Cant
(Noun) - a slope or a tilt.
(Verb) - cause to be in a slanting or oblique position; tilt.
Why angle the coil over aft at the top?
The 4WheelUnderground 3 link thread
- Thread starter jcardona1
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Cant
(Noun) - a slope or a tilt.
(Verb) - cause to be in a slanting or oblique position; tilt.
Why angle the coil over aft at the top?
- Thread starter
- #162
Haha I'm an idiot. I assumed you left out an apostrophe. It just seems like the easiest place to put them, using the curvature of the frame and the opening from the OEM shock tower. I played around with the position of them. With the towers I have, trying to mount them vertically means it gets close to the steering box which them leaves no room for the air bumps.Cant
(Noun) - a slope or a tilt.
(Verb) - cause to be in a slanting or oblique position; tilt.
Why angle the coil over aft at the top?
Brian never did a mockup using standard coilovers so the only reference I have is Bobby's rig. If you guys have ideas I'm all ears (towers not welded in place yet). And from what I've read there's no negating effects from running the coilovers slanted back.
- Thread starter
- #163
Cant
(Noun) - a slope or a tilt.
(Verb) - cause to be in a slanting or oblique position; tilt.
Why angle the coil over aft at the top?
Also, had a helpful phone conversation with Brian yesterday. I think I may have jumped the gun by notching the tower for the steering shaft. In hindsight, I should have removed the shaft and waited to do that as a last step. So, I think I may be flipping this tower to the passenger side. Set the height of the towers not that I know my uptravel THEN notch it for the steering shaft. So now I'll have 2 towers with matching notches
He also envisioned the air bumps being notched into the frame. Again, I was going off my only resource I had (Bobby's). But I like Brian's idea. Would also leave more room to position the shock tower as there's no air bump brackets to work around. So that will be another change I make.
And that folks is why we only tack things in place. And I can't mention enough how helpful Brian is, constantly answering my texts and spending lots of time helping me out over the phone. He really goes out of his way to make sure I'm doing this right.
- Thread starter
- #164
Yeah I haven't put those in yet which is why I'm not too concerned with the steering arm touching the panhard heim. Do you have pics of yours btw? I was thinking of using some solid steel square tubing...?
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
how much steering are you losing due to interference? That sucks a little....
Btw you don't have a y link, it's an inverted T. themoreyouknow.jpg
Btw you don't have a y link, it's an inverted T. themoreyouknow.jpg
- Thread starter
- #166
I'd say about 1/2". But keep in mind this is without steering stops, pushing the knuckles as far as they go. I'm not even sure if that's safe for the seals and birfield. This is also one of the things I discussed with Brian. Going to remove the panhard bracket and try to push it back rearward a bit. Speaking of which, how do you know where to set the steering stops? Is there a recommended range?
Y-link, I blame RuffStuff for advertising it that way! I'm so used to saying y-link even though I know it's a t-link. The guys at PartsMike had something to say about their competitor calling it a y-link
This would be the true y-link, with draglink going directly to the knuckle
Take the stock pitman arm and flip it over, re-ream the tape for your larger joints and clearance and reinforce the frame where it would hit.
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
Aren't both sides of the splines tapered ? I don't think that works
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
You can clock the pitman arm since its not keyed, Jose. You'd shorten your drag link a bit but it might be easiest.
I don't have 'hard' steering stops as the hydro assist rams throw dictates my steering. That ram, however, is sitting in the back of the truck next to a bunch of other parts not yet installed
- Thread starter
- #171
Not to mention it would ruin the taper right? If one side is tapered, then you flip it around and taper it again you've essentially drilled a hole straight through which leaves nothing for the TRE to grab on.
What would that achieve? Because if you look at my photo, the tie rod hits the main body of the pitman arm. So it would always contact regardless of what position the pitman is in.
Mount the stops with the knuckle fully turned (max) and the threaded 'bolt' turned all the way in. Then spin them out to your liking once the felts, cover plates and birfs are installed?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #174
Those are nice, wouldn't mind a set if you're bored at work. Let me know how much I owe ya!
NCFJ
Supporting Vendor
I am interested to see where this goes. Anyone that thinks a suspension that works in the rocks can not be stable at 75-80 MPH need only look at Ultra 4 Racing, King of Hammers. As 4WU, Brian if I may, said it is about the geometry. If he can make a repeatable system that is a stable platform that removes all the negative aspects of the OEM suspension I say go for it!!
4WheelUnderground
Suspension is EVERYTHING
The .5" steering lose doesn't seem right. I think all that needs to happens is some small tweaking of bracket location.
It's already been determined, indisputably and without doubt, that the aft holes (that'd be the holes in the back, for JC
) CAN NOT (not can't, again for JC ) be used for the tie rod. Wouid you confirm that, please?
4WheelUnderground
Suspension is EVERYTHING
Will not happen with out a semi major redo on my part. Not happening.
4WheelUnderground
Suspension is EVERYTHING
Just run the right hand drive lower arms and run hiems and double shear it.
- Thread starter
- #180
Not unless you're willing to ditch the kit brackets and redo the panhard on your own, at the axle and at the frameIt's already been determined, indisputably and without doubt, that the aft holes (that'd be the holes in the back, for JC
Wouid you confirm that, please?
