triangulated front long arm.

[xjcountry93]

I've been searching and have found only kits that have the rear triangulated. And front as a 5 link. Is there any issues with trying to get this done in front? I want to build my own, but have no pics to refer to or get ideas from. Have a couple floating around, but don't know if motor is a prob, or if I can get past that.

[Bubba_Jeep]

If you mean a wish-bone type front link, without pan-hard, it's been done. I've seen other threads here and on NAXJA. From what I've read, you have to run full hydro steer with those set-ups.

[Goatman]

The motor in an XJ sits further forward than it does in most vehicles, like TJ's or CJ's. This makes it hard to build upper links and clear the oil pan in a triangulated front suspension. It's been done, sometimes using a U shaped upper arm as a triangulated 3 link. Best to search around at link threads and build threads and figure it out.

BTW, why do you want a triangulated link in the front? About the only reason it could be an advantage is if you're going to go to full hydraulic steering. Without full hydro there's no reason to do it. When someone asks how to do something, it always helps to know why they want to do it.

[zjmikey]

link it reverse, put the triangulated links on the bottom of the axle and the straight links up top..there's plenty of room for that and the lower triangulated links make a nice belly skid

[Tommy_M]

Here is an early build pic of mine. Many things have changed since, but the concept is the same. I have since outboarded the uppers and made a full belly skid. I plan on changing it again and triangulating the lowers and having straight uppers like Mike stated. I had the exhaust rerouted to clear my uppers. Again this is an early build pic. One thing Mike didn't mention is that it is easier to do if you have a high pinion axle....



This is what happens when a link breaks off. We learned a lesson from this.

[xj4life]

Originally Posted by zjmikey

link it reverse, put the triangulated links on the bottom of the axle and the straight links up top..there's plenty of room for that and the lower triangulated links make a nice belly skid

never thought about doing it that way

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by zjmikey

link it reverse, put the triangulated links on the bottom of the axle and the straight links up top..there's plenty of room for that and the lower triangulated links make a nice belly skid

A problem with doing it that way is the strength of the links and how they locate the axle. The locating links need to be strong enough to absorb an impact on one of the tires, like hitting a rock or a wash out. Normally, the straight lower link locates the axle and absorbs impacts. If the lower link is in the middle, it can't do this, and now the upper link is on the outer ends of the axle but it's raised on the axle so any hard impact has to be absorbed through the link seperation and upper axle mounts..........not an ideal situation. With this setup, the increased link seperation that would work for you handling the axle torque and controlling anti-dive would now work against you handling hard hits to the tires/wheels.

You can get away with more on a rear suspension with leading arms than you can on a front suspension with trailing arms, any hard impact goes right into the trailing arms on a front suspension.

[zjmikey]

Originally Posted by xj4life

never thought about doing it that way

Ron schneider (team purple) WAS the first guy I saw using the technique on his old YJ, then on his purple 2 seater rig and on his latest rig also.

It worked great, just make sure you use a big arse joint/heim if you use a singele link at the triangulation point.


here is a photo of his old purple 2 seater rig, you can see the silver triangulated belly/skid under the front end of buggy

[Tommy_M]

That was more of a wishbone setup right? With a big ass heim on one end. Couldn't you also use the two lower bars and triangulate them to the midle of your crossmember, and run straight uppers. I believe that is what KOZ did on thier ZJ build. This is what I intend to do on my front next.

Ron's YJ was sick. I remember going to his shop and him lighting up all four tires. SICK...

[xjcountry93]

I want my lower links be be straight from body to just before axle, at the axle I want to have a bend. So that I get ~6-8" and still have the lowers closer to parallel with the ground, for ground clearance and comfort. Front and rear. I didn't want to deal with the fact that a track bar pushes the axle out drivers side on heavy bumps, and don't know how much the track bar affects flex. I want to run my break lines down the uppers as well on front and rear. Kind of like Tommy_m's set up. I guess pulling my point off the cross member instead of axle is going to be my bet.

[TJP]

Originally Posted by xjcountry93

I want my lower links be be straight from body to just before axle, at the axle I want to have a bend. So that I get ~6-8" and still have the lowers closer to parallel with the ground, for ground clearance and comfort. Front and rear. I didn't want to deal with the fact that a track bar pushes the axle out drivers side on heavy bumps, and don't know how much the track bar affects flex. I want to run my break lines down the uppers as well on front and rear. Kind of like Tommy_m's set up. I guess pulling my point off the cross member instead of axle is going to be my bet.

