I typed on this post for about 45 min and the power went out :mad: Lost it all, so Im starting over, and this one wont be near as thourough. :rolleyes:

I am in the early stages of building a link type front suspension for my 76 Chevy Truck, and am looking for some opinions. For springs, I've considered Coilovers, Coils, and Quarter Elliptic. For link arangement, I've considered || || with a panhard, |/\| (3link), or wristed/non-wristed radius arms.


Spring Option #1: Coilovers
Pro - Ultimate Controll an Tune'ability.
Con's - Cost of springs and shocks and getting them tuned.
Approximate Cost of springs and shocks = $1200

Spring Option #2: Ford Bronco Coils
Pro's - Easy to come by, easy to adjust ride heigth, good ride, and light weight.
Con's - Everyone is doing it, and I have done it too, (rear suspension on my rig has XJ coils and |\ /| (4 link))
Approximate Cost of springs and shocks = $600

Spring Option #3: Quarter Elliptic
Pro's - I've never seen a rig with quarter elliptic front suspension, so that would be cool IMO. The springs would be free.
Con's - Im not a reall big fan of the quarter elliptic Idea, and the weight is much greater than a bronco coil. My rig is already front heavy as it is.

Link Option #1: || || with panhard.
Pro's - IMO this type of suspension can handle greater side loads than a convnetional |/ \| suspension. Easy to design and fabricate.
Con's - Old school design, and low cool factor. One more link to deal with, therefor 2 more heims to buy and more tubing. more mounts to fab.

Link Option #2: |/\| (3link)
Pro's - Proven design, that offers good axle controll and articulation.
Con's - I better have a good mount for the front of the /\, and I might have oilpan/exhaust clearance problems.

Link Option #3: Radius arms
Pro's - very easy to design and fabricate.
Con's - ?? I dont know much about this type of suspension.


The rig in question is a 76 chevy, 513 Cadillac, TH-350, 203/205 Doubler, 120" WB, 45" x 18.5" Goodyears, Front and rear 8274's, Exo in progress, Dana 60, 14 Bolt, 4 link w/coils in rear, welded rear, powrloc front. Im not sure what it weighs, but im gonna guess about 5500 lbs.

I drive mostly washed out trails, swamps and the occasional rocks. See pics...

http://www.alaskaoffroad.com/images/Caribouhills02/76_stub.jpg

Brook :usa:

Swamps

and the occasional Rocks...

My prioritys for this suspension are Climbling Ability, and Ride Quality. The front suspension currently consists of rancho 4" lift springs and rides like ass. It doesn't articulate very well either, as you can see in this pic.

http://www.alaskaoffroad.com/images/memberstrucks/bgreen76/stack_3.jpg

I feel like I might be missing something?......











































































oh ya :flipoff2:

Brook,

I know exactly where you're coming from as I'm trying to sort out the front suspension on my buggy right now. I'm reading through all 200 thread that contain the word "link"!

I'll throw down my thoughts FWIW.

If you've never seen 1/4 elip front....there's probably a good reason. I know my buggy used to have 1/4 elip front, and the PO / builder hated it. Can't remeber exactly why - but I thinkit was too flexy and unstable or may have been problems fitting springs and links along with oil pan and steering clearance (that you don;t have to worry about in rear). Possibly also problems controlling the weight up front with 1/4s.

There's one advantage and one disadvantage to coilovers you missed. One not insignificant advantage is the simple mounting and small diameter - easier to fit, no big perches and such, and more room for linkages around them. isadvantage is the length you most often ahev to be able to have them poke up through hood or something (doesn't seem to be a problem on your rig).

So for springs, the only real question is $$. If you can afford coilovers, do them, if not, coils.

As for linkages. You can see my setup at:

http://www.rightcoastcrawler.com/billaVista/Buggy/Buggy.htm.

It used to have an upper U-type or wishbone link with 2 points on frame and one on axle. Because of the intentionally very low suspension height, there were clearance problems between the upper U and starter / driveshaft / oil pan. But if you have the room, and build it stout enough, this would be a good option I think.

On the other hand, with your power and heavy axles / tires, you can't get better control than with a traditional 5 link (2 uppers, 2 lowers and a panhard). But again, depends on room and clearance....you want the control arms to be fairly long and not too steep.

Radius arms put tremendous loads on the mounts at both ends, depending on what kind of joint you use, but can be made to work.

I currently have a hybrid mix, Lower arms with a radius arm bushing at frame and bushings ar axle, one upper link (bushing frame, heim axle) on the left, and a panhard, and while it works well (flex and control) it has 2 major problems. It eats the radius arm bushings at the left front frame (tried big tractor Heims and the chatter is unbearable), and I have a furious front axle wrap problem. I believe the single upper link on the left is a major contributor. So I'm trying to decide whether to try and fit dual upper arms (clearance problems on the right) or whether to lose the single upper link, and have the lower arms mount both above and below the axle, like the TTC flatty.

