Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Decided on 3 links the front of my cruiser. There's a fella on ih8mud that's done this to a wagon. It's mainly a weekend car. Hardly gets driven now with 37s what's everyone's thoughts. What should I be careful of when doing it? ive done some measurements, il be using the original chassis mounts. the lower links will be roughly 730mm long and the upper maximum i could get without having to modify the exhaust is 450. Does it matter what side i put the upper link on? was thinking of mounting it ontop of centre..

keep it radius arm front, but make the radius arms longer with new mounts on the chassis.
fit a decent torsion bar type sway bar in the rear end to make the front suspension work more.

in 80s the rear suspension is soft and works well, front is stiff, and doesnt work as much because the rear end does all the flexing.

Everytime 3link front in an 80series gets mentioned on Ih8mud, it gets shouted down as a being a bad compromise.

check out rockcrawler31 build up thread here, he has customised 80s running gear/ suspension under a 75series. it works really well, flexes well, is very stable.
I would be looking at doing similar if I were building up an 80 based 4x4

Check out project moby dick on pirate4x4 good write up but heaps of shit to filter through

was built buy this guy http://www.binksfab.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; most of his pics are on his facebook page
i emailed him and he was willing to send me one in kit form never got a price for it though

turtle

80's_delirious wrote:keep it radius arm front, but make the radius arms longer with new mounts on the chassis.
fit a decent torsion bar type sway bar in the rear end to make the front suspension work more.

in 80s the rear suspension is soft and works well, front is stiff, and doesnt work as much because the rear end does all the flexing.

Everytime 3link front in an 80series gets mentioned on Ih8mud, it gets shouted down as a being a bad compromise.

check out rockcrawler31 build up thread here, he has customised 80s running gear/ suspension under a 75series. it works really well, flexes well, is very stable.
I would be looking at doing similar if I were building up an 80 based 4x4

yea i see that everybody has been ragging the idea.. but its not like i have a 3t wagon sitting ontop of the setup. my setup alot lighter

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

3 link isnt a bad compromise...

Its the easiest and most free suspension of them all. Means no binding at all. Like he said its a weekend and hardly gets driven at all. He obviously want the best travel he can. Go for it mate. Radius arms are puss.

http://www.actionjackson.com/cruiser/mods/20060110.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Action Jackson's page is just about worn out with the amount of times I've checked it out haha going to be ordering so heims off Criddy at dragtec customs today. Is there anything I need to be careful of when mounting the upper link. Is there some type of length I should make it??

Not really, just follow what he has done to the tee and get the same results. The only part you will have a problem with is the seperation between the tower and the lower arm mounting points. Depending on the lift/tyres and other obsticals in your engine bay. And that is important to control these forces under hard braking.

TheBigBoy wrote: Go for it mate. Radius arms are puss.

http://www.actionjackson.com/cruiser/mods/20060110.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course they are.

I mean if i was building a trailer queen i'd definately be looking at a double triangulated front setup. But he'll still have to get it from home to the trail, and not be fighting it or watching it like a hawk. Or wondering if it's going to jack up on a corner under braking and kill a kid.

Don't get me wrong three or tri four links have their place but mine still handles very well for a lifted truck thanks to the roll stiffness and the acceptable roll centre of a panhard and radius arm. By lengthening the arms you're using trigonometry to minimise the bad parts of radius arms binding while keeping the good bits. It's relatively easy to do and even better would be to bring the rear mounts inboard a tad which will eliminate even more of the binding. (have seen this done on Chad's hilux and it works very well). Best of all, it sits better with engineers because it's very similar to factory.

This isn't even close to fully maxxed out, but it's the only travel pic i've got of the front.

Some young cub under there not happy about having to do the grease and oil change too

And im sure lengthening arms goes down real well with the transport department aswell. Dont think he cares about legal. If he wants a 3 link, get a 3 link. I spoke to shaun jackson a few years back about this set up. He had a 7" lift, 2" body and 44's. And he still said it drove very nicely on the road. Didnt pull under braking, and was very predictable.

Each to their own.

Can you get lengthened radius arm and flipped engineered and approved in QLD???????

