so is anyone do this
Front Flex? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter akarilo
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I think I'm going to try, it's worth a shot anyway, but it'll be a little while before I get some time though - the info is there if anyone else tries.
Cool - if you at some point want to look into a rear leaf conversion let me know. I don't think COG should be the design goal, personally, because it is a lesser factor than other suspension dynamics.
The question is how to get up to that 6" lift where the clearance gets so much better (breakover angle) while improving on overall suspension dynamics. The problem with 4" lifts really isn't flex (despite the discussion here), it's breakover angle.
I have never one time had a flex problem hold me back in a big rock garden, but I've beached the whale badly a number of times.
That's the problem to be solved here: greater lift without introducing unfavorable characteristics into the suspension dynamics.
I've decided to 3-link the front of mine with 6" of lift, so we'll see how it goes. Hassling with the stock setup seems counter productive to me at this point. I've spent a few hours under mine and 3-linking it can be done fairly easily, it just all depends on if I want to do a moderate gain 3-link using stock mounting locations are go all the way and do it right fabbing up frame and axle mounting locations with longer lca's.
Chris
Chris
if you don't go longer you're wasting your time
Well, not really...it wouldn't be the ultimate setup, but it would definitely make the flex a heck of a lot better up front.
Chris
Chris
What a bizarre statement. A 3 link is not a radius arm and longer arms cost you clearance, and those longer arms often have a greater tendency to unload. Plus you are going to end up with a significantly shorter upper arm in order to keep in parallel based on the curvature of the frame unless you mount the uppers inside the frame - this may not have good dynamics in practice. A 3 link is a derivative of a 4-link system that tends to not be long arm in practice, not a radius arm system.
A 3 link is not limited by anything except the max rotation of the spherical joints, so you could argue that upon moving the tierod to the front of the axle and mounting the LCA flush to the axle tube that you would have the opportunity to shorten the arms if you wanted to without creating a steeply angled arm that wants to resist steep climbs by pushing down.
The low hanging arm mounts on the 80's low hanging frame are what beaches the whale (much more the rear than the front, though) - making this worse is, IMO, a terrible design goal if you crawl in big gardens, and crawling in big gardens is frankly the only reason you'd have any use for a 3-link in the first place (other than liking to be different
).But if you are thinking you need longer arms to actually get the flex out of a 3-link then you are missing a very big point in why you 3-link vs. 4-link.
This is the flex of a 22" mid-arm 3 link on a 12" shock with the entire steering linkage using heims on top of a high steer knuckle. Notice the lack of low hanging arm mounts in the breakover angle. Look at your 80 and weep.
The owner of this rig went against the grain of everybody swapping out (and hanging up on) 3' y-link radius arms as he didn't want to trade one problem (binding flex and bad angle of a short arm 4-link on a tall lift) for another (substantial loss of clearance in a long arm system for rock crawling) and designed a mid-length system that at least in the 2-3 years I knew the owner before moving up to my 80 worked absolutely flawlessly and was reported to be perfectly stable for road use (but that's the rear leafs).
Last edited:
I agree 100%...ideally I need to find something to raise the tie rod, as well, but we'll see after I spend some more time on it.
Chris
Chris
Chris, here are some more pictures for you.
This is the same XJ as up above in my last post, and it is a modified Ford D44 axle. Take a look at the flush frame mount in the first pic to support good angles without an excessively long arm, and in the second pic you'll see the steering work that should really help.
Note first the angles of those 22" long and 17" long (respectively) LCA(s)/UCA. Those are very good angles for an 8" lift.
Then look at how the entire steering is above the knuckle. Now these are higher steer knuckles than your 80, but the stock 80 steering arms are not "low" and if you mount the tierod above the knuckle and the draglink to that, you'll have a pretty high clearance steering system with the beef of heim joints.
You could also then take the bend out of your panhard and just run a straight link with johnny joints or heims on both ends for max strength and rigidity - after all, it does you no good to have bushing movement in the side to side sense in a panhard as that just enables slop.