Having a bend in the lower control arm will increase ground clearance but will decrease strength. It will not effect the operating angle the LCA's work at, straight or bent they both have the same operating angle.

Are you going full hydro steering? If not a trianglulated 4 link will have bumpsteer issues. It won't be as bad if you have a flat drag link angle, but that's pretty hard to do and still have any uptravel.

Properly setup, a trackbar doesn't effect flex and if the angle isn't to steep the sideways motion is reduced. With a highsteer setup and a trackbar with the correct angle to match the draglink bumpsteer isn't an issue and flex won't be effected.

A bunch of rigs are built with a 3 link design that uses a single upper control arm and a trackbar. You might want to reseach it.

[Bubba_Jeep]

Originally Posted by TJP

Properly setup, a trackbar doesn't effect flex and if the angle isn't to steep the sideways motion is reduced. With a highsteer setup and a trackbar with the correct angle to match the draglink bumpsteer isn't an issue and flex won't be effected.

.

The operative phrase here is "Properly setup". I'm having problems with my track bar limiting passenger-side droop. The reason is it's too short. The problem is there's no room in front of the passenger-side spring to locate the track bar mount farther out, because this area is occupied by tie-rod and drag link. The high steer arms (Parts mike) are short, pulling the linkage in close to the axle. Moral? Design your steering arround your track bar, to insure the track bar is properly setup. It's not only keep the track bar parallel with the drag link, but keep it close to the same length, as well.

[Goatman]

The only way a track bar effects flex is if the bar hits something, which it shouldn't, or if a mounting joint bottoms out, which they also shouldn't. Otherwise, there's no reason at all that a track bar will have anything to do with flex.

As far as the sideways motion goes, it means nothing. It's insignificant to handling or performance. The only effect the slight sideways motion could have is on bumpsteer, and this only happens if the track bar and drag link are not matched, and it's very easy to get them matched and have no bumpsteer. Even a small amount of bumpsteer is not noticeable to most drivers. A leaf spring front suspension will have some bumpsteer, and a triangulated front suspension with normal steering will have some bumpsteer, since the axle moves straight up and down and the drag link will have some angle to it as the suspension cycles.

More and more buggies are being built with front three links with track bars, and it seems to have become the prefered front suspension type. Also, it usually is easier to get good suspension geometry, roll center height, anti-dive, etc, in the given space on most rigs using a three link.

A few people have successfully done trinagulated fronts on XJ's, but many more have successfully done three links with track bars.........and more recently nearly all are doing three links.

Nothing wrong with a well done triangulated front suspension, but there certainly is nothing wrong with a front track bar. Food for thought..........

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Jeep

The operative phrase here is "Properly setup". I'm having problems with my track bar limiting passenger-side droop. The reason is it's too short. The problem is there's no room in front of the passenger-side spring to locate the track bar mount farther out, because this area is occupied by tie-rod and drag link. The high steer arms (Parts mike) are short, pulling the linkage in close to the axle. Moral? Design your steering arround your track bar, to insure the track bar is properly setup. It's not only keep the track bar parallel with the drag link, but keep it close to the same length, as well.

My track bar is mounted to the axle inside the spring, as it is on many friends rigs. This is long enough to not have any issues. What exactly are the issues you're having with it limiting droop?

[flexasouras REX]

My buddy just finished doing a 3 link front on a TJ, only problem we ran into was it bashing in the oil pan! So a new oil pan, bump stops, and 1 inch motor mount lift solved that. I'll see if i can get some pics. for you

[Bubba_Jeep]

The problem I observed, while cycling the axle up & down, is in retrospect, a bump steer issue caused when the track bar, due to being shorter than the drag link, wants to pull the axle towards the driver's side quicker than the drag link will allow it;IE the radius of the track bar is significantly shorter than that of the drag link. I forgot my observation was made with the steering wheel in the center, locked position. In that situation, as the pass-side tire dropped, the Pittman arm could not move, which would have allowed the drag link to adjust to the track bar. Make sense? The effect is the driver's side would droop until the spring dropped off of its seat, but the passenger side stopped well before the spring lost contact with its seat. Maybe it's a non-issue when crawling, and I certainly don't have "bump-steer" on the road. I just did not observe this issue until I built a D44, moving the track bar axle mount inboard of the spring. Also, I changed steering boxes, effectively lengthening my drag link an additional 3.5 inches, not including the difference in length resulting from going to the inverted "T" steering.

