Why? So you can run obstacle backwards?

 

i've actually wondered about this on other platforms. i've seen it a lot on CJ's, YJ's, Scouts, and other vehicles that came with factory leafspring type suspensions front and rear. i just wondered what the point was. if you're going to go through the effort of 4-linking the rear and doing a shackle reversal and soa conversion up front, why not just link the front too?

 

I ran leafs up front and links in rear for years. Go to the projects index and look through the threads, we have others leaf spring swaps and rear link setups that could give you ideas.

Links in rear are more important then links in front. Rear leafs hop too much so you cant climb waterfalls as easily as with rear links.

The front suspension is sucked down with the winch for the tough climbs so the leafs dont hurt much.

My issues with front leafs was life. Going down dropoffs and lots of cycles they dont last as long as a good link setup. You only do leafs because they are free.

With links front and rear now I have about $2500 in parts into it, I payed to get reliability and performance I could not get with Free leafs and $39 rancho shocks.

 

Links in rear are more important then links in front. Rear leafs hop too much so you cant climb waterfalls as easily as with rear links.

That makes a lot of sense.

One thing I was thinking, and feel free to call me an idiot here, was that having the leafsprings up front and coils in the rear would probably help you from picking a bad line. I say this because typically a leafspring suspension is typically less flexy than a coil suspension and will therefore not be capable of going over the same obstacles in a stable manner as the coils. I noticed that on my XJ. The front would just go up and over a large obstacle and the jeep would stay nice and stable, but when the rear tire came to the obstacle it would tilt the entire jeep over because the rear suspension was making the front suspension flex instead of flexing itself. I know this was also a matter of spring rates and not just suspension design. But, if the front was the less flexible part it would allow you to better judge how unstable you're going to get on each obstacle. You'd also have the security of knowing that if the stiffer front can get you over the obstacle safely then the rear will definately be able too.

 

three link front is too easy not to do, i ran leaves and my current 3 link cost me around just as much in the end and is far superior

 

Wow, that's pretty cool. I had heard there was a blind guy on here. As a sighted driver, I'm able to look at the terrain before I get to it. I take it you must have a co-driver to let you know when you get to a turn? I never would have thought to set up a rig that way. Terrain feelers, if you will?

 

Lies...

oooh daymn. FAIL driving by feel with co driver... good times but not for the co driver.

 

thank yall for the input its just an idea i had and was wanting info i figured a stiffer front end would help hld me true to the line of my picking instead of shooting into a new line cause it flexed a little to much. but all in all im a newb at the custoumm suspension shet i just know im tired of the rear leafs limiting my abilities. and i was thinking on the rear link to run the outside links to the cross member just under the tran case (kinda following the driveshaft. and then the links that are on top of the housing.........well......idk ive seen them go to the frame rails and also threw the floor to just behind the front seats. what should i do on those???????

 

The trans crossmember is too far away from the rear. Build a new one that mounts farther back. Keep reading build threads, you'll figure it out... then read some more and report back.