Parallel 4 link vs. Triangulated 4 link
- Thread starter D-MAX Mafia
- Start date
really depends on how in debth you wanna get with your 4 link and how much work you wanna do. a parallel setup would be the easier, ready to rock setup over the triangulated. specially since you would have to weld to the cast housing to get the triangulated setup to work its best.
Yes, unless I move the upper arms to the outside of the axle and build a hell for stout cross member to mount them inwards of the frame. I want to stay away from having to use a panhard/track bar.
That works too but you need to make as many adjustable points at the mounts as possible at first. Unlike off road where you just gotta get it close, drag racing counts on you getting the suspension fine tuned. Make sure your upper links are 70% the lenght of the lowers and that there is enough separation between the axle lower links and uppers. Your workin with alot of torque and if there isnt enough separation, say good by to the driveshaft and possibly other parts as your pinoin points to the sky
I run a parallel with a trac bar on my truck as well. Although if i have to do it again i think i'd go with a watts link. I've never had a problem with side to side movement, and i've got about 1.5" of tire clearance to the bedside, but i just like the idea of a watts link.
if you decide run a panhard though, make it as long as possible, that will help keep the axle centered through suspension travel.
You could do a 3 link. You could weld a tube up and over the rear to the axle tubes and attached your center link there. I did a triangulated 4 link like that and never had a problem. If you did something like that though, i'd actually make a boxxed in truss up and over the pumpkin and stitch weld it to assume the most support across the piece.
if you decide run a panhard though, make it as long as possible, that will help keep the axle centered through suspension travel.
You could do a 3 link. You could weld a tube up and over the rear to the axle tubes and attached your center link there. I did a triangulated 4 link like that and never had a problem. If you did something like that though, i'd actually make a boxxed in truss up and over the pumpkin and stitch weld it to assume the most support across the piece.
Here is a pic of the 4 Link setup that I am putting on the rear of my CCSB Dmax atm. I am going to be running leaf springs with this link setup. They will have shackles on both ends of the leaf springs on both sides.
I bought a boneyard fuel tank out of a Cab Chasis unit. I can post pics of the tank if you want to see it. It will be located behind the rear axle.
I might also add that this setup will be used for street, offroad at places like Silver Lake Dunes in Mich. , and tug-a-truck on the concrete I will be sitting on 40x15.50 Nitto Mudgrapplers.
The problem I see with triangulating the bottom links is there is more force typically on the lower links. Now instead of using your frame to support those links you are moving them to the middle of the truck. You would need a beefy gusseted crossmember and it would be right under your driveshaft possibly causing issues. Also I don't think the lowers would clear the fuel tank.
Before I started on the rear of mine I tried to come up with every possible way to build a link setup without having to move the fuel tank... Then I moved the fuel tank! LOL!
A parallel link setup with a Watts link setup would be badass! Even with the uppers being triangulated and bottom parallel I will still get some rear stear from the axle because it is not able pivot on a single point like a 3 link setup would.
What do you plan to do for suspending the weight of the rear of the truck? Coilovers, coils, leafs with double shackles, or slider boxes???
I bought a boneyard fuel tank out of a Cab Chasis unit. I can post pics of the tank if you want to see it. It will be located behind the rear axle.
I might also add that this setup will be used for street, offroad at places like Silver Lake Dunes in Mich. , and tug-a-truck on the concrete I will be sitting on 40x15.50 Nitto Mudgrapplers.
The problem I see with triangulating the bottom links is there is more force typically on the lower links. Now instead of using your frame to support those links you are moving them to the middle of the truck. You would need a beefy gusseted crossmember and it would be right under your driveshaft possibly causing issues. Also I don't think the lowers would clear the fuel tank.
Before I started on the rear of mine I tried to come up with every possible way to build a link setup without having to move the fuel tank... Then I moved the fuel tank! LOL!
A parallel link setup with a Watts link setup would be badass! Even with the uppers being triangulated and bottom parallel I will still get some rear stear from the axle because it is not able pivot on a single point like a 3 link setup would.
What do you plan to do for suspending the weight of the rear of the truck? Coilovers, coils, leafs with double shackles, or slider boxes???
Attachments
Yes they will have a shackle on each end of the leafs so that the bushings soak up all the twisting instead of the leaf packs. Would be hard to ever use the truck for anything but offroad if you use anything other than leafs.
Coilovers are great for the front because the weight doesn't change much at all. In the rear if you put anything in the bed or hook to another truck or even a sled you will squat a lot compared to a leafspring.
You would be giving up a lot of hitch height.
Coilovers are great for the front because the weight doesn't change much at all. In the rear if you put anything in the bed or hook to another truck or even a sled you will squat a lot compared to a leafspring.
You would be giving up a lot of hitch height.
heres my gasser for an idea of parallel with a track bar and coil overs. Fuel cell did have to be moved and with the right spring weight you could still have some load capacity back there but your best option would be to run a air bag type coil over which basically allows you to adjust spring rate and of course ride height
Not what I meant. Here's a pic of the style I'm talking about. Use a 3rd lower for triangulation.
Last edited:
Gonna run sleeved air bags in the rear. After looking at a watts link, I believe a parallel 4 link with a watts link would be ideal. On top of the fact that it looks pretty trick. Lower bars will be off the bottom of the frame and uppers will be inset off a crossmember. I have a fuel cell that will be mounted right behind the rear axle. I hope I can get the sending unit to work.
