Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
My guess as to why it isn't done is that there's not enough room (atleast with the size lifts we typically work with) for the upper mount to be raised).
it will really jack up the link geometry... plug the numbers into a link calculator and look at your results.... it would probably just give you a BSOD for even asking:roflmao:
+2, I think axle wrap would be a huge issue with the LCA on top of the axle. I think it would be too much stress on the LCA mount to have all the weight on top. instead of having it mount at the top or the bottom why not mount it in the middle? then raise the UCA's up. IDK just brain storming.
Its not axle wrap exactly since the axle shouldnt be able to rotate too much if you have good joints and bushings.
The first problem would be messing with your instant center by bringing it above center and in turn would completely screw your antisquat numbers.
The more important issue is strength. Never mount your lowers above center of the axle. It will act as a giant lever and the torque from your tires to the ground will be greatly multiplied and add substantial stress to your new mounts and control arms. Even if you could build strong enough mounts dont even think about using your stock control arms.
The proper fix to bad control arm angles are long arms or drop brackets. The only reason to move your lower axle mounts up a little is if you are worried about them getting mangled on rocks.
The proper fix to bad control arm angles are long arms or drop brackets. The only reason to move your lower axle mounts up a little is if you are worried about them getting mangled on rocks.
Thanks for the explanation redrider. I knew there had to be a reason why this isn't done as it would surely be a good thing with respect to ground clearance.
IMO control arm location has to be a compromise...
first you have to find out what the ideal, perfect geometry would be... link calculators are helpful.
then you have to make those numbers fit around where you can mount the links... too low and you will hang them up on everything, too high and you will have a/s issues amongst others. also, the further towards the center of the tube you mount the lowers the faster you will go through bushings or flex joints or heims or what have you.
you then have to look at where your uppers are going and the clearances between the chassis and other parts of the rig.
then once you've decided where its all going its: *tack* tack* *cycle* *cycle* *repeat* *repeat* until you get all of the binds out and then burn it in and bash it around...
I think everyone who has commented so far has hit the nail on the head.
My immediate thought on gaining ground-clearance without creating wrap would be to locate the mount on the front-side of the axle. This woud still prevent the axle from moving forward (wrapping) under acceleration and gain the clearance you desire.
The issue now is you shorten the length of the arm and limit travel. I think you would want to relocate the body mount location forward to allow for a longer arm. This would also make the upper and lower links more parallel, which I understand to be integral to a performing suspension.
another issue is that the lower mounts are directly under the coil perches... where are you gonna put them on the top?
If you chop off the shock mounts you can put the LCA mounts a lot higher on the axle housing, then make new shock mounts off the outboard side of the LCA mount. Make sure you don't chop too much off the shock mount or you'll be weakening the coil perch.
I've seen 4 links with the LCA's mounted flush to the axle tube. When I get home I will grap the link for a 4 link calculator that you can plug your mesurements into and see what you come up with