Whatever I do, I think I need taller and smaller diameter coils...which sucks, but I just have no room to work otherwise.

too flexy and unstable, problems fitting springs and links along with oil pan and steering clearance. weight up front with 1/4s.

All valid points, and pretty much what I was thinking.


There's one advantage to coilovers you missed. It is the simple mounting and small diameter - easier to fit, no big perches and such, and more room for linkages around them.

I've been thinking about using coilover springs, since they are small in diameter, and are available in every imaginable rate. Money is not too much of a concern at this point, especially since if I run RS9000X's. I just called around and to get 4 to my door is going to be $500 :eek: :mad: So, with the addition of E.B dual rate springs, I looking at a total of over 700 bucks. Not that much difference. (2.5" Kings are going to run me about 1200) The main drawback I see to the coilovers is that people look at coilovers and think $$, and discount you for just throwing money at your rig. (I hate that shit! People saying that someones rig works better 'cause they've got money, is Fuckin stupid :flipoff2: ) I would get more satisfaction out of making a suspension work well with regular off the shelf parts, but coilovers are still the ultimate in adjustability, and will undoubtably preform better than conventional shocks and springs.


On the other hand, with your power and heavy axles / tires, you can't get better control than with a traditional 5 link (2 uppers, 2 lowers and a panhard). But again, depends on room and clearance....you want the control arms to be fairly long and not too steep.

That is the way I am leaning. I think it will maintain good pinion angle this way, and controll the axle side loading better than a triangulated 4 link.


Radius arms put tremendous loads on the mounts at both ends, depending on what kind of joint you use, but can be made to work.

I have also heard that the tubes have to be extra strong. I dont think this is the way for me to go. I also hear that radius arms have less controll over wheel hop than a traditional or triangulated 4link would. Can anybody attest to that?

Brook

go coil-overs, it is money well spent.

as for the link design, it is more personal preferrence than anything else. All the designs you are considering can be made to work well, or poor, depending on how they are put together. I prefer a 3 link like this: panhard, 2 lowers, one lower with radius arm...

you may also want to consider BillaVista's setup: II I :with panhard.

just good rod ends, and make it beefy

The main drawback I see to the coilovers is that people look at coilovers and think $$, and discount you for just throwing money at your rig.

Sure, but those people are idiots, and who wants to build something where the opinion of an idiot is a design principle. Do what YOU really want, and fawk everyone else.

Besides - nobody's going to confuse your rig with a poser rig.

Check out my front suspension cry for help thread....some good info there, and at the very least, some pics of what isn;t working very well :D

I should add,

talk to PIG on the board and check out his company www.polyperformance.com for your coilover and rod end needs.

Great guy to talk to, really knows his shiat, and cool products / prices.

If I could, I'd be on the phone ordering sway-a-way coilovers and big ass 1x1.25 rod ends from him right this second. (as it is, I'm sitting here eyeballing a rusty set of used Grand Cherokee v8 coils and some old tractor links :( )

Originally posted by BillaVista
Sure, but those people are idiots, and who wants to build something where the opinion of an idiot is a design principle. Do what YOU really want, and fawk everyone else.

LOL, ya those guys are idots. But I guess the real issue is that I like to build stuff that people can look at and think "hey, thats not that hard, I can do that myself". You know what I mean. Thats kind of the motivation behind all the tech pages on my website. Its to get people inspired to build shit for themselves, and go wheelin.




Besides - nobody's going to confuse your rig with a poser rig.

Ya, but there would be no confusion, cause i am a poser :D




Check out my cry for help thread

I did, thanks for steeling all posts that would have gone in my thread :flipoff2:

Well, if I didn't seriously cook the engine in my truck I'd be going the 5-link route this winter. 4 links with a panhard. And with 4 inches of lift in a chev frame, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to go with level links of just about equal to half of frame length. I've done some math work, and I can almost do it to my truck and build a transfercase clock/drop cradle at the same time. Between bronco coils, and I'd say 4 RS9000's, (located 1/3 up the links) you should be able to build a suspension that'll take jumps and the creepy crawly's equally as well.

I on the other hand know my truck flexes at least pretty good which is more than required up (or in your case, down) here. I want it to be able to take speed assisted bumps at a better rate than leafs, as well as be able to take same plane landings/vertical drop offs at a speed above crawl, without fear of the suspension re-arching leafs and punching the d-shaft through the t-case. I've seen you're work, and you should be able to maintain equal length drive shafts (or pretty close to) through out the suspension cycle, as WELL as maintain a pretty sane pinion angle.

In my opion, your only choice should be between coils and coil overs. I'm sure if you talk to that WOLF359 guy, he'll say coil overs are the hot ticket (AND the highest zoot) but also the highest buck. Since I have no experience with either, I can't say which works for sure. I'm betting that you can make coils and shocks work equally as well as coil overs how ever.

