3-Link vs Long Arms

Getting ready to redesign my front suspension on my 89 what wanted to take a poll on what you guys thought. I've got a pieced together 6" kit (mostly RC Parts with yj brake lines) and I"m about to redesign the front. I was origionally thinking about a tri-link front where the top arm ran between the stock upper control arm mounts and the two lowers straight back to the tranny crossmember (already made a new one, strong enough to handle the arms). My other thought is to just make new lower control arms back the the crossmember and rotate the uppers down and attach them to the lowers like the RE and Rusty's kits do. Bending/welding isn't a problem, just wondering what yall thought was the advantages/disadvantages of both systems. I know in the tri-link you get to ditch the trac-bar, but with a good tracbar will that add enough flex by go tri-link?

Panthers65 said:

Getting ready to redesign my front suspension on my 89 what wanted to take a poll on what you guys thought. I've got a pieced together 6" kit (mostly RC Parts with yj brake lines) and I"m about to redesign the front. I was origionally thinking about a tri-link front where the top arm ran between the stock upper control arm mounts and the two lowers straight back to the tranny crossmember (already made a new one, strong enough to handle the arms). My other thought is to just make new lower control arms back the the crossmember and rotate the uppers down and attach them to the lowers like the RE and Rusty's kits do. Bending/welding isn't a problem, just wondering what yall thought was the advantages/disadvantages of both systems. I know in the tri-link you get to ditch the trac-bar, but with a good tracbar will that add enough flex by go tri-link?

Click to expand...

Just make two lower long arms and run one torque arm from one of the lower links to the top of the axle. Imagine the rusty's or tnt kit with one of the torque arms removed. It would be nice to have a triangulated front suspension inorder to get rid of the track bar but it will require alot more thought and planning to get it to work out right.

Here is a couple of shots of the "wishbone" 3-link...

holy freaking gay

just do a real 3 link

well the main reason I was wanting to do the 3-link is to remove the trac-bar. and about the torque arm, I've heard too many stories of the lower control arm brackets braking with 2 lower arms, much less on big one.

Teal- care to elaborate? a real 3-link as opposed to a wishbone 3-link or the torque arm idea?

First of all a wishbone is a "real" three link I'm not quite sure what was meant by that...I don't think that really added anything useful to this thread. A triangulated three link would be really hard to fit under the front of a cherokee without a substantial amount of lift merly because there is just no room under it for everything.

Moving on, I would still build one like the rusty's or tnt with a trackbar, two long lower links, and one torque arm instead of two like they use...

Panthers65 said:

well the main reason I was wanting to do the 3-link is to remove the trac-bar. and about the torque arm, I've heard too many stories of the lower control arm brackets braking with 2 lower arms, much less on big one.

Teal- care to elaborate? a real 3-link as opposed to a wishbone 3-link or the torque arm idea?

Click to expand...

a 3 link, being 2 lowers, one upper and a track bar

why would you want to deal w/ a wishbone set up.

the track bar works fine
you need to do a full hydro steer w/ the wishbone

its just not worth it at all

tealcherokee said:

a 3 link, being 2 lowers, one upper and a track bar

why would you want to deal w/ a wishbone set up.

the track bar works fine

you need to do a full hydro steer w/ the wishbone

its just not worth it at all

Click to expand...

Dear gawd help me, I'm going to have to agree with everything Teal said, especially the highlighed part.

I'm going to have to agree with these other guys. The wishbone is going to be more trouble than its worth. Plus your going to have to run hydro, but I would think you wouldn't mind upgrading to that anyway...I built my setup from my local hydraulic shop for about $200. Use a return to center orbital valve and it will have better manners on the street than your mechanical linkage ever did. The setup in the bottom picture doesn't look like a bad design to me, the others however look a little on the rigged side. The three link will flex just as well...the limiting factor in both will most likely be your shocks anyway...

I'm curious on how many of you have actually run a triangulated link suspension? What makes the design "not worth it"? Is the the fear of full hydro? The tight clearances? The fact you may actually need to put some thought into your suspension design (Crash is exempt from the last two)?

Mine seems worth it, but I guess my standards may be lower than most.

-Jon

CRASH said:

Dear gawd help me, I'm going to have to agree with everything Teal said, especially the highlighed part.

Click to expand...

how would you be able to use traditional steering w/o the wheel getting ripped outta your hands everytime your suspension moves?

A wish bone on a less the very stout frame / chassis is going to eat wisebone attachemnt ends left and right. Expecially on a XJ, with its less then even basic frame / structure. Being that the frame end attachment locations will Felx closer and further apart. Yes just slightly, but how much give is in a hiem? yeah none. Well it will gain some quickly, Just ask Roackkrawler. That was their issues with thier wisebone TJ upper rear link that they disco'd but wont admit to the reason.

Now go johnny joint and at least theres some give but its not made to handle that consistantly, and will get sloppy sooner then later.

