Panhard bar (adjustable vs delta bracket)

[molonlabemike]

Quick question! Looking to upgrade the track bar and I’m seeing Delta has a bracket. I know most people opt for the adjustable bar but I’m looking for feedback on anyone running the delta and if you upgraded the bar plus the bracket or just reused the factory bar.

 

[JunkCrzr89]

Don’t need either if you don’t have +3 inches of lift. $325 is a lot to spend on something that you could make yourself for $50...

 

[OEMGUY0720]

^^True, just applicable (geometric reason) for lifts 3” and higher.

The idea of a panhard bracket is to relocate upward the eye of the mounting bolt to bring back the angle of the rear panhard to “factory spec”. If you are just increasing the length of it, it defeats the purpose of lateral stability and its on-road manners especially the rear when it approaches and exits a corner, hence a significant increase in roll. Roll is good for suspension articulation during low speeds, but not so good during 45mph and up imho.

 

[OwnerCS]

A Panhard correction kit (like the Delta VS) are often used within the 4Runner community for lifted rear suspensions over adjustable rods for lifts over 2"

Since I currently have a 3.5" rear lift, the correction kit was recommended. I bought a Delta VS kit that I will be installing soon. I may install new bar bushings. I don't plan to run an adjustable bar at this point. I like the idea for the Delta kit since I have no welding capability or can reasonably get welding performed.

I can say with all certainty that Delta kit is a well-documented high-quality product. This is a personal preference to use a correction kit instead of an adjustable bar.

Link to the Delta VS lift bracket.

Delta Vehicle Systems Panhard Lift Bracket, 3" & 5"

Howdy folks! By now you’ve probably seen @woody's Panhard Lift Bracket (PLB) review thread (Review: Delta VS Panhard Lift Bracket). Whether you have seen the review or not, it’s time for an official Delta Vehicle Systems (DVS) thread on these things now that we have finalized it. We designed a...

forum.ih8mud.com

Timmy the tool man provides a video that explains the benefits of a Panhard correction kit in the video below.

 

[Somebodyelse5]

A Panhard correction kit (like the Delta VS) are often used within the 4Runner community for lifted rear suspensions over adjustable rods for lifts over 2"

Since I currently have a 3.5" lift, the correction kit was recommended. I bought a Delta VS kit that I will be installing soon. I may install new bar bushings. I don't plan to run an adjustable bar at this point. I like the idea for the Delta kit since I have no welding capability or can reasonably get welding performed.

I can say with all certainty that Delta kit is a well-documented high-quality product. This is a personal preference to use a correction kit instead of an adjustable bar.

Link to the Delta VS lift bracket.

Delta Vehicle Systems Panhard Lift Bracket, 3" & 5"

Howdy folks! By now you’ve probably seen @woody's Panhard Lift Bracket (PLB) review thread (Review: Delta VS Panhard Lift Bracket). Whether you have seen the review or not, it’s time for an official Delta Vehicle Systems (DVS) thread on these things now that we have finalized it. We designed a...

forum.ih8mud.com

Timmy the tool man provides a video that explains the benefits of a Panhard correction kit in the video below.

You are running a 3.5" lift on a 100? Are you 100% maxed out on droop in the front end? Or just stink bugged like crazy?

Unless you did something awesome (new LCA, longer cv's, or a SAS) no one is *really* running a 3.5" lift on the 100 without making massive compromises somewhere or getting custom fab work.

 

[OwnerCS]

You are running a 3.5" lift on a 100? Are you 100% maxed out on droop in the front end? Or just stink bugged like crazy?

Unless you did something awesome (new LCA, longer cv's, or a SAS) no one is *really* running a 3.5" lift on the 100 without making massive compromises somewhere or getting custom fab work.

I should have indicated 3.5" in the rear. I'm lifted 2" in the front. I have an additional load for the rear that should put me down to 3". I wanted 2" in the front with 3" in the rear.

I got what I ordered.

The front has been beefed up to accommodate the 2" lift. The rear will soon get new Trail-Tailor upper and lower control arms, Timbren bump stops, and anything else I can find to enhance it.

 

[Somebodyelse5]

I should have indicated 3.5" in the rear. I'm lifted 2" in the front. I have an additional load for the rear that should put me down to 3". I wanted 2" in the front with 3" in the rear.

I got what I ordered.