Well, if I didn't seriously cook the engine in my truck I'd be going the 5-link route this winter. 4 links with a panhard. And with 4 inches of lift in a chev frame, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to go with level links of just about equal to half of frame length. I've done some math work, and I can almost do it to my truck and build a transfercase clock/drop cradle at the same time. Between bronco coils, and I'd say 4 RS9000's, (located 1/3 up the links) you should be able to build a suspension that'll take jumps and the creepy crawly's equally as well.


shut up, and go away.

Since I have no experience, I can't say which works

Exactly:rolleyes:

Its official, billa's thread killed my thead :flipoff2:

Brook,
Does the plan still call for Rockwells and full hydro steering? If so then go with the modified three link (wishbone upper). If you are still going to try and run a steering box, then I would run a panhard bar.

As for springs, coilovers would be my my choice if they fit in your budget as they will allow the most tuning options (spring rate and shock valving) compared to anything else.

Since I am contemplating a design for a front link suspension on my jeep I'll through my .02 pesos in here.
Thought about going 1/4 e in the front as I am allready 1/4 e in the back. I think the reason no one runs this is the space constraints. You can't outboard the springs as that will affect your turning radius. If you put the leafs under the frame rail you then have to outboard your links. Basicly there is too much stuff to put into that package allthough it has been done. For me the money on coilovers would be a waste. I don't do much prerunning at all let alone actually wheeling so a super sophisticated expensive shock is just overkill. I understand its application and capabilities and my rig is just not there, yet ;) . BTW I am very impressed how nice my rear 4 link with just 9000s actually rides!
As for the links, unless you have full hydro steering I would stay away from the triangulated uppers. The draglink will want to travel through an arc and the suspension will only move up and down. Radius arms are nice and simple and can act like a swaybar. I personaly favor the 3 link although I see Billavista has some issues with his.
Its all a toss up so figure out what you like best and build it. Oh, and I recomend dealling with PIG also!!!

Kevo

But I guess the real issue is that I like to build stuff that people can look at and think "hey, thats not that hard, I can do that myself". You know what I mean. Thats kind of the motivation behind all the tech pages on my website. Its to get people inspired to build shit for themselves, and go wheelin

Oh I HEARD that Brother, I feel the same way, my website exists for the same reason. That's why that 6x6 thing thread really knda irked me...no tech to share, just a gaudy display of more money than sense. Not my thing I guess.

I like your website too - have used it many times, good work

Oh - and sorry for the thread killing. There's lots of good info though - especially with me asking things to be explained 3 times!

its not a full size but here is the page i did a few years ago on the front 4 link (5 link) i built for my bronco.

http://www.broncohio.com/tech/fourlink.html

enjoy.

steelman

Blackjack: I just got some news about going rockwells. If all things pan out, I should be on 2.5 ton's by summer. If not, I will just stick with the 60 and 14 and put rocks in my next rig. Full Hydro is already in the works, and will go on what ever axle I end up with.

Ghetto Fab: I think the reason no one runs this is the space constraints. You can't outboard the springs as that will affect your turning radius. If you put the leafs under the frame rail you then have to outboard your links.

Good points, thank you. I kind of forgot about the turning radius thing :p

BillaVista: ;)

steelman: Nice! I think I will end up doing a similar link design, but need to get the Rockwells before I decide.


I might just go ahead with the 60 and 14 and upgrade to alloy axles if the 35 spline stuff doesnt hold. I'd like to not add any more weigh to this thing than necessary. Up here, weight is not good, even if its down low. :flipoff2:

Brook

Well, rockwells are out. I just emailed PIG. Looks like I'll be going with some sort of 4 link or 3 link, and Hydro Steering, with Some SAW coilovers.

Thanks for all the imput. Maybe it was MR4WD that killed the thread :flipoff2:

a 4 link with the top 2 V'ed seems to work well. the longer you can make your links, the less you'll notice pinion angle and caster changes. thats all i know and hell that might not even be right! thats why i just run leafs :flipoff2:

Maybe it was MR4WD that killed the thread

so he's gonna be jackass of the month award recipient and a thread killer?:p

thats the setup I have in the rear of the rig, but would be very difficult to do and still clear the engine and tranny in the front.

i have seen a U shaped top link that takes the place of the 2 upper links. it wrapped around the motor for clearance. needs to be burly to hold up on a fullsize truck, but it seemed to work well.:D

Right. Ive been considering that option and will know more when I slide the axle forward and take a good look under there. A 3link with the upper in the shape of a V with a round bottom might be just the ticket. The only problem is welding the mount to the cast pumpkin. Im not sure I want to do that.

4 somewhat straight bars with a panhard is looking more and more appealing all the time.