re-configure suspension (1 Viewer)

[rondog]

I have thought about it and I think that a 3 link/panhard set-up in the front would be more street worthy than the wish -bone one I have mocked up. I have heard that I will get to much bump steer with this set-up? Any one have some input? Maybe I should go with a 4 link since I have the joints to do it.Also I am thinking about re-doing the center link bracket that houses the front and rear lower links, I think I should build the skid-plate first and then get placement of the lowers to give me optimal ground clearance.I have cycled this suspension several times and it works great, but after looking at it for a while I noticed some changes that could be made.Trial and error I suppose!! This is the set-up I have now, with some pics for criticism - (input)

 

[lowtideride]

I have no input on the link setup.

But I do know from wheeling series in the rocks for years....is that you need to drop the ride height a few inches...

 

[woody]

I suspect it'll drop some once a motor is installed, but yes...lower is better...within reason...

yes, you will experience more bumpsteer with the link setup you have versus a 3-link/panhard setup...there are advantages to both, and a well design front 4-link CAN be done without bump steer...

honestly, unless you have an aversion to redesign, I'd see how it works first

 

[rondog]

ride height

I have no input on the link setup.

But I do know from wheeling series in the rocks for years....is that you need to drop the ride height a few inches...

YES, I do plan on coming down at lest 4" - when I stated this project I was trying to use some ideas off of other 80 lifts, and wound up putting the springs under the axle instead of inside/outside as the 80's are. This brought my ride height up way more than intended- shoot, I may be fine with stock height springs. more to come! possibly once dialed in I can offer a reasonable kit for others to use.

 

[rondog]

redesign

I suspect it'll drop some once a motor is installed, but yes...lower is better...within reason...

yes, you will experience more bumpsteer with the link setup you have versus a 3-link/panhard setup...there are advantages to both, and a well design front 4-link CAN be done without bump steer...

honestly, unless you have an aversion to redesign, I'd see how it works first

I hear ya Woody! My only other concern is only having only that one other link keeping the suspension from falling apart?

 

[lowtideride]

YES, I do plan on coming down at lest 4" - when I stated this project I was trying to use some ideas off of other 80 lifts, and wound up putting the springs under the axle instead of inside/outside as the 80's are. This brought my ride height up way more than intended- shoot, I may be fine with stock height springs. more to come! possibly once dialed in I can offer a reasonable kit for others to use.

I forgot to mention....Nice work.


Stock 80s springs will be nice...got them under my fj62

 

[rondog]

body swap

I forgot to mention....Nice work.


Stock 80s springs will be nice...got them under my fj62

THANKS! Were you the one who did the body swap onto the 80 chassis? Great idea.

 

[lowtideride]

THANKS! Were you the one who did the body swap onto the 80 chassis? Great idea.

Yulp... Could have 4-linked it much cheaper probably but at least this way its ALL land cruiser with Toyota designed suspension. And the ease of using 80 series lift kits under it.

Good work though I would like to see pictures of this thing on the trail soon.

 

[rondog]

Coiled Cruisers

Yulp... Could have 4-linked it much cheaper probably but at least this way its ALL land cruiser with Toyota designed suspension. And the ease of using 80 series lift kits under it.

Good work though I would like to see pictures of this thing on the trail soon.

I thought it to be a great idea - would have done it myself, but not many 80's to buy out here in AZ. that anyone will part with reasonably. Everyone will get to this thing in action, cause by the time it's ready I will be so hungry to wheel I'm gonna go for it - EVERYWHERE POSSIBLE !!

 

[CruisinFJ60]

the way the wishbone that you have setup now sits will not provide enough stability of lateral movement and will allow the suspension to shift left and right under load. tho not much it will get worse and eventually tear things up.
howeveer the rear triangulated 4 link looks good and should be quite sturdy tho i would personally move or re support the upper link bars. (i know its just a mock but i was just throwing my opinion out there)

the reason the front wishbone would not work properly is because there is no pan hard bar. and the way the wishbone is set up it is not a "true" triangulated set up. the single upper mount does split off into 2 bars yes but... it is still a single upper mount... and is basically a 3 link the way it is set up... thus needing a pan hard bar.

 

[Mace]

the way the wishbone that you have setup now sits will not provide enough stability of lateral movement and will allow the suspension to shift left and right under load. tho not much it will get worse and eventually tear things up.
howeveer the rear triangulated 4 link looks good and should be quite sturdy tho i would personally move or re support the upper link bars. (i know its just a mock but i was just throwing my opinion out there)

the reason the front wishbone would not work properly is because there is no pan hard bar. and the way the wishbone is set up it is not a "true" triangulated set up. the single upper mount does split off into 2 bars yes but... it is still a single upper mount... and is basically a 3 link the way it is set up... thus needing a pan hard bar.

Completely wrong..

Unles she used silly putty in the frame side bushings a wishbone three link does nto need a PH bar. IN fact, if you put a PH bar in there, most likely the front axle would bind..

I am not a great fan of wishbones in the front due to the odd steering characteristics. Although, it REALLY depends on the angles of your Draglink. Just as Woody mentioned, a 4 link or even a wishbone 3 link does not HAVE to have bump steer. It all depends on the arc of movement of the axle and the angle of your drag link. It is more a matter of suspension design, not suspension type..

Even a standard 3 link with a panhard can have bump steer if the PH and the DL are not parallel and approximately the same length.

Personaly, I would lower it a bit more and see howit behaves.

And, I would support the living s*** out of that rear bridge. It most likely won't hold up the way you have it mounted right now.

