2 link and panhard? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FJ40Dude75
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Thread starter
- #22
well I geuss I will begin I am planning on running those rubecon joints for my lowers and heims on the upper I tore everything off and picked up my steel how do you yhink 2x2 thick wall box willwork for the lowers thought it would take a good shot and cheaper and I will use dom for the tops only
SpaceGhost
GOLD Star
cruzer said:
EDIT: FORGOT THIS
(I think the three link is a great choice for most people. It is much simpler to build and will fit with fewer headaches.)
Biggest reason was to eliminate the panhard. The effects of this much travel on the axle position as it cycles is less desireable than a 4 link without panhard. It's always a compromise. If the panhard is set parallel to the axle at rest, the efects are not as bad. The panhard forces the axle to move left to right along it's arc as the axle side mounting point cycles thru it's travel. It is necessary to locate the axle with a 3 link.
Even the 4 link has some axle movement side to side when the steering is cycled against it's stops. Minimal, but you can see it. I have noticed it more as the heims wear.
Unfortunately the shape of a Cruiser frame makes taking advantage of a 4 link almost impossible without lots of cutting, or making compromises. If I was to start over with a fresh frame, I would still go 4 link, but limit the up travel with axle bumpstops to avoid having to clearance the frame for steering links. Or maybe use the 4x4labs steering system.
I think a coil over 4 link is very driveable on the street. The condition of bushings and heim type joints will be important. You will also need to consider the additional sway or body/chassis roll with this setup. I run a sway bar in the rear, and if on the street, or if anyone else was EVER going to drive my rig, there would be on the front also.
That last statement was important. When you are the only driver EVER of your rig, or it's only used off road you can make changes with less concern. Once it is used on the street, or even as a daily driver, think hard and long about all the quirks that could be hazardous to others with less experience!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #25
does it matter if I run both links in line with eachother or do the top links need to be in alittle I am using heims at both ends of my upper and rubicon joints at both ends of my lower and I am doing it the way SG did
- Thread starter
- #26
really need to know if there is a reason that no one has there upper and lowers in line
one good reason.....clearance. The upper is easiest to locate just inside the frame rail, and mount on top of the pumpkin, allowing for the most up-clearance and minimal interference with the outside frame rail. You need to account for steering/tire clearance as well with the arms, lowers effectively parallel where the spring pack would end up....also, outboarding the upper allows room for coilover mounting on top of the axle.
- Thread starter
- #28
i wont be mounting my uppers to the frame they will be like SG in the pics above I was looking at it and I could have 4"betwwn them at the axle and the top link will mount to the lower somewhere
verticle separation beween the two should be a minimum of 6"....horizontal offset is pretty optional, but even the Y-type front link is best inboarded to avoid frame interference on up-travel.
FJ40Dude75 said:
Mine are close to in line. There was no room on top of my front axle for links if inside the frame rails.
Ed
- Thread starter
- #31
thanks woody I appreciate it
- Thread starter
- #32
will one upper link hold the torqe of a v8 I tried 2 uppers but with out a sleved side it dosent work but why have one sleved there it realy wont do anything will it
- Thread starter
- #34
I was thinking of runnig the top link from the pass side lower to the top side of the pumpkin or would it be better on the other side
passenger side would be my choice, it will be less twisting movement on your panhard which will also connect on that side.
I would consider a full length link tho to the frame and not a Y style to the lower....that is quite a bit of added stress in the center of that link, and on the frame-side heim. Either works, but I'm one to spread out the load as much as possible.
I would consider a full length link tho to the frame and not a Y style to the lower....that is quite a bit of added stress in the center of that link, and on the frame-side heim. Either works, but I'm one to spread out the load as much as possible.
will this design hold the weight of a 60? I know the 80s have a simalar setup.
lowtideride said:
Yes, if built of proper materials.
Ed
It should be the passenger side to make sure that the pinion stays pointing at the tcase.
a radius arm suspension is a 2 link with the panhard..
A three link with a panhard is what I have.
My passenger side has two links and the DS has one.
But you have to be careful. If you lose the top link (being a single unit) you are pretty much screwed..
a radius arm suspension is a 2 link with the panhard..
A three link with a panhard is what I have.
My passenger side has two links and the DS has one.
But you have to be careful. If you lose the top link (being a single unit) you are pretty much screwed..
