Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum - Reply to Topic
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > General Tech > General 4x4 Discussion > 4 link with mogs
Notices

Thread: 4 link with mogs Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
05-16-2005 03:04 PM
HaWiiLuVeR ok, so i believe that i did it right. thanks for all the help everyone.
05-16-2005 03:03 PM
CJ Lagos No, he is just saying that on a portal axle it is important to distinguish between tube centerline and actual axle centerline. You must base all your measurements off of centerline at the wheels, not centerline of the axle tube.
05-16-2005 02:59 PM
HaWiiLuVeR so hes saying to adjust the z axis up because you would obviously be hanging down really low if you were working like it was a regular axle. if i am understanding that statement correctly?
05-16-2005 02:14 PM
Triaged "any more thoughts on the portal vs regular axles?"

Nope...all this was hashed out about 2 years ago in the first page or 1 of the calculator thread.
https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893 (posts 1-22)

This is what Eskimo had to say in that post
Quote:
portals *do* make a difference.. you just have to adjust your Z axis numbers to allow for it, unless you plan on mounting your lower link 5" below the axle tube... :P

Accoridng to www.killeraxles.com , a Mog 404 is 4 3/8" offset, so if you take your standard axle Z measurements and move them both 4.3 inches up, you'll see that the forces have increased.... dramatically!
05-16-2005 01:57 PM
HaWiiLuVeR any more thoughts on the portal vs regular axles?
05-13-2005 04:50 PM
Aaronius This is interesting stuff. Going to respond one more time before I have to get off the computer.

If the links are in the same spot as in relation to the center of the tire the calcs wouldnt be right becuase of the reasons stated before. If its in relation to the ground then mounting the lower links that low on a portal axle would not be feasible.
05-13-2005 04:22 PM
HaWiiLuVeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged
I think I already found and fixed that mistake. You might want to redownload the latest version. If you find any more errors in it shoot me an email to me so I can fix it.
crap, just saw you have a link to 4BARcalculator in your sig. i downloaded the 4LINKcalculator. to me.
05-13-2005 04:21 PM
Aaronius The links in the same spot as in realtion to the center of the tire?
Okay, so the forces calculated will be accurate. The calculator overlooks the fact that pivot point is different. This directly affects the loads placed on the links as a result of torque.

edit: went to the shop and checked out the how the axle reacts to torque and the front links would be all compression forces resulting from torque.
05-13-2005 03:56 PM
Triaged No. It would be safe to say the forces will be the same weather you have a portal box or not as long as your links are in the same spot. Just keep in mind it measures from the ground as a reference (not the axle tube).
05-13-2005 03:51 PM
Aaronius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged
The calculator doesn't care where the center of your axle shaft is. It uses the tire contact patch to calculate the forces.
So its safe to say it wont be an accurate representation of the forces applied to the links on a portal axle? At least from axle torque.
05-13-2005 03:43 PM
Triaged
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaWiiLuVeR
i think my 4th page is referencing the wrong cell for the lower links. its pulling from c14 on the vector page where the lowers should be i14.
I think I already found and fixed that mistake. You might want to redownload the latest version. If you find any more errors in it shoot me an email to me so I can fix it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaronius
I wonder whether or not that calculator is correct about the forces applied to the links?
Of course portal axles act differently. A lower link on a typical axle could be placed below the pivot point, whereas on a portal axle this seems unlikely. Heres a couple illustrations I quickly made to point out the differences. If youve ever pushed a portal around the shop you know how that pinion likes to flip around.
The calculator doesn't care where the center of your axle shaft is. It uses the tire contact patch to calculate the forces.
05-13-2005 03:21 PM
Aaronius I wonder whether or not that calculator is correct about the forces applied to the links?
Of course portal axles act differently. A lower link on a typical axle could be placed below the pivot point, whereas on a portal axle this seems unlikely. Heres a couple illustrations I quickly made to point out the differences. If youve ever pushed a portal around the shop you know how that pinion likes to flip around.

05-13-2005 02:18 PM
HaWiiLuVeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged
Don't think when you don't have to

Just look at the cells labled "Link Force" on the 4th page of the calculator

Same can be said for the vertical seperation. Look at the force #'s and the FS #'s and design around those.
i think my 4th page is referencing the wrong cell for the lower links. its pulling from c14 on the vector page where the lowers should be i14.

heres the vector numbers though with the force numbers. the force is actually greater on the lowers.


heres the materials with what i believe to be the correct referenced cell. material isnt definate, just to get numbers.

05-13-2005 02:08 PM
THURENfab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged
Don't think when you don't have to

Just look at the cells labled "Link Force" on the 4th page of the calculator

Same can be said for the vertical seperation. Look at the force #'s and the FS #'s and design around those.
Yeah yeah.... calculatorshmalculator.... I'm thinking overall force(side,impact,rock,etc.), my bad...