TheBigBoy wrote:And im sure lengthening arms goes down real well with the transport department aswell. Dont think he cares about legal. If he wants a 3 link, get a 3 link. I spoke to shaun jackson a few years back about this set up. He had a 7" lift, 2" body and 44's. And he still said it drove very nicely on the road. Didnt pull under braking, and was very predictable.

Each to their own.

Can you get lengthened radius arm and flipped engineered and approved in QLD???????

I"m not dissing on the three link by the way. My arms are completely engineered in queensland. At the end of the day they're rock solid and stronger than the OEM (Mine are made from Bisalloy), the geometry is very similar if not better since the longer arms give a better tangent angle for a lifted truck so the front axle doesn't have to go as far forwards before cycling upwards. I can't see why flipped arms would be a problem, it's still similar geometry given that the axle centerline and rear mount are still in the same locations. It's just the location of the axle mount that's different.

I don't know the OP's truck but it's very possible that the third link is a lot easier to package so if that's what works then so be it.

Poor little fella! He was a bit crook that day.

I've been in Milo's little red billycart.
I was well impressed with how steady and stable it was as it was driven through some pretty rocky steep terrain. It definitely works extremely well

why not just fit a x link ?

no need to change your radius arms or there position

it frees up the radius arms

dobbins enginerring did a set for me and yes i have flipped radius arms

still drives good on road

and you can still put sway bars under it to for more stability if you need

i have a 40 myself on coils and suffered the no front end flex even with standard coils and long travel shocks
now with a xlink the front travels just as good as the rear

rockcrawler31 wrote:

TheBigBoy wrote:And im sure lengthening arms goes down real well with the transport department aswell. Dont think he cares about legal. If he wants a 3 link, get a 3 link. I spoke to shaun jackson a few years back about this set up. He had a 7" lift, 2" body and 44's. And he still said it drove very nicely on the road. Didnt pull under braking, and was very predictable.

Each to their own.

Can you get lengthened radius arm and flipped engineered and approved in QLD???????

I"m not dissing on the three link by the way. My arms are completely engineered in queensland. At the end of the day they're rock solid and stronger than the OEM (Mine are made from Bisalloy), the geometry is very similar if not better since the longer arms give a better tangent angle for a lifted truck so the front axle doesn't have to go as far forwards before cycling upwards. I can't see why flipped arms would be a problem, it's still similar geometry given that the axle centerline and rear mount are still in the same locations. It's just the location of the axle mount that's different.

I don't know the OP's truck but it's very possible that the third link is a lot easier to package so if that's what works then so be it.

I know you wherent bagging them, no malicious intend ment. How much longer did you make your arms then? Because im just about to make some custom arms myself.

Do you think your longer arms give more travel then superflex arms? And have you seen this on an 80. Because as you have said, the more inwards the better. That red truck would have the chassi's rail alot closer together than the 80. Which means travel would be less on the 80.

The superflex arms seem to work well too. One advantage of longer radius arms is improved geometry. Ie, the ARM stays flatter to the chassis during articulation, there will be less change in the angle the arms move through, it should bind less than with shorter arms.

I reckon the ideal would be custom made longer arms, inboarded at the chassis end to give some triangulation and better chassis clearance, and also mount them on the topside of the diff housing as per flipped arms for better clearance at the diff, and keeps the arms higher out of harms way.
I have been dreaming of this in an 80series or my 105series for ages now.

I think milo's are 200mm longer than stock??

Well Im just about to make those dreams come true. Im just not sure if I want to be cutting and redoing the chassi points or not. My ideal set up is a flipped arm that incorperates the superflex aswell. I also have the option of shortening the distance between the 2 points on the diff housing, Alowing less binding again. Depending on how well it flex's with the longer arms will decide wether I keep the superflex or not.

I want more pics and all geometry measurements . Like I said the shorter distance between the chassi rail will give more travel. Thats why Id want to see it set up on a 80 series.

