4 link without a panhard

probably not advanced enough, but i was under the cherokee today and looking around at it, and it wouldnt be all that hard to run a 4 link that uses the stock control arm mounts, with teh lower two being parallel and the upper two converging at one center point (but still have 2 true links and 2 terminations at the axle - 2 joints)
the issue would be the oil pan, but what is wrong with putting a bend in a CA to make it go around the oil pan?

i have seen this done with a dual triangulated 4 link where the upper links go in and the lower links go out (hard to imagine, but it makes sense)
but what if you only triangulate the upper links and do almost a wishbone setup?

any opinions? i know that searching is in order, and looking around and all that... i am in the process of building the d44 (cleaning it off right now, cutting parts off) and thinking that keeping the stock 4 link is a waste of my time...

i dont want to make a missing 3 link or run a custom x-member, and i want to keep short arms (because im freeking weird)

thoughts? opinions?

XJ_ranger said:

probably not advanced enough, but i was under the cherokee today and looking around at it, and it wouldnt be all that hard to run a 4 link that uses the stock control arm mounts, with teh lower two being parallel and the upper two converging at one center point (but still have 2 true links and 2 terminations at the axle - 2 joints)
the issue would be the oil pan, but what is wrong with putting a bend in a CA to make it go around the oil pan?

i have seen this done with a dual triangulated 4 link where the upper links go in and the lower links go out (hard to imagine, but it makes sense)
but what if you only triangulate the upper links and do almost a wishbone setup?

any opinions? i know that searching is in order, and looking around and all that... i am in the process of building the d44 (cleaning it off right now, cutting parts off) and thinking that keeping the stock 4 link is a waste of my time...

i dont want to make a missing 3 link or run a custom x-member, and i want to keep short arms (because im freeking weird)

thoughts? opinions?

Click to expand...

IMO, short arms are too short to angle more than they already are. Besides, reconstructing the stock (axle side) mounts for this angle sounds more difficult than building a crossmember or relocating the mounts. If you're still interested in the idea (and you're open to relocating the mounts) check these threads out:
Front 4 Link Modeling
Front 4 Link Finished & Tested
12 Pack Fab Works latest project- '90 XJ, 5.0 V8, Dana 60s
The Wishbone project
the wishbone project-waayy too many pics
The Wishbone MIGHT work! lotza PICS
pics for one smooth...wishbone
Billy

damn...

well, i dont want to get too much into engineering on this one and attempt anything crazy like that...

i wanted to use the stock CA mounts so i wouldnt have to re-make the fame side pieces on the next XJ (it seems that XJ's have a life expectancy of about 5 years under heavy abuse, and i want the swap to the next one to be simple enough that i am not re-doing things over and over)

I like the short arms because the ground clearance they offer, and the fact that they dont unload in climbing...

That and everyone and their mom runs long arms, and im not cool enough for mid arms...

looks like the plan for now is to run the "stock" suspention with a little more triangulation in the upper arms than came on the d30, but not much...
just to take some of the work off the trackbar...
i have blown 3 trackbar joints now (all TRE's) and am sick of changing them (am going to a JJ frame side trackbar mount when i swap front axle in and raise the axle mount of the trackbar)

i also plan on raising the mounts about 2" to deal with control arm angle and give myself a little better ground clearance - as well as move the front axle forward about 1" (for no reason other than to have a different wheelbase than most everyone else)

i also plan on cutting and re-aligning the knuckles for proper castor after i set the pinion angle...



and you might want to revisit your bookmarks there billy - almost no pictures in any of Beezil's threads

I think going with the stock frame points and raised axle mounts is a good way to go. You can get the angles of a 3" lift while actually haveing 5", not bad. However I definitely would not triangulate the uppers any more than stock. The more triangulation you introduce in the 4 control arms the more the suspension will want to travel vertically, and the more it will resist and bind against the panhard wanting to travel in an arc.

BrettM said:

However I definitely would not triangulate the uppers any more than stock. The more triangulation you introduce in the 4 control arms the more the suspension will want to travel vertically, and the more it will resist and bind against the panhard wanting to travel in an arc.

Click to expand...

good call, that makes sense now that i think about it...


im glad thre are people out there to save my skin and keep moe from trying stupid sh|t...

time for bed...

XJ_ranger said:

damn...

I like the short arms because the ground clearance they offer, and the fact that they dont unload in climbing...

Click to expand...

You haven't ridden in a well designed three link.

CRASH

XJ_ranger said:

and you might want to revisit your bookmarks there billy - almost no pictures in any of Beezil's threads

Click to expand...

I know, but Beezil's threads w/ no pictures are still better than most other threads.
Billy

just go leaf......

Ludakris said:

just go leaf......

Click to expand...

yeah! there we go...

nah...

Ludakris said:

just go leaf......

Click to expand...

I think I would do that just for the sheer simplicity of it if I ever built a rig on full width axles.

Rockwells and leaf springs.

Awe-inspiring 1950's technology coming to an XJ near you.

CRASH

CRASH said:

Rockwells and leaf springs.

Awe-inspiring 1950's technology coming to an XJ near you.

CRASH

Click to expand...

Inappropriate for the Advanced Fab & Eng forum, I take it?

Lawn Cher' said:

Inappropriate for the Advanced Fab & Eng forum, I take it?

Click to expand...

Nah, it takes advanced fab to go back in time.

CRASH said:

Nah, it takes advanced fab to go back in time.

Click to expand...

old school like whoa... Mog 404's and leafs.. good times...

anywho.. the title says 4 link without panhard.. isnt the track bar a panhard? at least in principle? isnt there mention of reusing it or am I just lost...

the discription of the upper links, sounds like a 3 link just "seperated"... if the mounts are going to be at the center of the axle, woulnd it be easier to do the 3 link... (assuming the oil pan is not of concern)...

I don't even understand the premise of trying to do a triangulated 4 link without also doing full hydro.

Running that set-up with a drag-link style steering would suck.

Now, uber-cool would be to run a steering link down one of the upper arms, with a bell crank at the UCA mount and a tie rod connecting the wheels. Then, your steering would travel in the same arc as your axle, and all would be splendid.

CRASH

I like marine cable steering myself. Or you could do a servo controlled electric actuator.