Pirate 4x4 banner

161 - 180 of 206 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Maybe. It depends on the lenth of the links and the width of the axle. It should be done though, because it allows you to affect anti-squat and roll axis, which can get extremely high on mildly lifted rovers.
Ok thanks.
I have got no clue yet on link lengths etc, I'm still reading up on it. There's a ton of info here and I want to do my homework first.
So basically it doesn't really matter what you do as long as the angle between top and bottom links is about 40degrees or more right?
The LC80 is pretty wide so that helps. I could even put the lower link mount underneath the frame even though it does hurt ground clearance a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
What KC knows, and apparently most here do not, is that the Rover ball is really the only way to do a 4 link on a rover (sometimes called a Y link). Unless you chop the rear off completely like Darkstar did.

The rover frame is too narrow to use two separate hiems at the axle. The triangulation is not enough. Then most who do it lenthen it, further reducing the triangulation. Then most run straight lowers. While it may work for a while, the stress on the uppers doing the locating is extreme. You fully get it, you break, badly.

I had the rover ball when KC did my rear. Then did gymastics to keep it when I lenthened the rear 10in. Still have it now, and will never change it. Using the outers to lower the roll axis angle is a huge improvement though.
Ive never not been a fan of the ball joint, apart from the fact that it makes things so much easier as its already done, it isnt a bad design really. I know some guys over here (Oz) have broken them from "gettin in" but thats not a concern for me. Im pretty sure Strangerover has built some 4 link (2 uppers on diff) on defender and had success, but he didnt use the stock chassis mounts either. I cant see why its not possible to do 4 link if you keep a min angle and build it strong eneough, .....but thats a moot point.

the other thing that may help is MR Auotomotive is making the MD ball joints, both the stock greasable/adjustable and a 1 inch raised version to give more vetrical seperation at axle end. MD originally designed these for their portal kits.

the only problem I see with the ball joint is the binding due to limited angularity and the stock set up which seems to have the ball not at center of movement at ride height......

IMO the ball is strong enough for its job and a better option the people replacing it with a hiem etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Maybe. It depends on the lenth of the links and the width of the axle. It should be done though, because it allows you to affect anti-squat and roll axis, which can get extremely high on mildly lifted rovers.
funny you should say this....some difference of opinion on page 2-3 of this thread..... looking at the pics of FrankenRover, I would say the rear axle roll axis is quite high, and I believe KC stated the AS at 149%.....I would have thought it to be higher than that :confused: but still seems high....seems to work for Bill and KC though

Serg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Most all of the ball joint failures I have seen were the result of not being properly torqued. They can come loose a bit and that causes serious wear and soon to follow "SNAP". I have seen a few that were from a rusted joint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Good luck binding the A-arm ball joint. If its positioned properly, it provides far more articulation than you will ever need.

Not sure what not being at center of movement at ride height means.
ill try and explain....forgive my poor use of the english langauge.

The ball joint has x amount of movement or degrees of movment. looking at it very basicly lets say front to back and side to side movement. lets assume the suspension when at normal ride height has 50% up travel available and 50% down travel. looking (from the side of the vehicle) at the stock rover and worse on a coil lifted rig the ball is not sitting in the center of its movement range at ride height becasue of the angle of the ends of the A arm.......being that, its going to bind one way before the other.

I believe this would be able to be addressed fairly easily with some custom arms.

PS I just highlighted what you said....:homer:


now for a stupid question. If you were to join the chassis mount ends of the A arms with a cross bar so it was a triangle and not a V would this create more binding?

I agree with what your saying about snapping the Ball joint. But Im pretty sure the guys that did (Ruff) would be up on torquing and service etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,481 Posts
Ok, gottcha uninformed. Yes you are right. However most vehicles do not have equal up and down travel. So adjusting the position/orientation of the ball joint allows it to be used where its needed. So, if you don't need a lot of up travel, you set the joint so it is close to max at full compression which will give you maximum down travel from the joint. But, another factor will be how similar or dissimilar the a arm length and the lower links length are. These two things combined, mean you should be able to get plenty of travel from the ball joint and it is no different than using a heim in the same situation.

So, to wrap it all up a bit.

Rover ball joint will limit your articulation but the articulation limit is well beyond what you honestly need for most applications.

Rover ball joint in proper setup can yield unlimited droop or compression if that is your goal.

And the A-arm setup has been used in front end applications and works exceedingly well, but can be complicated to fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,483 Posts
KC,

how do you feel the ball joint would cope with long down travel or droop like a TT???

Serg
I can't bind it or even get close with 17in of straight travel and more articulation. Anything is possible, but I would not even worry aboutit until you hit the 30in mark. :smokin:

Soooo,
how about an a-frame and ball joint on the front axle? Assume engine location is not a problem :D
I run a Y link in the front of my race car. There is no issue unless you are not running full hydro, which I assume you would if you are building something so cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,483 Posts
funny you should say this....some difference of opinion on page 2-3 of this thread..... looking at the pics of FrankenRover, I would say the rear axle roll axis is quite high, and I believe KC stated the AS at 149%.....I would have thought it to be higher than that :confused: but still seems high....seems to work for Bill and KC though

Serg
He would be happier at 80-90% I promise. But it is less noticable going slow, and his is a crawler.

And post pics if you can of the broken rover ball joint. The only way I see that happening is an extremely violent roll, that would break a 4 link too, unless loose or rusted like KC said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
I dont have pics, I remember Ruff (Tony) saying they broke something in that area, It may have not been the ball, but torn it out of the diff or its own housing :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
Because you no longer have a panhard rod to reference your drag link. So, up and down travel will result in the truck steering with no input from the driver. Very annoying problem.
That would be why you do full hydro steering..

Cuz it's cool like Buck said...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,483 Posts
That would be why you do full hydro steering..

Cuz it's cool like Buck said...
Full hydro or GTFO! :flipoff2:
 
161 - 180 of 206 Posts
Top