Good stuff mate. Would love to see pics as you do it.
I agree the ideal would be to go with the superflex idea, and closer spacing of bushes. If your getting arms cut to order, may as well maximise the benefits.
I would look at mounting the arms inboard of the chassis to elimiate having the radius arm mount being a 'hang up' point on the chassis rail.
Ideally, I would also do the same with rear arms, 200mm longer, mounted inboard of the chassis rail and longer, triangulated top links with no panhard.
Ahh, day dreams
Add to that a decent crawl box and you have an awesome combo.
I am currently looking into building a unique crawler transmission for my cruiser, it would go well with all the above.


Highjack over, carry on

Some mis-drawn conclusions from what i've said here a little i think

My arms are about 300mm longer than stock. Due to the length, i had to go Bisalloy rather than just 350mpa steel.

We all know that the reason the stock radius arms struggle is because the compression and droop sides are trying to twist the axle along it's length. The front bolt of the droop arm is trying to drop down, and the front bolt of the compression arm is trying to rise up inside the bushes/mounts.

Radius arms are called this for the exact reason that they move through a radius when they travel. A longer arm travels through a shallower radius arc at the wheels and travels through less angle for a given amount of vertical travel at the wheel.

So imagine this

12 inches of travel at the wheel vertically. A REALLY short arm might move through 45 degrees of angle change which translates to a LOT of up and down movement at the front bolts relative to the axle mounts. Not only that but he ARC which the front of the radius arm and therefore the axle is more pronounced.

A REALLY long arm, on the other hand to get the SAME 12inches of vertical travel would move through perhaps10 degrees of angularity, and the arc it describes would be a LOT flatter and shallower(larger radius)

ERGO = Longer arms result in A. The wheel moving forwards during up travel a LOT less (assuming the arms are lower than horizontal at ride height.)

B. The point from the chassis mount to axle center line being closer to horizontal giving a better ride and still less forward movement of the axle

C. Less angular change for a given amount of flex, which means the front bolts are fighting each other less.

So in my truck i have

1. Fitted longer arms
2. Drilled out the bushes slightly above and below the bolts. This allows the bolts to move more freely in the mounts. I would NOT do this for an everyday car. Mine is a comp truck, but having said that i havn't noticed an issue on the road.
And if i had my time again i would fit the CHASSIS MOUNTS inboard slightly so the arms are ever so slightly triangulated. About 10 degrees would be good. This helps with the bolts up the front even MORE as the arms/axle are able to rotate about the rear mounts a little more relieving the strain on the front bushes. I'm not talking about having a narrower chassis, in fact my axle mounts are factory and they line up exactly under my chassis rails. Seems to be only the rear that is narrower than an 80 series.

However this would require a cross member between the chassis rails to allow them to be inboarded a bit, and would require the front mounts to be kicked inwards a tad.

I truly think this would flex as much as ANY linked road going front end and still retain good torque control of the diff, excellent roll centre. However you would lose the inherent swaybar nature of the standard set up.

TheBigBoy wrote:Well Im just about to make those dreams come true. Im just not sure if I want to be cutting and redoing the chassi points or not. My ideal set up is a flipped arm that incorperates the superflex aswell. I also have the option of shortening the distance between the 2 points on the diff housing, Alowing less binding again. Depending on how well it flex's with the longer arms will decide wether I keep the superflex or not.

I want more pics and all geometry measurements . Like I said the shorter distance between the chassi rail will give more travel. Thats why Id want to see it set up on a 80 series.

I'f you're planning on triangulating the arms a little, you can maintain the stock mounts in case it all doesn't work for you.

Leave the two points on the diff alone separation wise. You still need to control counter torque from power inputs.

The real sticker with what we're suggesting here is that the axle mount plates need to be rotated inward a tad so they're no longer parallel which stuffs the "return to factory option" without a bit of work. Unless of course you can figure out how to manufacture a set of arms that has a slight kick inwards immediately behind the rearmost bolt. Perhaps the easiest way to do this temporarily or even permanently is to use two lengths of heavy wall tube say 40mm OD and 20mm ID stacked on top of each other and welded together. Have a bend in both where it's needed and have the top one go to the rear axle mount and the lower continue under to the front mount. Plate as required and taper the top one towards the rear until you have a single tube to mount the chassis.