BTW, why so much vertical seperation?

Also, on the front mount. I would tie that center mount around the front axle if possible. And, most the orientation of the wishbone apex's Johnny joint. The bolt should run top to bottom, not side to side..

 

[CruisinFJ60]

Completely wrong..

Unles she used silly putty in the frame side bushings a wishbone three link does nto need a PH bar. IN fact, if you put a PH bar in there, most likely the front axle would bind..

i understand what you are saying and would generally agree. ish.
i also understand that due to the design setup why it would bind up.

but bottom line its metal metal moves and flexes over time i never said it was gonna break tho i do feel as if i may have been vauge to the amount of movement. movement of some kind will exsist in even a good triangulated 4 link. but however the 3 link wishbone is what is basically a triangulated 4 link at the body or chasis mounts but at the axle its self it still only has 3 links i understand that the way the bars are set will help resist movement but it will not stop it.
now i may be pissin in the wind with this since i dont have quite as much experience in this field or in general as many of the people that have posted above me. but i have alot of experience with mini trucks bagged trucks to be more exact. and the suspension setups we use out back are all the same as anyone else in the 4x4 world.
in fact a friend of mine had a "triangulated 4 link" well thats how the bars were set up anyway. 2 lowers straight and the 2 uppers curved out. souns good right? yea till you look at it. on the upper mounts where the bars attached they were straight at the pumpkin and then the bar bent to go at the angle. after a couple of years the axle had shifted over 3 inches to the right because of this. i just dont see something that is basically the same design holding true espically since it will be abused more than a street truck. now his situation was an easy fix since he had fully adjustible upper and lower links... maybe i am forgeting this and that same concept will be uded on the 60 above... however movement will exsist...

please shed some light i want to learn.
i know the setup he is using up front is a good one i just think it needs something to keep it from shifting. now also stated was about the frame side bushings... well this truck was also conected strongly at the frame...

like i said teach me.

the truck that had the axle movement

 

[Mace]

Yes, a wishbone 3 link is basically the same as a standard triangulated 4 link with no seperation at the axle.

The amount of later movement is dependant on the amount of angle between the 2 "links" if the angle is too shallow, yes, you can have lateral movement. But, if there is plenty of angle, there is not a single issue with lateral movement.
My guess with that minitruck, is that he designed the suspension wrong. Unfortunately, not a hell of a lot of the suspension is pictured there...

If you believe that all metal will move and flex over time then you obviously are not building things strong enough or efficiently enough.

 

[CruisinFJ60]

Yes, a wishbone 3 link is basically the same as a standard triangulated 4 link with no seperation at the axle.

The amount of later movement is dependant on the amount of angle between the 2 "links" if the angle is too shallow, yes, you can have lateral movement. But, if there is plenty of angle, there is not a single issue with lateral movement.
My guess with that minitruck, is that he designed the suspension wrong. Unfortunately, not a hell of a lot of the suspension is pictured there...

If you believe that all metal will move and flex over time then you obviously are not building things strong enough or efficiently enough.

well i just mean metal in general will move. like a tall building sways or a bridge will bounce.

ok i found an ok pic of the rear suspenion...
its a lil dif then i rember the upper link bars start angled and curv straight making it basically a standard 4 link w/o a panhard....

guess that would explain my confusion...

 

[fc187]

Completely wrong..


And, I would support the living s*** out of that rear bridge. It most likely won't hold up the way you have it mounted right now.


Also, on the front mount. I would tie that center mount around the front axle if possible. And, most the orientation of the wishbone apex's Johnny joint. The bolt should run top to bottom, not side to side..

agreed.

all geometry asside,.... definately focus a bit more on making both front and rear brackets at the difs allot stronger. I like to think you planed on plating the rear in. and dont underestimate the lateral load on the wishbone mount at the front dif. You may wanna spread that load a little more. steering puts a TON of load on the fronts locating links, or in your case, LINK. that single joint will have allot of work to do. when its all said and done, make sure that jamb nut stays TIGHT. I have seen tube inserts on a wishbones center joint wobble out to the point of stripping out.

your work looks clean, definately take advantage of the advice/tips and I sure it will turn out bitchen

 

[Tapage]

Subscribing to this thread, just interesting info from Gurus ..

 

[Mace]

well i just mean metal in general will move. like a tall building sways or a bridge will bounce.

ok i found an ok pic of the rear suspenion...
its a lil dif then i rember the upper link bars start angled and curv straight making it basically a standard 4 link w/o a panhard....

guess that would explain my confusion...

That suspension is a standard 4 link W/O a panhard. It is nice and shiny but has almost no angularity to the links. That is the reason it was able to sway back and forth.
Very poor design. He would have done better to make all the arms straight and used a panhard bar.

 

[CruisinFJ60]

That suspension is a standard 4 link W/O a panhard. It is nice and shiny but has almost no angularity to the links. That is the reason it was able to sway back and forth.
Very poor design. He would have done better to make all the arms straight and used a panhard bar.

yea i was thinking that they were set up diferently on the uppers not straight then a curve...

i was in fact wrong with my original argument due to the fact that the suspension is not as i orginally described nor is it even remotely the same as the above wishbone.

thank you for making me find the pictures as so i could understand my own mistake. Ill owe you a beer when i see ya Mace.

none the less as others have mentioned the upper rear link mounts are kinda high and lack support and i still dont like the way the front upper link just kinda stands there.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

time for a long travel watts link

 

[Mace]

time for a long travel watts link

Please show pics.