But all in all a wish bone is better suited for a frame / structure that has No deflection at all in the mounting areas. Hell if the wishbone is solid even and you have over kill ends you will end up just snapping the wishbone in the center, again ask Rockkrawler, they know all about that as do I....

So if at all poss I would rather see two separate links converging on one axis point to make it a 3 link, but thats just my opinion, and it IS from first hand experience.

Other wise a 4 link for moderatly heavy rigs and 3 link w/track bar for moon buggys is great. typically. Again in my opinion.

are you talking about the frame mounts, like on the pictures above, moving side to side as the frame flexes?

I am very impressed with the wishbone setup utilizing the stock lower control arm frame mounts as upper CA mounts. What I hope one of you can explain to me is why you would have to run hydro and why do you think it would be any more stress and or wear than another setup? Lets not forget the WJ uses a similar setup that was designed by Porsche, no less, in the rear.

Phantom said:

I am very impressed with the wishbone setup utilizing the stock lower control arm frame mounts as upper CA mounts. What I hope one of you can explain to me is why you would have to run hydro and why do you think it would be any more stress and or wear than another setup? Lets not forget the WJ uses a similar setup that was designed by Porsche, no less, in the rear.

Click to expand...

You do not have to run full hydro because there is absoutley no side to side movement. It's not like a three link or a four link with a track bar when the axle articulates the track bar pushes it to one side which can result in bump steer. The wishbone setup locates the axle in the middle, it does not allow the axle to move side to side, and when it articulates both sides drop down in the same manner, not like a track bar located setup which articlates differently depending on which side is drooping. I think that bottom picture is a really nice setup, I don't think they are "gay" as mentioned above...I'm still not sure it's worth doing however. The 3 & 4 link as well as the wishbone setup's articulation are all still going to be limited to the length of the shock you can cram in there. I personally still like the idea of the wishbone though, I think its unique, and I like the idea all of the stress being taken off of one side of the frame where the track bar mounts and being displaced over two mounting points. I didn't mean to say you had to run full hydro in my last post, I aplogize for that...

Here is a pic of one running hydro assist...

MogifiedXJ said:

You do not have to run full hydro because there is absoutley no side to side movement. It's not like a three link or a four link with a track bar when the axle articulates the track bar pushes it to one side which can result in bump steer. The wishbone setup locates the axle in the middle, it does not allow the axle to move side to side, and when it articulates both sides drop down in the same manner, not like a track bar located setup which articlates differently depending on which side is drooping. I think that bottom picture is a really nice setup, I don't think they are "gay" as mentioned above...I'm still not sure it's worth doing however. The 3 & 4 link as well as the wishbone setup's articulation are all still going to be limited to the length of the shock you can cram in there. I personally still like the idea of the wishbone though, I think its unique, and I like the idea all of the stress being taken off of one side of the frame where the track bar mounts and being displaced over two mounting points. I didn't mean to say you had to run full hydro in my last post, I aplogize for that...

Here is a pic of one running hydro assist...

Click to expand...

You confirmed what I was thinking...this photo you posted is of the same XJ that I said I am impressed with the setup...I am wishing I had set up my long arm this way (I hacekd off my stock mounts), a 3 link (wishbone) has always been my idea of an ideal setup. I wonder how well it performs in the real world and how he likes it.

MogifiedXJ said:

You do not have to run full hydro because there is absoutley no side to side movement.

Click to expand...

No side to side movement is the reason you would want to use full hydro.

hackedxj said:

No side to side movement is the reason you would want to use full hydro.

Click to expand...

What??? Side to side movement???

You don't have side to side movement with a track bar either...If your talking about articulation both the wishbone and 3 or 4 link articulate in a circular arch...Maybe I'm just not understanding you.

MogifiedXJ said:

What???

You don't have side to side movement with a track bar either

Click to expand...

Track bar fixes the axle, yes.
Track bar also travels in an arc.
Axle moves left to right during suspension travel.
Drag Link designed to follow this arc closely. Disparity is bump-steer.

Remove trackbar, introduce triangulated uppers or wishbone
Suspension cycles straight up and down.
Drag link still travels in arc. Disparity can be terrible for higher speed and travel.

I agree with Kubtastic, that explains it pretty well.

I see...I think I was over thinking it and missed the obvious...

I wonder how much it would really matter??? At speed your axle doesn't cycle up and down more than a couple of inches and with the draglink being nearly horizontal...I don't know could be dangerous I guess. While you were on the trail would be the only time your axle would droop a significant amount. Regaurdless, like I said earlier, I built my full hydro from my local hydraulic shop for less than $200. Return to center orbital valve, three turns lock to lock, handles better than the mechanical linkage ever did. If the guy is willing to go to all the trouble of building a complete lift kit...What's full hydro to him also??? I still like the design and setup of the wishbone.