I like my radius arm front suspension. I am certainly biased about my own rig, but it seems to work reasonably well.
Without a question it was the key to the low ride height I was shooting for (no lift). There is no way I could have gotten a 4 link under my rig without going up a few inches.
Ed
Without a question it was the key to the low ride height I was shooting for (no lift). There is no way I could have gotten a 4 link under my rig without going up a few inches.
Ed
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,204
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
Super 70, what kind of rod ends are used on your unit and how have they held up?
Joints on my triangulated 4 link are big rig (Semi) steering ball joints.... greasable and used to 80000lbs .... 16 control my suspension. They are overkill but not obnoxious in size or weight.... (slightly larger in size than the Johnny joints) and I have been running my rig hard for a year with absolutley no wear at all on the joints. I drive my truck daily and also do lots of long hunting trips so... sometimes I am on the highway for 12hrs plus only to hit logging roads of 500km plus in one direction. For my needs, I wanted to build a rig that was DOT legal with great road manners and yet as trail ready and buggy like as possible. It gets to be expensive and a hard balancing act to try and build the best of both worlds and of course in the end you can never fully be either so... it is a compromise whatever you do. Enough rambling... the joints are amazing... no complaints whatsoever.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,204
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
Nicely done! 
Is the shank on the TRE tapered, did you buy or machine the inserts? What's the applaction for them, or are they genaric amoung brands of semis? What did you pay for them?
Is the shank on the TRE tapered, did you buy or machine the inserts? What's the applaction for them, or are they genaric amoung brands of semis? What did you pay for them?
Tools R U,
Don't know the brand of joint... yes, tapered, with the link arms machined. I didn't build the truck myself so some of the detailed stuff could be answered by the builder..... I can put you in contact with him if you want the specifics.
Mace,
That is the exact question we had when I pulled the shaft out of the box.
That was a screw up with the drive shaft shop when I ordered the shafts... we put the rear shaft on the truck with the CV at the wrong end only to move it around the shop and on and off the trailer while in the build process. The drive shaft was changed before the truck went on the road.
The pinion angle on the rear picture has been changed too as in the picture it looks like it is still pointing down. This was pre alignment etc. Airbags are are aired up higher than usual....in the picture and put the truck is sitting a little higher than normal ride height in the rear.
The truck continues to be a constant evolution. These pics were taken april 2004.... truck was on the road in July 2004.
Don't know the brand of joint... yes, tapered, with the link arms machined. I didn't build the truck myself so some of the detailed stuff could be answered by the builder..... I can put you in contact with him if you want the specifics.
Mace,
That is the exact question we had when I pulled the shaft out of the box.
That was a screw up with the drive shaft shop when I ordered the shafts... we put the rear shaft on the truck with the CV at the wrong end only to move it around the shop and on and off the trailer while in the build process. The drive shaft was changed before the truck went on the road.
The pinion angle on the rear picture has been changed too as in the picture it looks like it is still pointing down. This was pre alignment etc. Airbags are are aired up higher than usual....in the picture and put the truck is sitting a little higher than normal ride height in the rear.
The truck continues to be a constant evolution. These pics were taken april 2004.... truck was on the road in July 2004.
Last edited: