• NAXJA is having its 18th annual March Membership Drive!!!
    Everyone who joins or renews during March will be entered into a drawing!
    More Information - Join/Renew
  • 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.

cav fab alpha 3 link, pics of install and any issues please?

4x4JeePmaNthINg

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Colorado
im in a 99 and considering the 3 link long arm. those that own this who has any install issues? ive seen some close calls to fuel rails and such thought not on 99 like mine.

of those that have this alpha kit, any issues vs clayton
(2nd option) or such.

the rig is a DD, but its time for adjustable control arms and im not sure i cant justify putting money into adjustable uppers vs a new long arm.


thanks for the wisdom all!
 
also the upper control arm is blowing my mind base on the position on the cross member, how the heck does it flex enough at a vertical axis, rather than horizontal, like the LCAs?

thanks again
 
also the upper control arm is blowing my mind base on the position on the cross member, how the heck does it flex enough at a vertical axis, rather than horizontal, like the LCAs?

thanks again
That is something ive questioned since I first seen the kit. but from what ive read it does good. if you have the dough to drop id go clayton. Iron rock offroad has a nice 3 link, or if you want the absolute beefiest get the ironman4x4fab 4 link setup. it is well built and designed, plus the crossmember is a massive skid plate.
when I go 3 link I personally am going IRO due to price and I have never had issues with their stuff.
 
i do like the removable cross member on clayton and cav, would you say heims are dd compatable?
i need to find out if these kits will even work with 3.5-4" lift
 
if you are doing a 3 link and using the cast upper control arm mount on the axle... i would recommend replacing the bushing with some sort of hard joint. the single link is resisting all of the rotational force from the axle. throw big tires and deep gear at it, and it wears out quickly. i recommend doing away with the rubber completely for the upper... a 4 link w/ panhard or radius arm inherently have bind on the system that the 3 link removes. but you need a solid joint to control the axle. bushings are needed in a 4 link w/ panhard or radius arm to provide some "give" for the bind.
 
I see no reason why the CAVFab wouldn't work with that lift range. My Rusty's 4-Link is working just fine at 4.5" of lift.

I've ran heim joints without issue on multiple rigs. They can get kind of squeaky, but otherwise have been fine. The rebuildable/greasable type joints are better in that regard.

I just saw these the other day, seem pretty cool. Pricey, but interesting.
https://www.tmrcustoms.com/suspension/lifetime-heims/3-4-lifetime-heims

As for as the binding of a parallel 4-link or radius arm setup, I think by the time that happens we are beyond what your typical XJ will be flexing anyways. I've never had issues running either setup. My axle will move through its full range of allowed motion with just its own weight, so I don't see binding being an issue. I kept mine as a 4-link because I'd rather have the peace of mind that there are 2 upper arms keeping my axle in place than whatever negligible increase in flex I'd get with just 1 upper control arm. No matter how flexible the front is, the leafsprung rear axle still has to follow the same path.
 
That looks really cool. The front upper control arms seem a bit odd to me, and they angled the front lowers a fair amount. I'm not sure how that would sit with the stock LCS mounts. Still, it checks a lot of boxes for me. Too bad it hadn't come out earlier.
 
The ironman setup is awesome. I talked to andy before he built the prototype and he has made some changes to it from his original. if I had the extra money I would get it over clayton any day
 
if you are doing a 3 link and using the cast upper control arm mount on the axle... i would recommend replacing the bushing with some sort of hard joint. the single link is resisting all of the rotational force from the axle. throw big tires and deep gear at it, and it wears out quickly. i recommend doing away with the rubber completely for the upper... a 4 link w/ panhard or radius arm inherently have bind on the system that the 3 link removes. but you need a solid joint to control the axle. bushings are needed in a 4 link w/ panhard or radius arm to provide some "give" for the bind.
cav fab does come with a new solid insert rather than rubber/ poly. they do say it should fit my 3.5 lift and up.

ive read a couple times you all like having 4 arms for security, but how much force is really on the cast diff joint/ upper arm? i would imagine all the brute strength is from the 2 LCA and the upper is simply a guide for the axle.