The front has been beefed up to accommodate the 2" lift. The rear will soon get new Trail-Tailor upper and lower control arms, Timbren bump stops, and anything else I can find to enhance it.

got it, but remember that your effective lift will still be 3” which is only a .5” over the “might need a pan hard correction” limit... i don’t personally think it’s worth the expense. keep in mind that comparing lift between the 4runner and landcruiser should be avoided, the 100 is wider than the 4runner and has a longer pandhard, longer means larger radius and less horizontal displacement for a given vertical displacement


Also, double think those TT control arms if they are adjustable... folks constantly have issues keeping them tight (it’s a thread class/tolerance issue). calling @geanes !

my metal tech links have stayed tight for 4 years

 

[OwnerCS]

got it, but remember that your effective lift will still be 3” which is only a .5” over the “might need a pan hard correction” limit... i don’t personally think it’s worth the expense. keep in mind that comparing lift between the 4runner and landcruiser should be avoided, the 100 is wider than the 4runner and has a longer pandhard, longer means larger radius and less horizontal displacement for a given vertical displacement


Also, double think those TT control arms if they are adjustable... folks constantly have issues keeping them tight (it’s a thread class/tolerance issue). calling @geanes !

my metal tech links have stayed tight for 4 years

Thanks for the tips. I will be on the lookout.

 

[molonlabemike]

Thanks for the reply’s everyone. It appears the adjustable pan hard bars would be my best bet as I’m about 3in over stock in the back

 

[jLB]

I’ve currently got both the Delta VS bracket, and a Tough Dog adjustable panhard bar ,on our old 99 LX. Having them both is somewhat redundant, but I already had the bar sitting on a shelf in the garage, and I was exorcising bad bushings in the rear suspension of our 22 year old, 250K mi LX. The fancy adjustable bar is currently set to match the factory length of ~43"


Basic high school geometry would seem to indicate:

(length of factory bar) - sqrt((length of factory bar)^2 - (amount of lift)^2) = (lateral axle shift at rest)​

Based on these assumptions, it would seem that the axle shift from a 3.5" lift (at rest) would be < 0.143"

​

(But, it will also shift back and forth as the suspension cycles.)

To me, if you've already decided to do one or the other, on paper at least, the Delta VS relocation bracket seems like the better choice, but since the minimum bracket adjustment is ~3", you'd need to be close (or exceed) that amount of lift, otherwise you'd just be "over correcting" the geometry.

I don't think the bracket is absolutely necessary, but it's hard for me to tell what was "fixed" by replacing the bushings in the rear suspension, and what was "fixed" by the relocation bracket. Our old LX does drive much better after our changes though.

(Edited to correct panhard length, to a roughly measured ~43")

 

[OwnerCS]

I’ve currently got both the Delta VS bracket, and a Tough Dog adjustable panhard bar ,on our old 99 LX. Having them both is somewhat redundant, but I already had the bar sitting on a shelf in the garage, and I was exorcising bad bushings in the rear suspension of our 22 year old, 250K mi LX. The fancy adjustable bar is currently set to match the factory length of ~27.25”, if I remember correctly.


Basic high school geometry would seem to indicate:

(length of factory bar) - ((length of factory bar)^2 - (amount of lift)^2) = (lateral axle shift at rest)​

Based on these assumptions, it would seem that the axle shift from a 3.5" lift (at rest) would be < 0.25"

View attachment 2543761​

​

(But, it will also shift back and forth as the suspension cycles.)

To me, if you've already decided to do one or the other, on paper at least, the Delta VS relocation bracket seems like the better choice, but since the minimum bracket adjustment is ~3", you'd need to be close (or exceed) that amount of lift, otherwise you'd just be "over correcting" the geometry.

I don't think the bracket is absolutely necessary, but it's hard for me to tell what was "fixed" by replacing the bushings in the rear suspension, and what was "fixed" by the relocation bracket. Our old LX does drive much better after our changes though.

Thank you for the detailed analysis. While I can't remember where I may have seen this analysis before. I remember basing my Delta VS PCK purchase decision on this or very similar information.

The DeltaVS kit comes very well documented. I like that does not require welding for installation.

It is in the order of things I'm doing with upgrades the final modification after everything else has been settled. So I will be giving it a go with a stock Panhard.

Delta Vehicle Systems Panhard Lift Bracket, 3" & 5"

Howdy folks! By now you’ve probably seen @woody's Panhard Lift Bracket (PLB) review thread (Review: Delta VS Panhard Lift Bracket). Whether you have seen the review or not, it’s time for an official Delta Vehicle Systems (DVS) thread on these things now that we have finalized it. We designed a...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[Somebodyelse5]

I’ve currently got both the Delta VS bracket, and a Tough Dog adjustable panhard bar ,on our old 99 LX. Having them both is somewhat redundant, but I already had the bar sitting on a shelf in the garage, and I was exorcising bad bushings in the rear suspension of our 22 year old, 250K mi LX. The fancy adjustable bar is currently set to match the factory length of ~43"


Basic high school geometry would seem to indicate:

(length of factory bar) - sqrt((length of factory bar)^2 - (amount of lift)^2) = (lateral axle shift at rest)​

Based on these assumptions, it would seem that the axle shift from a 3.5" lift (at rest) would be < 0.143"

View attachment 2543797​

​

(But, it will also shift back and forth as the suspension cycles.)

To me, if you've already decided to do one or the other, on paper at least, the Delta VS relocation bracket seems like the better choice, but since the minimum bracket adjustment is ~3", you'd need to be close (or exceed) that amount of lift, otherwise you'd just be "over correcting" the geometry.

