The coils are retained at the bottom, neither are going to lose a coil. Excess droop doesn't hurt, and limiting straps are pointless except to keep a shock or a brake line from being stretched, or to keep the nose from going end-over on a climb.
Limiting straps are widely used to keep the entire front end from dropping out (unloading) without restricting the flex on the corners. This would be a good mod for 80's for steep climbs as you don't ever need the entire front to drop out about more than 4" - if you've 3 linked with a 12" travel shock and now have 8" of down travel this is a day one mod, because suspensions that have been engineered for extra down travel really need this mod as the shocks won't limit a severe unloading of the front end.
Excess droop can hurt. Dropping one front tire too much can make it difficult to climb back out of a hole. Not a huge issue with a long arm suspension like we have, but I have seen rigs literally unable to move forward because excess front end droop was forcing the suspension to work against itself (forcing down and back) rather than climbing, and over relatively minor obstacles. That's one thing I love about the 80 - the front end always wants to climb without much protest...you just need that front locker to compensate for the lack of flex.
BTW, don't 3 link if you are going to reattach your swaybar. You'd be better off with the stock radius arms and a center limiting strap and no front swaybar.
Heath, it was my understanding the (properly designed) triangulated four link wouldn't fit on the 80 for clearance reasons, which is why it's not coming to market. I'd be extremely wary of that mod. In the Jeep SUV world (XJ/ZJ/WJ), you couldn't set proper roll axis without bringing the upper links into the cargo area, which makes these rigs very prone to flopping when you try to mount them to the "frame" rails.
I've watched the whole "extreme flex" game for years and never seen anybody get much out of it on a dual purpose vehicle (unless you count rolls in a positive way) compared to simply beefing up the axles, going nuts on low gearing, and having both ends locked with the absolute biggest tires you can run.
There is a natural progression to these markets, and it goes just like this:
1) OME is greatest thing since sliced bread and you can never do better;
2) OME is not enough lift and isn't designed to maximize tire size;
3) "Look at how flexy that [enter any solid axle 4x4 model here] rig is!" (dawn of the age of flex pictures accompanied by great excitement)
4) "A rear locker is enough"
5) "ARB front and rear or can I do an automatic front locker?"
5) "4.56 gears or 4.88 gears?"
6) "Will a 5.29 R&P break?"
7) "I need a much lower low range"
8) Upgraded axle components and/or entire assemblies & bent housings
9) Can I fit 38" tires on a 3" lift?
10) "Look at how he fit 38" tires on a 3" lift with a near stock suspension!" (dawn of the age of big tire pictures and sawzalls and full replacement axles)
11) Top chopping and exo-tubing and trailer queening
12) "Man I miss the days of simple ole OME"
13) Vehicle sale or scrapping
It will always come back to fitting the largest tires you can fit without really screwing up anything else unless you are building a buggy from the ground up. To that you add the lowest possible gears, greatest possible drivetrain strength and durability, and when you are done #12 will dawn on you as a fundamental truth and #13 will not be far behind.
Note the 80's for sale recently. How many were around a nicely built 4" lift with 35" tires vs. the rigs on 37"+ tires that were pushing the limits? There are far more of us on 4"/35's yet more of the "extreme" crowd is selling.
A simple rule of thumb for all "SUV" builds: if you really have to redesign the suspension you are modifying the wrong vehicle and you should sell it while it is still worth something and build what you really need from the ground up.
because a production 3 link is not something you will see in many (if any) 4x4 markets, much less a low volume market like the 80.