Here's the pics:
This is the same XJ as up above in my last post, and it is a modified Ford D44 axle. Take a look at the flush frame mount in the first pic to support good angles without an excessively long arm, and in the second pic you'll see the steering work that should really help.
Note first the angles of those 22" long and 17" long (respectively) LCA(s)/UCA. Those are very good angles for an 8" lift.
Then look at how the entire steering is above the knuckle. Now these are higher steer knuckles than your 80, but the stock 80 steering arms are not "low" and if you mount the tierod above the knuckle and the draglink to that, you'll have a pretty high clearance steering system with the beef of heim joints.
You could also then take the bend out of your panhard and just run a straight link with johnny joints or heims on both ends for max strength and rigidity - after all, it does you no good to have bushing movement in the side to side sense in a panhard as that just enables slop.
Here's the pics:
So, I haven't spent any time looking at the steering yet, but you're saying move the rear tie rod to the front on the 80, right? Is there a kit for this already, or just what others have done home made?
Chris
Chris
You pretty much have to move it to the front to 3 link in order to take tierod contact out of the equation.
Slee's kit is the only one I know that modifies the knuckle to accomplish this, but it is very expensive. In the second pic I posted above, you can see a way to do this on your 80 exactly as it is right now (understanding you won't gain as much clearance, which is important to consider).
Drill out the taper and build a heim steering system on top of the knuckle with the draglink on top of the tierod. I'm not saying to just dive in and do it this way, but it's a good visual of what you could do.
Slee's kit is the only one I know that modifies the knuckle to accomplish this, but it is very expensive. In the second pic I posted above, you can see a way to do this on your 80 exactly as it is right now (understanding you won't gain as much clearance, which is important to consider).
Drill out the taper and build a heim steering system on top of the knuckle with the draglink on top of the tierod. I'm not saying to just dive in and do it this way, but it's a good visual of what you could do.
I don't want to lose ABS, which I think Slee's does, if I'm not mistaken. I go back and forth with fabbing new lower mounts or using the stock rear lowers and make a curved LCA, leaving the tie rod in place. Or, moving it up to where you have pictured for that Jeep as the other option. You definitely lose clearance with the stock mounts...no doubt about it. It should be interesting, because one side of me says do it right and fab all new mounts, and the other side believes a drastic change could be made with very little modification, as well. Hard decision, for sure.
Chris
Chris
My personal opinion is that it is not worth it to try to build a lowered LCA mount in order to keep tierod clearance with bent arms, etc, because you are engineering some unfavorable compromises into the system.
At that point, I'd try to get my hands on a set of those SE arms and call it good enough, especially since you really want some of that stock mounting goodness for the excellent road stability.
Listening to your concerns on ABS, I'd think very carefully about 3-linking because you will fully give up the front end design that makes the 80 stable on the road.
It's a tough issue to really try and solve, which is why I backed off on it because my gut continues to tell me that the tradeoffs are not worth it for a rig that only exceptional when it remains a road warrior, too. Otherwise you are trying to turn a pig into a buggy, and if that isn't putting lipstick on a pig I don't know what is.
Which is why if I ever decide to go nuts, I'll put my coin into a custom D60 front end and really build from scratch rather than trying to make a half ton axle into something that it is not.
Well, I guess I disagree a bit...not trying to argue and definitely value your opinion, but my LX450 rides like crap on the road as it is, but I don't have the swaybars on yet, which I'm only planning to run the rear anyways. But, even with them off, it barely sways as it is because the springs are so stiff. To me a properly designed 3-link will run better than the stock setup if there's the proper amount of axle separation and link angle. But, again, this would be a compromise, as well. Ideally, I'd like to moe the tie rod to the front, then use the stock lower mount that's already there. This would provide plenty of axle mount separation, but at the same time increase the angle of the lower links over putting the lca axle mount more in the centerline of the axle. If I do move the tie rod to the front, I can make the lca's actually curved upward, resulting in even more clearance for rocks, but the problem then is having flex joints on a curved lca. If I go straight, it wouldn't gain any clearance, but it would be way simpler too. The other option would be to create a curved tie rod that's gusseted at both ends, but I think by the time you curve it up, it would be too far inward to do any good to clear the lca's. Moving it to the front would be the best, I'd say. I'll know a lot more after this week...
