• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Going long x4

X

XJguy

NAXJA Forum User
Ive read the arguaments and spent a few days under the Jeep, the conclusion, I am a convert: long arms are the way to go. Why it was not made that way from the factory is beyond me. But I am talking about long 4 links, not just 2 arms. I dont like the 2 arm idea, for many reasons so I will stick to the factory method but with a twist.

So my question is, are there any down sides to using long 4 links that I may not be seeing. I plan the extend the lowers to the cross member and the tops to an area somewhere between the factory lower and upper CA frame mounts. As always TIA.

XJguy
 
Wheeled what, the stock setup? No But I want to get it right the first time. I dont want to go through 4 or 5 lifts and arrangements.

But with the modifications I am doing (8" lift 35" tires) Long arms make all the more sense. For that matter longer arms make more sense even at stock height. Lining up the rear control arm pivot points with that of the front driveshaft seems to be all too correct to not do it.

XJguy
 
The problem is where are you going to land the uppers and maintain the length and also keep the arms parallel.My arms and driveshaft pivot together so I have little if any ext/comp of the driveshaft or rolling of the pinion(down).
mvc-008f.jpg
 
Last edited:
What, exactly, is wrong with radius arms?

4 links bind too, you know.....

CRASH
 
I think thats what I was trying to say.Even if you get the arms all the same length and perfectly parallel you would still get axle yaw(and if not then what do you have???)!And I just dont see how to fit it up,I looked at other options before I built mine(mine were really pretty simple).
 
Well my reasons are as follows. I do not like the idea of holdingmy whole front end together by two bolts. I also do not like the variance in pinion angle during cycling using a two arm setup. I like the idea of the upper arms in a 4 link setup such that when the binding does occur its exactly at the limit of my intended droop sans straps; just the right amount of triangulation (OEM angles) does that as you all know.

XJguy
 
Are you concerned with pinion angle or castor?The pinion follows with the driveshaft so there is no(or very little) change.There will be castor change but minor in normal driving modes.
 
If I understand correctly what you're proposing, it sounds like you'll have a problem with your pinion angle and binding of that u-joint. If your lower arms extend back even with the t-case end of the front driveshaft, but your upper arms only extend back even with the stock CA mounting points, then your lower arms will be significantly longer than the uppers. This means their forward ends (where they connect to the axle tubes) will move through very differetn arcs as the suspension cycles. As the front suspension droops, the upper arms will be moving toward the vertical more quickly than the lowers (due to the difference in length), which will cause the uppers to start pulling the top of the axle back. So as your front end droops, your pinion starts to take a dive - just as your driveshaft is heading away from the body, so is your pinion. I think you'll be flirting with binding up your driveshaft's front u-joint.
 
You are right, but I plan on retaining the same length ratio between the arms that way the binding point will be where I will no longer be able (nor desirable) to droop anyway. This is what I meant about the stock triangulation designed in the system stopping the droop. I plan on elongating the uppers as well.

XJguy
 
Well then, if you can find room to hook it all up and let it articulate, then have at it. Be sure to let us all know how it shakes out along the way.
: )
 
I say it's too much work. Keep your current set-up, dust off the saws-all, trim appropriately and throw on the 35's. Case closed! Plus you'll have the added benny of a lower center of g.
 
come awn xj guy!!!

you yourself said that this was going to be a "corporate appearance" vehicle......

forget all the "what if" suspension shit that won't ever come into play on this vehicle! its not wort your time, or your effort, or more importantly....YOUR MONEY!

if you want me to mind my own biz, just tell me, its cool, but I think you need to be more realistic with this thing.......

besides which, theres not a damn thing wrong with radius arms. I think if R-arms were at all weak, they would have ripped off the body on the badlands Purgatory when I ran it......not trying to be an.....well, ASSHAT.......but you even said you rig isn't going to see the rough so......why bother?

can you dig whadd-I tryin to say?
 
Beezil youre right, but it isnt going to be a trailer queen it will get dirty and used as intended. But look at it this way, ask the Viper owner if he is going to drive 200mph...or even if he does drive 200mph ever, is he going to do this more than once? Unlikely but he loves to know that if he wants to he can and can do it very well and not like an asshat....lol

What you are saying is exactly what my brother tells me by the way...he says "who are you kidding you are never going to drive that thing off-road why the hell are you dumping so much cash into it you're in NYC for Christ's sakes!" to which I answer: sure I am but Im not gonna rip her apart like my comrads here seem to do on a regular basis; shes a keeper.

XJguy
 
and my point is:

have you seen pics of the stuff we take or rigs on that tears them up? If you know that you won't be finding the same stuff to wheel on, the answer is:

your worries are over.


btw, "trailer queens" are the vehicles that get beat on the most......you should see mine now.....doors are gone. Not cause I want to be all cool and run doorless, its that the last time I wheeled it, I PEELED them off! what does that do to your definition of "trailer queen"?

seriously, xj guy....friend-to-a-friend advice here....back to earth my man, please save your money!!!!!!

don't keep ****ing with that rig!
 
Here's a thought, the main reason for this build up is so you can run MOAB this Fall. I really don't think it would be wise to test a newly designed suspension setup out there. I have seen the radius arms in action and most of the guys here in CA don't have trailer queens, they have daily drivers.

I remember when longarms first came out, huge debates, now it seems every flavor of LA's is out there wristed, 3 link , 4 link. At this time the standard LA setup has proven itself reliable and strong. Reliability should be the cornerstone of any good trail rig. But if something new is what you want, I wouldn't take my first test drive in MOAB.
 
You state that one of your concernes is the pionoin angle when cycling the axle. well since we have CVs at the case you pretty much want the yoke and the drive shaft to be in line right. well with equal leanght upers and lower you pionoin is going to keep the same agle relitive to the vehical but its angle is going to change with the drive shaft. with Radius arms if built right it will maintain the sam angle with the drive shaft and even if you miss the mark a little the diffrenc is so marginal that it wount mater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Root Moose
Mild Lifting with OEM Parts
Replies
12
Views
1K
Tim_MN
Tim_MN
E
Steering Redo.... Questions before I dive in.
2
Replies
28
Views
994
RCP Phx
R
T
1 Ton steering clearance issues
Replies
9
Views
846
XJChang
X
W
WJ rear split seat lowers in XJ - mounting to floor or body seam?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Woodswanderer
W
ShoeterMcgav
Long arm DIY build questions
2 3
Replies
49
Views
10K
ShoeterMcgav
ShoeterMcgav
Back
Top