I'm finding that the rear watts links on a DII interfere w/ rear axle travel with flexy suspension so that the front flexes considerably more than the rear. I've asked questions on this before but to no avail,,,so I need the pros from Pirate.

What is the purpose of this set-up? I mean, I know the technical purpose, but why not some alternative that is less restricting? Any reason why LR couldn't run a track rod or some other set-up back there? :confused:

Are there any ways to modify this to allow greater travel? I figured I could just lower the brackets on frame connection using the same links. Anyone done this? May have to hack a bit off the housing on axle side so it doesn't interfere w/ links? Any suggestions or advice? Have any aftermarket fab shops addressed this problem yet? Not a lot out there yet for DIIs,,,, Thanks in advance for any ideas or suggestions.

Talk to Greg Davis...ask him why he chunked his DII driveline for Dana kit.

chunked...for Dana kit.

Damn this is already sounding expensive,,,, :eek:

Flex, as in one wheel going up and one down, shouldn't be restricted by the Watts linkage?

A Panhard rod, in contrast, will cause the axle to move sideways with flex, causing all kinds of binding and clunking.

Where is it binding, exactly?

Where is it binding, exactly?

At the housing on the axle. There's a little plate over the axle bracket. One solution I guess would be to remove or groove the plate. It just looks like you could extend the bracket on the frame-side connection the way you would w/ a leaf spring. :confused:

A Panhard rod, in contrast, will cause the axle to move sideways with flex, causing all kinds of binding and clunking.

Read this again & thought about it. If this is the case why does the front articulate more than the rear? I read on a Jp site that a lot of the guys remove their panhard rods (?)...but maybe that only works w/ leaf springs?
Anyway, I don't notice any problems in the front,,great flex. Just the rear. I crossaxled myself to test out the new suspension and the front dropped far more than the rear giving me momentary sphincter clinching issues,,, I've seen DIs with similar suspension flex out both front & rear. DIs don't have watts links in back, right?

I've never had any issues with the Watts Linkage hindering my flex. Every once in awhile I'll hear the "clunck" when the link contacts the mount on the axle, but to be honest, I've gotten all the flex I've needed w/o doing anything to it. Some have clearanced the mount on the axle, but I've just been too lazy to do it.

This shows the rear. Now, this is a really old picture, but this was with RoverTym Med springs in the rear and Rancho shocks (w/custom mounts to allow a longer shock, which probably helps some). Now, this isn't CRAZY flex, but it's not too bad.
http://pics.montypics.com/greg_davis/2005-06-09/1118325809_ds_fork_lift.jpg

This is another view.
http://pics.montypics.com/greg_davis/2005-06-09/1118325889_ps_fork_lift.jpg

What setup are you running?

I'm running SG Stg III (their springs & fox adjustable shocks) Looks like you have more rear flex than I do. I need to figure out why this is & try to experiment a little more, maybe on a ramp. What was it that Rhino was referring to about the Dana kit?

How long are your rear shocks :confused:

A buddy of mine has an early SG setup on a DII and the rear shocks are wayyyy short.

Ya know,,,I don't know. I think they are 12-14"? As I said, the front doesn't seem to be a problem, only the rear (?)

<< A buddy of mine has an early SG setup on a DII and the rear shocks are wayyyy short. >>

what kind of wheeling do you do? more flex where? on the princess-spork or on the trail? and did your buddies rig _look_ short, or was it a stuck turd on the trail?

unless you're skying a tire over obstacles i wouldn't worry about it too much - work on your driving skills or add a locker if you're having difficulty. as soon as you let the rear drop out you're probably going to lose a good chunk of your front-end articulation

if you want to move up, 3-link the front, and figure out a good way to get decent articulation split on a longer shock for the rear. adding a longer shock because it "looks short" doesn't seem warranted.

my .02 -

Ya know,,,I don't know. I think they are 12-14"? As I said, the front doesn't seem to be a problem, only the rear (?)

Steve have you ever let someone drive over something while you watch the rear end? So you can see what exactly might be binding?

Pete

5-7 trails. Did an 8 recently. Beyond that get's beyond my expense threashold for breaking stuff. I think you're probably right,,, I only noticed it as a problem in an intentional cross-axle to test it out but didn't have any problems suspension-wise on the regular part of the trail. Thanks for all the feedback guys.

Steve have you ever let someone drive over something while you watch the rear end? So you can see what exactly might be binding?

Pete

Just missed your post as I was replying. No but that's a great idea. I nominate you on the next trip! :D

Just missed your post as I was replying. No but that's a great idea. I nominate you on the next trip! :D

hmmm, you obviously didn't get a good look at all the dents on the 88. :D

<< I think you're probably right,,, I only noticed it as a problem in an intentional cross-axle to test it out but didn't have any problems suspension-wise on the regular part of the trail >>

reliability and stability are king. at the end of the day, all that freaky suspension shit doesn't matter - just get back out there :beer:


http://www.speakeasy.org/~thefains/img/roverPics/tripod.jpg

http://www.speakeasy.org/~thefains/img/roverPics/shoestring.jpg

reliability and stability are king

Amen to that!

I'm currently running Rancho 9005's (Compressed = 17.25 inches. Extended = 28.5 inches). I made new upper mounts that are attached to the body mount in front of the rear tire. This puts the shock at a 45 degree angle, which gives it a 2:1 travel ratio (for every 2" of axle travel the shock only uses 1" of travel). However, you loose about 30% of the effective dampening, so I keep them on the 5 setting.

RedRhino was referring to the fact that I'm ditching the Rover driveline and going with high-pinion Dana 60's (RockCrusher units) front and rear. I'll be running tires in the 37" range.

RedRhino was referring to the fact that I'm ditching the Rover driveline and going with high-pinion Dana 60's (RockCrusher units) front and rear. I'll be running tires in the 37" range.

Damn that's going to be a monster! I would assume that means replacing or mod'ing everything from spring housings to drive shafts ? I can't wait to see pics of this. Axles/lockers/gears are my next project,,, but I don't want to be penny-wise & pound-foolish so I'm approaching it very hesitantly and trying to save up some dough. Please keep me posted on your progress b/c there isn't a lot of DII info/examples/pics out there now. Is the Disco in the pics on this thread the project rig?

Thanks again everyone for the advice & ideas.

Yeah, I'll be keeping my RTE springs, but everything else is going away. I'll probably link it since it's easier to do that than try and replicate all of the factory mounts. I may keep the front radius arms, but the rear will definitely be linked to get rid of the Watts stuff. That will free up some space so I can move my rear axle back a couple of more inches if necessary.

Yes, that's the victim in the photos. Those were taken over 3 years ago, so it's alot different now. It's no longer my DD so I can afford to go a little more aggressive with it since I don't live with it on a daily basis now. Still like the room and storage capacity, hence not selling it and going with a different platform. I'm kind of partial to it, it's like part of the family. :)

http://www.speakeasy.org/~thefains/img/roverPics/shoestring.jpg

I was going ask if this was up on Manastash Ridge, but I see the title to the photo.

I think this is about .25 mile from where I rolled duing the 2002 NWC pre run :D

Pete