+ for fab they have tc skid in the future for the alpha
 
another note for the fab is it doesnt require welding though the clayton does, i wish i had a good welder or the skill.

does the fab kit sound like a sturdy mounting system vs clayton that requires welding.

Dutch you'd be a good reference on wether cav is a good choice or worth welding some of this kit. irons is cool but $$$$ big time. greaseable joints are a + for fab. Clayton arms probably slide well, the cross member is smaller, though requires welding.

now all i couldnt pretend to know, but almost all kits are close in price. what each kit delivers is the same or quite different for the coin.

ive heard some good recommendations, however what will these deliver for the money on a dd vs cost and possible 2nd party help on install?
 
ive read a couple times you all like having 4 arms for security, but how much force is really on the cast diff joint/ upper arm? i would imagine all the brute strength is from the 2 LCA and the upper is simply a guide for the axle.

Last thing I want to do is drive over my axle at 70 mph because the one arm stopping the axle from rotating was damaged on the trail I was just on and I didn't know it

Could it happen -- sure

Will it happen -- doubtful

The 2nd upper control arm is just insurance for me -- maybe I'll catch the broken 3rd link before the 4th lets go

Just something to think about...
 
Last thing I want to do is drive over my axle at 70 mph because the one arm stopping the axle from rotating was damaged on the trail I was just on and I didn't know it

Could it happen -- sure

Will it happen -- doubtful

The 2nd upper control arm is just insurance for me -- maybe I'll catch the broken 3rd link before the 4th lets go

Just something to think about...

if you manage to hit the upper link on the trail... you have other problems.

i built my lowers at 36" out of 2x.25 DOM and 1-1/4" heims... bent them. the longer upper with 7/8" heims and 1.75x.120 DOM was fine. it lives in a state of compression as the pinion is driven down under torque. tube carries this load very well.
 
another note for the fab is it doesnt require welding though the clayton does, i wish i had a good welder or the skill.

does the fab kit sound like a sturdy mounting system vs clayton that requires welding.

Dutch you'd be a good reference on wether cav is a good choice or worth welding some of this kit. irons is cool but $$$$ big time. greaseable joints are a + for fab. Clayton arms probably slide well, the cross member is smaller, though requires welding.

now all i couldnt pretend to know, but almost all kits are close in price. what each kit delivers is the same or quite different for the coin.

ive heard some good recommendations, however what will these deliver for the money on a dd vs cost and possible 2nd party help on install?

Personally, I would rather have my cross member welded on. While it is more work work and another issue if don't have a welder, I feel it provides a little more assurance than just bolts.

Really they all are decent kits. Clayton, IIRC, has been around the longest where as Cav and IRO are newer. I personally really like Ironman's crossmember because of the ability to adjust so much on it. Major downside is being a PITA to access the few bolts to get to the tranny if needed. Also it based on you being able to "build" most of it so not really the bolt on solution you may be looking for. I'd go Clayton for a all around solid setup.
 
if you manage to hit the upper link on the trail... you have other problems.

i built my lowers at 36" out of 2x.25 DOM and 1-1/4" heims... bent them. the longer upper with 7/8" heims and 1.75x.120 DOM was fine. it lives in a state of compression as the pinion is driven down under torque. tube carries this load very well.

Its not so much the arm failing, its the single bolt holding it on the axle that I'm more concerned about. Its also not just up and down forces or rocks, there are rotational forces from the drivetrain at play too. Plus the force of driving into rocks that pushes the axle back into the arms. Again, with only 1 7/16 bolt holding the upper link to the axle.

Granted I have ran Y-Links before with no issue and at that point there are only 2 bolts at the frame holding your axle in place.

Extreme example but a 4500 car running a 3-link front at KOH just DNF'd because the lower control arm on the passenger side failed. If the lower fails on the side there is no upper then there is nothing holding it place anymore. So its not just the upper you have to worry about.


another note for the fab is it doesnt require welding though the clayton does, i wish i had a good welder or the skill.

does the fab kit sound like a sturdy mounting system vs clayton that requires welding.