Add in a temporary bolted in crossmember with mounts and you've got a developement platform that can be returned to stock. Anyone care to give it a go for the sake of R and D? Dave

Tell ya what Dave, you bring the 105 up to me, and i'll go halves with you on materials and we'll fab it all up at mine. Take it out to Newnes for a test and if it don't work, the worst you've lost is a bit of cash for steel and some time. I think it would be VERY informative. We can even kick the arms over the top of the housing to see how it looks.

80's_delirious wrote:I am currently looking into building a unique crawler transmission for my cruiser, it would go well with all the above.


Highjack over, carry on

Please explain?? if you can figure out how to do it and not have to cut, shut, move fuel tanks blah blah blah you'll have a market here

Alternatively piss off the 80 tx case altogether and make an adaptor to go transmission to NP series transfers or LT230

84sloth wrote:Action Jackson's page is just about worn out with the amount of times I've checked it out haha going to be ordering so heims off Criddy at dragtec customs today. Is there anything I need to be careful of when mounting the upper link. Is there some type of length I should make it??

When you chat to Criddy, tell him to hurry up with the quote on my axles

I'm not sure if the four link calculator will work with the three link, can't see why not i guess.

Make sure that the upper chassis mount is in double shear somehow.

Good luck and post pics and driving results when you're done

Oh I understand exactly what you mean by longer arms and a LONGER raduis which means less binding. I just dont really want to change the chassi mounts, incase I decide to take it back to stock again in the future. I know changing to geometry and axis point means less body roll etc aswell. But I just dont want to do it, or change location of the arms on the diff.

My superflex arms travel well. But it p$sses me off no end hitting them as they hang so low. Ive just spent a few days playing and testing and came up with I think is the perfect comprimise. But the real test is when their done. And bolted on, cmon holidays. It will drive great and flex its ass off.

rockcrawler31 wrote:Some mis-drawn conclusions from what i've said here a little i think

My arms are about 300mm longer than stock. Due to the length, i had to go Bisalloy rather than just 350mpa steel.

We all know that the reason the stock radius arms struggle is because the compression and droop sides are trying to twist the axle along it's length. The front bolt of the droop arm is trying to drop down, and the front bolt of the compression arm is trying to rise up inside the bushes/mounts.

Radius arms are called this for the exact reason that they move through a radius when they travel. A longer arm travels through a shallower radius arc at the wheels and travels through less angle for a given amount of vertical travel at the wheel.

So imagine this

12 inches of travel at the wheel vertically. A REALLY short arm might move through 45 degrees of angle change which translates to a LOT of up and down movement at the front bolts relative to the axle mounts. Not only that but he ARC which the front of the radius arm and therefore the axle is more pronounced.

A REALLY long arm, on the other hand to get the SAME 12inches of vertical travel would move through perhaps10 degrees of angularity, and the arc it describes would be a LOT flatter and shallower(larger radius)

ERGO = Longer arms result in A. The wheel moving forwards during up travel a LOT less (assuming the arms are lower than horizontal at ride height.)

B. The point from the chassis mount to axle center line being closer to horizontal giving a better ride and still less forward movement of the axle

C. Less angular change for a given amount of flex, which means the front bolts are fighting each other less.

So in my truck i have

1. Fitted longer arms
2. Drilled out the bushes slightly above and below the bolts. This allows the bolts to move more freely in the mounts. I would NOT do this for an everyday car. Mine is a comp truck, but having said that i havn't noticed an issue on the road.
And if i had my time again i would fit the CHASSIS MOUNTS inboard slightly so the arms are ever so slightly triangulated. About 10 degrees would be good. This helps with the bolts up the front even MORE as the arms/axle are able to rotate about the rear mounts a little more relieving the strain on the front bushes. I'm not talking about having a narrower chassis, in fact my axle mounts are factory and they line up exactly under my chassis rails. Seems to be only the rear that is narrower than an 80 series.

However this would require a cross member between the chassis rails to allow them to be inboarded a bit, and would require the front mounts to be kicked inwards a tad.

I truly think this would flex as much as ANY linked road going front end and still retain good torque control of the diff, excellent roll centre. However you would lose the inherent swaybar nature of the standard set up.

My thoughts exactly.