Do you build the watts link so that the links are straight at ride height or figure the center of suspension cycle? I ask because my truck does not cycle the suspension very often. The last time it saw full droop was on a lift and I have never hit full bump.
Question: Exactly how much travel will an upper triangulated 4 link have before binding?
Do you build the watts link so that the links are straight at ride height or figure the center of suspension cycle? I ask because my truck does not cycle the suspension very often. The last time it saw full droop was on a lift and I have never hit full bump.
Question: Exactly how much travel will an upper triangulated 4 link have before binding?
Turbo the picture u posted looks just like the setup that 408.Luke posted up. I believe that lower link would still be considered a track bar. Looks like a good setup.
D-Max Mafia I am unsure about the watts link orientation VS suspension travel. My gut says u would not have enough travel in a street/drag truck to worry about it. So I would just set it vertical at ride height given the length of your links VS your travel.
If you were going to need max travel in the rear I would have to agree that it would be want to be setup so that it was orientated so that it would match your suspension travel if you have 4" up at ride height and 8" down at ride height it would need to be clocked so that it wouldn't max out before your travel did.
I originally thought about putting a Watts link on top of my truss in the rear instead of across the back of the diff cover. If I don't like the rear steer affect of my triangulated uppers I will either go watts link or trackbar.
I'm not sure what you mean by how much travel your triangulated links can have before they bind. I think your links will want to be long. The bottom links will be easy 5' I would think. The uppers will want to be very close to that same length. You really can't throw a number out there like 70% or 75%.
My uppers are 94% the length of my lowers. My lowers are 69" and my uppers are 65". I am posted a link that has a lot of good info in it. I will research that Watt's link setup some more and see if I can give you a better answer on how it should be orientated.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168577&highlight=rear+triangulated+link
D-Max Mafia I am unsure about the watts link orientation VS suspension travel. My gut says u would not have enough travel in a street/drag truck to worry about it. So I would just set it vertical at ride height given the length of your links VS your travel.
If you were going to need max travel in the rear I would have to agree that it would be want to be setup so that it was orientated so that it would match your suspension travel if you have 4" up at ride height and 8" down at ride height it would need to be clocked so that it wouldn't max out before your travel did.
I originally thought about putting a Watts link on top of my truss in the rear instead of across the back of the diff cover. If I don't like the rear steer affect of my triangulated uppers I will either go watts link or trackbar.
I'm not sure what you mean by how much travel your triangulated links can have before they bind. I think your links will want to be long. The bottom links will be easy 5' I would think. The uppers will want to be very close to that same length. You really can't throw a number out there like 70% or 75%.
My uppers are 94% the length of my lowers. My lowers are 69" and my uppers are 65". I am posted a link that has a lot of good info in it. I will research that Watt's link setup some more and see if I can give you a better answer on how it should be orientated.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168577&highlight=rear+triangulated+link
I know just enough about all this to be dangerous.
What I have a hard time with is, with an upper triangulation dont the bars try to move toward each other and away from each other (at the axle mounting points) as the suspension cycles? Unless they are so long that the arch of the axle when cycling is so minute that no binding can be seen or felt?
Hard to put into words and I'm sorry if I sound stupid but I have always wondered this.
I have seen a few triangle 4 links where the mounts run 90 degrees off the frame vs. 90 degrees with the bar. Makes me think there was a binding issue involved.
Ok I believe I follow what you are saying.
Since there are 2 links on top that are triangulated depending on which way the axle is articulated it is going to cause a rear steer affect to some degree. The joints and links will not actually bind they will just have a "pushing" & "pulling" affect on the axle.
To what extent and what the real feel in the driver seat is from this I don't know for sure.
Ideally you would want your joints to all have their bolts running parallel with the axle. This way the majority of the cycling of the joints is merely pivoting around the bolt and not having to make the joint itself articulate or "soak" up the misalignment even though that's what they are designed to do.
If you look really close at how the upper links attach to the frame you will see what I am talking about in the pictures I posted.
The reality of this is it becomes more problematic to build a stout upper link mounting point at the frame end that allows the bolt to be parallel do to the way the bracket would have to be made to allow the bolt to be placed this way. That's why I ended up with my bolt's being perpendicular to the axle for my upper mounts.
Since there are 2 links on top that are triangulated depending on which way the axle is articulated it is going to cause a rear steer affect to some degree. The joints and links will not actually bind they will just have a "pushing" & "pulling" affect on the axle.
To what extent and what the real feel in the driver seat is from this I don't know for sure.
Ideally you would want your joints to all have their bolts running parallel with the axle. This way the majority of the cycling of the joints is merely pivoting around the bolt and not having to make the joint itself articulate or "soak" up the misalignment even though that's what they are designed to do.
If you look really close at how the upper links attach to the frame you will see what I am talking about in the pictures I posted.
The reality of this is it becomes more problematic to build a stout upper link mounting point at the frame end that allows the bolt to be parallel do to the way the bracket would have to be made to allow the bolt to be placed this way. That's why I ended up with my bolt's being perpendicular to the axle for my upper mounts.
Yes that was exactly what I meant. I could not tell from the pic that the mounting bolts were perpendicular with the frame. That would solve the problem I was concerned about.
Thanks for your response, it is appreciated.
Thanks for your response, it is appreciated.