At ride height:

[Goatman]

In the previous picture, it looks like your pitman arm is outside of your track bar frame mount. You commented on a new steering box that lengthened the drag link....what did you use?

Even though the axle end mount of the track bar is inside of the coil, the frame side mount should be a few inches outside of the pitman arm (normally), so the total length of the drag link and track bar should be pretty close. My track bar is 28" long and the drag link is 29.5" long, not nearly enough difference to matter. My track bar axle mount is totally inside of the coil.


On the XJ buggy I'm building, since it has coilovers, I was able to mount the track bar a little outside of the frame, and the drag link goes to the knuckle. I ended up with a 36" long drag link and 37" long track bar, virtually the same length. Regardless of their length (within reason), if a track bar has joints on both ends that are mounted horizontally so they won't run out of movement and bind, the track bar won't limit articulation.

[Bubba_Jeep]

Goatman, the difference in length between your drag link and track bar is 1.5 inches. My track bar is 27 inches, and my drag link is 33-11/16 inches, giving a difference of 6-3/4 inches--a big difference!
I'm using a WJ steering box to gain clearance for my radiator. As you can see, it moves the sector shaft up against the frame.



I've been staring at my track bar mount, trying to determine if I can get an additional 1.5 inches of track bar length out of it, and trying to decide if that would be meaningful, given how much work would be required to get it.

[Goatman]

The only thing you might get out of that difference could be a little bump steer, but that likely wouldn't happen if the angles are good. It shouldn't make any difference. As far as the suspension working, as long as the track bar joints don't bind there should be little effect.

I'm like you, I don't think gaining 1.5" would be worth much work. I'd be more concerned with it being as flat as possible. You can make up some of the length difference by making the track bar a little flatter than the drag link. But, if you're not noticing and bump steer I wouldn't even mess with it.....unless like some of us you just like continual fine tuning.

[TJP]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Jeep

Goatman, the difference in length between your drag link and track bar is 1.5 inches. My track bar is 27 inches, and my drag link is 33-11/16 inches, giving a difference of 6-3/4 inches--a big difference!
I'm using a WJ steering box to gain clearance for my radiator. As you can see, it moves the sector shaft up against the frame.



I've been staring at my track bar mount, trying to determine if I can get an additional 1.5 inches of track bar length out of it, and trying to decide if that would be meaningful, given how much work would be required to get it.

I would just raise the axle end slightly(or lower the frame end) to make the trackbar angle a closer match the drag link angle. Having them at the same angle will work the best IMO. By looking at your pic I don't see any reason the trackbar would cause binding.

[xjcountry93]

Can I run full hydro on road? In Az if it matters.

[Gotlift01]

Originally Posted by xjcountry93

Can I run full hydro on road? In Az if it matters.

I sure wouldn't if I were you! Imagine your fuel pump taking a crap on you and your rig dies driving down the road.....no more steering for you!! That could turn out VERY bad.

[Otis]

Originally Posted by Gotlift01

I sure wouldn't if I were you! Imagine your fuel pump taking a crap on you and your rig dies driving down the road.....no more steering for you!! That could turn out VERY bad.

Not if you have the correct orbital valve. I've run my triangulated front 4 link and full hydro upto 75 mph without issues. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of hydraulics???

-Jon

[Gotlift01]

Originally Posted by Otis

Not if you have the correct orbital valve. I've run my triangulated front 4 link and full hydro upto 75 mph without issues. I'm not sure why people are so afraid of hydraulics???

-Jon

So how does it steer if you motor dies and your pump isn't working? To me it'd seem like it would lock up and you wouldn't be able to turn it......or is that what the orbital valve does? I really have no clue so I'm curious

[vetteboy79]

Originally Posted by Gotlift01

So how does it steer if you motor dies and your pump isn't working? To me it'd seem like it would lock up and you wouldn't be able to turn it......or is that what the orbital valve does? I really have no clue so I'm curious

If you're using the proper orbital for a full hydro setup, then yes, it will still move fluid without the pump. Just a lot more difficult to do so.

I had all kinds of fun clearance things on my front setup, but I haven't had any issues with it so far. I guess my front axle isn't pushed as far forward as some because I was able to mount the panhard in front of the spring.







No bumpsteer at all, and it drops much further than is healthy for the shocks or flex joints before the panhard or steering bind. The only thing I am displeased with is the tie rod location (you can see it's already bent), but if I do a full hi-steer with it, it'll go through the pitman arm, so I gotta figure out something else to do there.