I have thought arms could be custom cut from bissalloy or fabbed from tube and cranked so they can be inboard at the chassis end, and stay in stock brackets on the diff, but if i ever go to that much trouble, I would be running them flipped to the top side, so making diff brackets on a 10degree or so angle wouldn't be much more of a stretch.

rockcrawler31 wrote:

80's_delirious wrote:I am currently looking into building a unique crawler transmission for my cruiser, it would go well with all the above.


Highjack over, carry on

Please explain?? if you can figure out how to do it and not have to cut, shut, move fuel tanks blah blah blah you'll have a market here

Alternatively piss off the 80 tx case altogether and make an adaptor to go transmission to NP series transfers or LT230

Will PM you, I'm keeping this under my hat.

It will require tank and floor pan mods and custom shafts, but think crawk ratios similar to the marlin crawler

rockcrawler31 wrote:Tell ya what Dave, you bring the 105 up to me, and i'll go halves with you on materials and we'll fab it all up at mine. Take it out to Newnes for a test and if it don't work, the worst you've lost is a bit of cash for steel and some time. I think it would be VERY informative. We can even kick the arms over the top of the housing to see how it looks.

can't really beat that

80's_delirious wrote:

rockcrawler31 wrote:

80's_delirious wrote:I am currently looking into building a unique crawler transmission for my cruiser, it would go well with all the above.


Highjack over, carry on

Please explain?? if you can figure out how to do it and not have to cut, shut, move fuel tanks blah blah blah you'll have a market here

Alternatively piss off the 80 tx case altogether and make an adaptor to go transmission to NP series transfers or LT230

Will PM you, I'm keeping this under my hat.

It will require tank and floor pan mods and custom shafts, but think crawk ratios similar to the marlin crawler

c'mon share

BUSTED100 wrote:

rockcrawler31 wrote:Tell ya what Dave, you bring the 105 up to me, and i'll go halves with you on materials and we'll fab it all up at mine. Take it out to Newnes for a test and if it don't work, the worst you've lost is a bit of cash for steel and some time. I think it would be VERY informative. We can even kick the arms over the top of the housing to see how it looks.

can't really beat that

It's got the brain ticking over thats for sure

BUSTED100 wrote:

80's_delirious wrote:

rockcrawler31 wrote:

80's_delirious wrote:I am currently looking into building a unique crawler transmission for my cruiser, it would go well with all the above.


Highjack over, carry on

Please explain?? if you can figure out how to do it and not have to cut, shut, move fuel tanks blah blah blah you'll have a market here

Alternatively piss off the 80 tx case altogether and make an adaptor to go transmission to NP series transfers or LT230

Will PM you, I'm keeping this under my hat.

It will require tank and floor pan mods and custom shafts, but think crawk ratios similar to the marlin crawler

c'mon share

Once I'm certain I can pull it off I'll share. Fairly sure it will be a first in a lot of ways. Could end in tears and a really busted 105series

without the x link





and with the x link





and off road





the amount of movement needs to move to allow the radius arms to move freely and get all the front end to flex

plowy wrote:without the x link

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_2641.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_2642.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_2645.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and with the x link

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_0428.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_0411.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and off road

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_2943.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Ti ... G_2939.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's really quite impressive. I've seen trucks with X links that work real well ( i think i remember that Chad's hilux had one as well as the custom radius arms. Maybe, maybe not) My mate with a 75 ute is a good example. I've seen others that turned the truck into a focken nightmare too. One was a patrol cut to a ute with about 4 inches or more of lift, and the thing used to jack up and unload like a mofo.

I couldn't go that way because A. It's virtually unengineerable in QLD whereas the custom arms were (go figure) and B. I had packaging problems up the front. I already have stuff rubbing and only just clearing.

the truck is on standard coils and long travel shocks to get more flex from the front end all i would need is a set of radius arms that have the high arch in them [ between the two radius arm bushes located on the diff end ]
chad / the proffesor had them in his hilux that he used in tuff truck have a look at his build thread page 7 and see the flex

just putting 40 mm coil spacers in does make the truck drive completly different so i would hate to go 4 inch , but it may work out if front and rear sway bars wear fitted too (been meaning to fit them for over 7 years now )
i wanted my truck low wide and flexable and thats what i got and very happy with the xlink