I don't think the bracket is absolutely necessary, but it's hard for me to tell what was "fixed" by replacing the bushings in the rear suspension, and what was "fixed" by the relocation bracket. Our old LX does drive much better after our changes though.

(Edited to correct panhard length, to a roughly measured ~43")

.143” is such a small about of lateral deflection... personally, these are all huge expenses for something insignificant.

and again, no one is running a 3.5” lift... no one “should” be running more than a 2.5” lift in the rear because you’ll be raked out an extra .5” since the front suspension is the limiting factor... you need 30mm droop, working backwards that gets you 2.5” lift.

SO... the .143” deflection now goes down to .07” even more insignificant. A shot bushing in a rear control arm could account for WELL over that much lateral deflection driving around.

just because someone made it, doesn’t mean it’s required.

 

[JunkCrzr89]

.143” is such a small about of lateral deflection... personally, these are all huge expenses for something insignificant.

and again, no one is running a 3.5” lift... no one “should” be running more than a 2.5” lift in the rear because you’ll be raked out an extra .5” since the front suspension is the limiting factor... you need 30mm droop, working backwards that gets you 2.5” lift.

SO... the .143” deflection now goes down to .07” even for insignificant. A shot bushing in a rear control arm could account for WELL over that much lateral deflection driving around.

just because someone made it, doesn’t mean it’s required.

 

[jLB]

.143” is such a small about of lateral deflection... personally, these are all huge expenses for something insignificant.

Agreed, and pretty much the point that I was trying to get across with the chart. The adjustable panhard bar seems like a waste, unless you've already got an unused one sitting on a shelf in the garage.

It is my understanding that the purpose of a panhard correction bracket, is to adjust the angle (not length) of the panhard bar.

High school trigonometry should give us an idea on the angles involved:

Which to me reads as, it is more harmful than beneficial to the geometry until you get to ~2+ inches of lift.

At what point does angle become significant?

and again, no one is running a 3.5” lift... no one “should” be running more than a 2.5” lift in the rear because you’ll be raked out an extra .5” since the front suspension is the limiting factor... you need 30mm droop, working backwards that gets you 2.5” lift.

SO... the .143” deflection now goes down to .07” even for insignificant. A shot bushing in a rear control arm could account for WELL over that much lateral deflection driving around.

While I mostly agree here, decreasing rear height, when your springs that were advertised as 2" end up raising the rear ~3", isn't quite as easy as adjusting the torsion bars in the front.

Adding a $3000+ rear bumper or buying different springs (I have an array of them in the garage), to adjust the rear height isn't necessarily cheap either.

just because someone made it, doesn’t mean it’s required.

Again I mostly agree here, then again the drop bracket was $325, and in the grand scheme of getting rid of all of the wiggle/slop in the rear end, it seemed rather insignificant at the time.

Am I planning on installing a panhard drop bracket on either of our other two 100 series? No.

Am I happy with the one that I have on our old 99 LX? Yes.

Was it absolutely necessary? No, probably not, but it might make for a more pleasant drive to Colorado this summer.

 

[jLB]

A follow up post just to confirm the math above is reasonably accurate.

My kid’s LC on OME 860 springs:

Our 99 LX with the TD 949L springs, and the Delta VS drop bracket:

 

[JunkCrzr89]

A follow up post just to confirm the math above is reasonably accurate.

My kid’s LC on OME 860 springs:
View attachment 2550485

Our 99 LX with the TD 949L springs, and the Delta VS drop bracket:
View attachment 2550486

Was the load in the rear identical?

 

[jLB]

Was the load in the rear identical?

Identical, no probably not. Very similar, yes.

Rear center of hub to fender edge measurements:

00 LC ~22.5”
99 LX ~23.25”

Again, I’m not saying 4.25* is significant or insignificant, just verifying that the theoretical math is somewhat close to the actual measurements.

 

[abuck99]

Math is pretty close. General of thumb: for every inch of lift in rear, lengthen panhard by 1/16th"or .0625" will get you back close to stock axle position. In a 2" lift for alignment purposes its pretty much unnecessary to consider lengthening it, but there are certain springs: for example TOY13B, 2863, lift every bit of 2.5~ 3".- and 2864 around 3.5" (or a tad more) over stock springs depending on how much junk you got in your trunk. Lengthening eliminates the crab from your stink bug.

 

[JunkCrzr89]

Lengthening eliminates the crab from your stink bug

Only at resting height. The crab returns when the suspension is compressed, because the lengthened panhard bar forces the axle swing in an arc out the driver side.

 

[Somebodyelse5]

Only at resting height. The crab returns when the suspension is compressed, because the lengthened panhard bar forces the axle swing in an arc out the driver side.

Correct, it only corrects it at that specific location. You will still suffer similar crabbing as the suspension cycles.

But in our case, the crab effect is minimal..... .07" with a 2.5" and that's insignificant