Chris
Chris
Are you talking about ride quality....or stability?
Ride quality is not there for a $50k luxury SUV. It drives and feels like a truck. My folks passed on an 80 for exactly that reason, and instead got a F-150 truck that drives like a car.
Stability is a whole 'nother can of worms. My lifted truck is far more of a stable platform then their F-150 is.
So just because the ride quality sucks does not mean that handling/stability sucks. The best handling/stable platforms on the road tend to be very harsh on their passengers as they are incredibly stiff setups.
For trail purposes, you could setup a 3-link to outperform the OEM 4-link in some circumstances. For road purposes, forget it.
Plenty of people have done 3-link's and ended up with floppy jalopies. As a general rule, most 3-links that I've seen have sucked for on road handling. Simply put, you can't make a setup that's designed to be (inherently) more flexible and moves easier and expect it to handle better (stiffer and less movement) on road, the two are mutually exclusive.
But don't take my word for it, go back and look at 3-link setups that have already been done.
for your reading enjoyment
4X4REVIEW.COM: Toyotal FJ80 Land Cruiser - 3 Link Front Suspension w/ Panhard
4X4REVIEW.COM: Toyotal FJ80 Land Cruiser - 3 Link Front Suspension w/ Panhard
That's a great ramp champ, but on road handling is noticeably missing....
Also, some of the initial statements I find quite interesting.
Gee, by removing a bolt from a 4-link to turn it into a poor man's 3-link you end up with only 3 mounting points?
Guess you'd better switch to a 3-link so you keep at least 2 mounting points per side!
Again not true. There are several options, including the nearly free washer mod.
There's nothing wrong with 3-linking if that's what you want. You just need to understand that there are trade-offs, no matter what you do.
I spent quite a bit of time with Shawn the phone last week, and he said his road better after the 3-link on the road because his geometry was better than stock. But, again, he made longer control arms for the lowers and didn't use the stock locations.
I'm not sure what changes to make the road ride quality any worse with a 3-link, personally. I think it's improperly designed 3-link suspensions that must ride like crap on the road. To me, you control ride height with springs, dampening with shocks, and sway with swaybars. If any of those are missing, then you're likely to be missing something in some particular area of driving. On-road without swaybars, and you have too much body roll. Too stiff of swaybars off-road and you have an inflexible rig not capable of staying level when going over the big rocks, etc etc.
I've yet to see any pics or videos of a fully setup 80 with all the criteria to maximize all areas. Shawn's rig is the closest I've seen, and to me all he needed was swaybars to make his driving on the road even better. Plus, from what I've seen of videos and pics, his rig is also one of the most capable 80's I've seen on the trail, as well.
Chris
I'm not sure what changes to make the road ride quality any worse with a 3-link, personally. I think it's improperly designed 3-link suspensions that must ride like crap on the road. To me, you control ride height with springs, dampening with shocks, and sway with swaybars. If any of those are missing, then you're likely to be missing something in some particular area of driving. On-road without swaybars, and you have too much body roll. Too stiff of swaybars off-road and you have an inflexible rig not capable of staying level when going over the big rocks, etc etc.
I've yet to see any pics or videos of a fully setup 80 with all the criteria to maximize all areas. Shawn's rig is the closest I've seen, and to me all he needed was swaybars to make his driving on the road even better. Plus, from what I've seen of videos and pics, his rig is also one of the most capable 80's I've seen on the trail, as well.
Chris
You're only missing a few aspects of handling.
I'm thinking we're saying basically the same thing...no?
Chris
Chris
