School me on a 3 Link rear

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

Mmmk... I have seen lots of guys running 3 links on thier rear suspension setups.

Aside from 2 things, I think they make sense.

1) They Have less links, therefore, if one fails, you are screwed.

2) It raises your instantaneous center of gravity as the suspension does it's thing.

I've done some reasearch, and the 3 link only looks bad from a motorsports viewpoint. People who take vehicles to the edge, and beyond.

I like the TJ setup from rockstomper, which includes an axletruss with a 3 link mount on the top, and it looks pretty easy to build. I also like this setup, because it provides me with the ability to mount my shocks where I want. In a triangulated 4 link rear, I would have to keep my shocks on the rear of the axle, in a vulnerable position.

Basically what I want to do, is eliminate anything below the "center line" of the axle. The lower links would be at the center line, or lower, and the top would be a single link on the center of the axle, and then it would connect to the frame rails about 6 inches forward of the current stock TJ mounts. Shocks would be able to be moved to the front of the axle and the upper mounting area would be next to the coil spring bucket at the highest point on the frame. About 4 inches higher than they are now.

Binder · Nov 2, 2006

If I understand this your refering to a 4 link. You would need a pan hard bar right?

Not Jobless · Nov 2, 2006

Binder said:
If I understand this your refering to a 4 link. You would need a pan hard bar right?

3 link setups require a pan hard...but they still call them 3 links

Not Jobless · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
1) They Have less links, therefore, if one fails, you are screwed.

2) It raises your instantaneous center of gravity as the suspension does it's thing.

Both of your commenst really do not make sense.

1) In a 4 link if you loose one you are still screwed...so how is this better or worse if you run a 3 link and loose one?

2) Not necessarily...it all depends on how you setup the link geometry...it could go either way

Click to expand...

Binder · Nov 2, 2006

Jobless said:
3 link setups require a pan hard...but they still call them 3 links

Huh,I have always called it a 4 link. IMO a 3 link is radius arms.

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

Jobless said:
1) In a 4 link if you loose one you are still screwed...so how is this better or worse if you run a 3 link and loose one?

What about the 4 link (or 5 with the track bar) on the TJ fronts. You can remove one of the upper control arms to get more articulation out of the axle. In fact some of the long arm kits today, come without an upper link. Two lower links and one upper, on the drivers side.

The three link I was referring to is a "wishbone" as I like to call it.

like this.

Jaydog · Nov 2, 2006

I would just keep everything where it is, but extend it. Come look at mine, it has more than enough flex.

CrustyJeep · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
a "wishbone" as I like to call it.

like this.

Hello rear steer :eeek:

Not Jobless · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
What about the 4 link (or 5 with the track bar) on the TJ fronts. You can remove one of the upper control arms to get more articulation out of the axle. In fact some of the long arm kits today, come without an upper link. Two lower links and one upper, on the drivers side.

The three link I was referring to is a "wishbone" as I like to call it.

like this.

Disregard...your looking at something different than the 3 link I was thinking about.

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

Jaydog said:
I would just keep everything where it is, but extend it. Come look at mine, it has more than enough flex.

The main focus of this is to not have any mounting points lower than the center of the axle. This way there is "nothing" to hang up on. The lower links are going to start at each end of the belly pan, but I am going to tuck that up and replace it with some of that cutting board "nylon" material.

I really like the fabtech lift for TJ's but for the axle mounts, it retains the crap ass stock mounts. It also forces you to LOWER your belly pan. :looser:
I'm going to emulate some of the fabtech design with the full traction 4 link system in the front.

I like little bits and pieces of everyone's long arm kits, but I can build my own for about 1/3 the price.

This 3 link (or 4 if you include trac bar) is looking mighty nifty for the rear suspension.

Binder · Nov 2, 2006

The one in the picture in my opinion is a triangulated 4 link. It's also like crusty said going to rear steer like no tomorrow. You should not use a pan hard in this setup. If you do it would bind.

4xjunkie · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
. It also forces you to LOWER your belly pan. :looser:
I'm going to emulate some of the fabtech design with the full traction 4 link system in the front.

No it does not. My brother-in-law and I installed that exact lift , 8" Fabtech Crawler System on his 02 TJ, the included belly pan drops down less then the stock one.

I will have to say it is a massive system, this kit will lower your COG, those arms are heavy. It is a really nice kit.

Let me know, I will show you what it looks like

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

4xjunkie said:
No it does not. My brother-in-law and I installed that exact lift , 8" Fabtech Crawler System on his 02 TJ, the included belly pan drops down less then the stock one.

I will have to say it is a massive system, this kit will lower your COG, those arms are heavy. It is a really nice kit.

Let me know, I will show you what it looks like

I would like to take a look at one up close. Is it the kit with the coilovers on the front?

mjp1080 · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
The main focus of this is to not have any mounting points lower than the center of the axle. This way there is "nothing" to hang up on.

Why dont you make something like this, the linkage sure doesnt hang up?

4xjunkie · Nov 2, 2006

KarlVP said:
I would like to take a look at one up close. Is it the kit with the coilovers on the front?

No, I talked him out of those. It was like another $14-1600 for the coil over part.

This thing is more of a mall crawler. It will be lucky to dirt once or twice a year..

He is running it with 38x15.50x15 Mickey MTZ's on 15x12 rims.

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

mjp1080 said:
Why dont you make something like this, the linkage sure doesnt hang up?

I could do something like that, but the mount would have to be on top. But from what I am hearing in this thread, when the axle articulated, it would rear steer.

I don't have one of those fancy rockwell axles. Interchange the axle mount point with my driveshaft and you have basically what I am left to work with. The only benefit is I have the 8.8 with its offset pinion, which works a little bit to my advantage. And that picture is exactly what I am trying to emulate. Nothing hanging below the axle tubes.

Binder · Nov 2, 2006

Could you triangulate both the upper and lower arms? Still rear steer but not as bad as the pictured setup.

mjp1080 · Nov 2, 2006

I originally had all the mounts over the axle but had terrible clearance issues because of the rockwells, but I know it can be done. As for the flex steer I have not had that problem, I think it has to do with the fact that my linkage is almost completely horizontal at rest.

KarlVP · Nov 2, 2006

mjp1080 said:
I originally had all the mounts over the axle but had terrible clearance issues because of the rockwells, but I know it can be done. As for the flex steer I have not had that problem, I think it has to do with the fact that my linkage is almost completely horizontal at rest.

I am worried about the linkage being horizontal and the suspension compressing, thus pushing the arms past horizontal. Wouldn't this make the axle housing want to move and not the wheels/tires under torque? I'm sure it would play hell on your u-joints.

mjp1080 · Nov 2, 2006

It shouldn't make the axle move any worse than it does when the suspension drops out, it would just rotate the oposite direction and if the pinion angle is good the u joints shouldn't care.