Dutch you'd be a good reference on wether cav is a good choice or worth welding some of this kit. irons is cool but $$$$ big time. greaseable joints are a + for fab. Clayton arms probably slide well, the cross member is smaller, though requires welding.

now all i couldnt pretend to know, but almost all kits are close in price. what each kit delivers is the same or quite different for the coin.

ive heard some good recommendations, however what will these deliver for the money on a dd vs cost and possible 2nd party help on install?

With the prices being similar between the Clayton and CavFab kits I would go CavFab. No welding is nice, the crossmember is a lot better looking, and it has a built in skid for the transmission.

I would recommend upgrading your lower control arm mounts on the axle.
 
Its not so much the arm failing, its the single bolt holding it on the axle that I'm more concerned about. Its also not just up and down forces or rocks, there are rotational forces from the drivetrain at play too. Plus the force of driving into rocks that pushes the axle back into the arms. Again, with only 1 7/16 bolt holding the upper link to the axle.

Granted I have ran Y-Links before with no issue and at that point there are only 2 bolts at the frame holding your axle in place.

Extreme example but a 4500 car running a 3-link front at KOH just DNF'd because the lower control arm on the passenger side failed. If the lower fails on the side there is no upper then there is nothing holding it place anymore. So its not just the upper you have to worry about.
a 7/16" grade 8 bolt has a shear strength of over 13k pounds.

on a properly designed 3 link, there should be no fore/aft loading on the upper from terrain input. the lowers control the fore/aft location, thats why you need 2. all the upper is doing is controlling forces on the moment arm created by the upper link tower off the axle. as torque is applied, the pinion is driven down. under braking, the pinion is driven up. the upper lives in a state of tension and compression.

if either of the lowers fail on a 3 link, the system fails. bad things are going to happen if you lose one, regardless of placement of the upper link. even with a second upper link, the role of the upper links are is not the same as the lowers. can you maybe limp it back to the pits? sure. but if you continue to apply the same abuse that destroyed the lower, the uppers will surely fail. and lets be honest, very few people are pushing their cherokee that hard.

ive played around with calculators. played around with link design. and run analysis on the forces involved when i built my own suspension. even looked at running 2 uppers for fore/aft locating and a single lower for rotational control. that was one of many ideas i toyed with just for shits and giggles. its not rocket science, but a good photo definitely helps paint that picture. and drawing a force vector diagram definitely helps. luckily i had good photos to play with when i built mine...
12274765_907400062647744_5939243446447981816_n.jpg
 
a 7/16" grade 8 bolt has a shear strength of over 13k pounds.

in a 4000lb rig traveling 50 mph how much force does a hard breaking event incurr on the upper?

IMO 7/16" is too small for a single upper.
I run 9/16" F-911s in my upper on my 3 link, which may be overkill, but the comfort factor is worth it.

and FWIW link bolts should only be loaded in tension, not in shear, ... but thats in a perfect world.

on a properly designed 3 link, there should be no fore/aft loading on the upper from terrain input. the lowers control the fore/aft location, thats why you need 2. all the upper is doing is controlling forces on the moment arm created by the upper link tower off the axle. as torque is applied, the pinion is driven down. under braking, the pinion is driven up. the upper lives in a state of tension and compression.

The only way to make that statement true would be to mount the lowers on the centerline of the axletube.

you cannot do that so the upper will always share some of the load of controlling the axle fore/aft. certainly the lowers see much larger forces in this regard because they are usually mounted closer to the centerline than the upper.


if either of the lowers fail on a 3 link, the system fails. bad things are going to happen if you lose one, regardless of placement of the upper link. even with a second upper link, the role of the upper links are is not the same as the lowers. can you maybe limp it back to the pits? sure. but if you continue to apply the same abuse that destroyed the lower, the uppers will surely fail. and lets be honest, very few people are pushing their cherokee that hard.

agreed 100%
 
Back
Top