The lowers are going to have a shitload of force on them though with a heavy ass truck, Mogs, traingulated lowers, and 40's...
05-13-2005 01:52 PM
Triaged
Quote:
Originally Posted by THURENfab.
I think there is more "force" on the lowers..
Don't think when you don't have to

Just look at the cells labled "Link Force" on the 4th page of the calculator

Same can be said for the vertical seperation. Look at the force #'s and the FS #'s and design around those.
05-13-2005 01:44 PM
Aaronius The force produced from axle torque is greater on the uppers, while the forces produced from running your tire into something would be greater on the lowers.
05-13-2005 01:28 PM
THURENfab. I think there is more "force" on the lowers..
05-13-2005 01:09 PM
Aaronius
Quote:
Originally Posted by jelbehai
Shouldn't the uppers and lowers see the same amount of force (excluding bending from impacts)? Inclination would think that the rotational forces would minimize the impact for the lowers when mounted near axle centerline, but "equal and opposite reactions" comes in to play and both would see the same amount - no?
The uppers are farther from the rotational pivot point than the lowers. This equates to more leverage. Therefore, there is more force transfered to the upper links.
05-13-2005 12:52 PM
jelbehai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mieser
The upper links are going to see HUGE amounts of stress. Make sure to make the mounts extra strong. The lowers are only going to see compression impacts and very limited forces associated with the rotational torque from the axle.
Shouldn't the uppers and lowers see the same amount of force (excluding bending from impacts)? Inclination would think that the rotational forces would minimize the impact for the lowers when mounted near axle centerline, but "equal and opposite reactions" comes in to play and both would see the same amount - no?
05-13-2005 12:10 PM
HaWiiLuVeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by American
So I have a question relating to the truck. So you have the rear in, but not the front yet? You driving it much?
the rear is in and i have been driving it around some. i use my motorcycle for work.
05-13-2005 12:06 PM
HaWiiLuVeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mieser
I like the new one a lot better. Some more stuff...

-With the uppers that short and a lot of downtravel you are going to get some wicked pinion movement. I imagine on your dodge you have a pretty long front driveshaft, but with the mog pinion taking up some of that it might be worth looking into.
the driveshaft angles are so little at stock that i *think* they will be alright with the droop. i will definately look into it though. btw, the uppers are about 30" and the lower about 45". so they arent 'short' really.
Quote:
-Are you going to be running full hydraulic steering?
yes, got stations setup waiting to go in.
Quote:
-The upper links are going to see HUGE amounts of stress. Make sure to make the mounts extra strong. The lowers are only going to see compression impacts and very limited forces associated with the rotational torque from the axle.
will do.
Quote:
-Roll axis is getting even higher. The rear will be lower than that with leaf springs. This will lead to a chassis that will tend to oversteer a little bit. The rear of the chassis is also going to lean more than the front ( given similar spring rates ) The body is also going to tend to follow the front axle more than the rear.
the rates on the leafs are really stiff. i am mounting the shocks this weekend and aside from some bouncing, the ride is good. little body roll right now. would you be very worried about this?
Quote:
-In the rear are you going to run spring under? I would with the portals.
its spring over and doing well so far. if i have to i will be running some traction bars.
Quote:
-Noticed your lowered the belly....lower arms look a lot better. With your longer wheelbase that might bite you a little bit. You might be able to ramp the lower mounts so that you can gain a little breakover angle behind the mounts though. I think lower is better overall....
the lower links will actually be mounting right to the crossmember for the tcase.

thanks again for your help.
05-13-2005 11:48 AM
American So I have a question relating to the truck. So you have the rear in, but not the front yet? You driving it much?
05-13-2005 11:45 AM
Mieser I like the new one a lot better. Some more stuff...

-With the uppers that short and a lot of downtravel you are going to get some wicked pinion movement. I imagine on your dodge you have a pretty long front driveshaft, but with the mog pinion taking up some of that it might be worth looking into.

-Are you going to be running full hydraulic steering?

-Anti-squat/anti-dive numbers look a little better to me.

-The upper links are going to see HUGE amounts of stress. Make sure to make the mounts extra strong. The lowers are only going to see compression impacts and very limited forces associated with the rotational torque from the axle.

-Roll axis is getting even higher. The rear will be lower than that with leaf springs. This will lead to a chassis that will tend to oversteer a little bit. The rear of the chassis is also going to lean more than the front ( given similar spring rates ) The body is also going to tend to follow the front axle more than the rear.

-In the rear are you going to run spring under? I would with the portals.

-The lower arms look about right. Though your not going to have to worry about undercut ledges in the front.....having the arms like that is about right. I think having the arm intersect the tire at the mid-point is about right.

-Noticed your lowered the belly....lower arms look a lot better. With your longer wheelbase that might bite you a little bit. You might be able to ramp the lower mounts so that you can gain a little breakover angle behind the mounts though. I think lower is better overall....
05-13-2005 11:24 AM
4Mogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaWiiLuVeR
uppers will be on seperate sides of the diff. the diff is only offset like 4" or something like that.
cool.
05-13-2005 11:18 AM
HaWiiLuVeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Mogger
So you plan to put both uppers on the same side of the diff, or one on each side?
uppers will be on seperate sides of the diff. the diff is only offset like 4" or something like that.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.