Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Can people who have or driven GQ's with 5 link front ends tell me how they handle on road. I've seen what they can do in the bush which is great, but does road handlings suffer dramatically.

i was told by someone that they drive horribly on road, is this true?

a correctly set up 5 link should drive better on the road than the standard Nissan leading arm setup. a 5 link with adjustable arms allows you to properly set up the castor which you can never get spot on with the leading arms once you fiddle with the ride height - even with castor plates or bushes they are never spot on.

it is true however that a poorly set up 5 link will have lots of on-road problems - nothing that can't be fixed but it has to be done right.

cheers

Brian

hows body roll with the 5 link though, as i dont havey any sway bars on my GQ.

guess i could put the rear one back on, but my GQ never came fitted with a front sway bar

YankeeDave wrote:hows body roll with the 5 link though, as i dont havey any sway bars on my GQ.

guess i could put the rear one back on, but my GQ never came fitted with a front sway bar

body roll is more dependent on your spring height and rate - the 5 link will let the body roll more in corners but with the castor and other steering angles more correct with respect to the road surface, the handling in terms of cornering grip and control it should be better with the 5 link. once again, it depends on it being installed flawlessly and set up perfectly.

ok , my thoughts
had a GQ wagon...of course no sway bars

CALBAH 5link front........which i wouldnt suggest for anyone for a number of reasons......like product support etc
essentially......it doesnt suit anything above 3-4inch lift
plus arms r too short etc etc

performance wise
yes , more body roll......but u get used to it....and with heavier springs is quite reasonable an stable....while still flexing offroad......just not as much uphill when the loads on the rear

apart from that........if your trucks low......it will b fine onroad
go over 4inch , an u will have MAJOR wobble issues which results in the tyre actually leaving the road surface as it wobbles
....and thats with just a 6inch lift , let alone anythin higher

a custom built 5 link would b the way to go....get long arms , an close to level
and then u'll have no probs

hotrod4x4 wrote:ok , my thoughts
had a GQ wagon...of course no sway bars

CALBAH 5link front........which i wouldnt suggest for anyone for a number of reasons......like product support etc
essentially......it doesnt suit anything above 3-4inch lift
plus arms r too short etc etc

performance wise
yes , more body roll......but u get used to it....and with heavier springs is quick reasonable an stable....while still flexing offroad......just not as much uphill when the loads on the rear

apart from that........if your trucks low......it will b fine onroad
go over 4inch , an u will have MAJOR wobble issues which results in the tyre actually leaving the road surface as it wobbles
....and thats with just a 6inch lift , let alone anythin higher

a custom built 5 link would b the way to go....get long arms , an close to level
and then u'll have no probs

Totaly agree, I do them every day and you can set them up to cnr like on rails.

Mine drove better with 5 link than before but with extra body roll but i have soft 6" coils no swaybars and RS9000`s on 1 every day no worrys once you get the hang of it

A post Hijack-

On the 'kit' 5 links, which arms are length adjustable, top/bottom/all?

And it was mentioned that longer and parallel & horizontal is best. Where do your parallel links pivot at the chassis end? (i.e. how long are your arms - for a GQ.

(I'm playing with my 5 link design, but I dont have the opportunity to see that many different set ups over here in WA )

Thanks,

Deano

from what ive seen on my wizard.. its upper arm adjustable.

TOM

calbah kits r avail non adjust aswell as adjustable

mine was a weld in version , with adjustable both top and bottom
at the chassis end......eccentric bush's
and they kept coming loose!!

The way I understand it, parallel links do not give anti dive characteristics under heavy braking.

daddylonglegs wrote:The way I understand it, parallel links do not give anti dive characteristics under heavy braking.

i believe this to be true to.

may explain why rover, GQ, GU, 80, 100 don’t run that type of system from standard.

Stu

Yes Stu, but I think a non parallel 3 or 5 link can be designed with the same degree of anti dive as the standard leading arms on Rangeys, Nissans, Toys etc.
Bill.

Bill,

You are correct, but a 5 link with anti-dive geometry will bind similar to radius arms (3 link will not bind).

Essentially radius arms are a special case of a 5 link suspension. Look at a sketch of a radius arm set-up. You can achieve the same by drawing 2 links on each side (driver & passenger sides) from the (common) chassis pivot point to each mounting point on the axle housing. The brackets on the axle housing fix the axle end of each pair of links on either side relative to each other (same as a radius arm).

Bush65 wrote:Bill,

You are correct, but a 5 link with anti-dive geometry will bind similar to radius arms (3 link will not bind).

Essentially radius arms are a special case of a 5 link suspension. Look at a sketch of a radius arm set-up. You can achieve the same by drawing 2 links on each side (driver & passenger sides) from the (common) chassis pivot point to each mounting point on the axle housing. The brackets on the axle housing fix the axle end of each pair of links on either side relative to each other (same as a radius arm).

Radius arm setups place the instant center at the chassis pivot point, where a 5 link will place the instant center further away from the 3 link instant center.

Unequal length 5 link will move the instant center verticaly..... either closer to the CG (center of gravity) giving you anti dive.....

Bind will only happen when the links are to close together at the chassis end.....

My 2cents.....

it doesn't take much to build a sensible amount of anti dive into them. with links about 650-700mm long (this is what they work out to be with an 80 or Nissan chassis) run about 190mm seperation at the axle, and about 120mm at the chassis, and they behave quite nicely without binding.

they will handle better than the radius arms if you do your homework and don't run insane height springs.

coil sprung jeeps have this set-up from the factory, and look at the sort of people that manage to drive them without crashing!

The 5 link systems do have an extra 2 rubber bushings compared to the standard leading arms/radius rods, so even if the separation at the chassis end was zero they should flex better than standard yet still give full antidive geometry, assuming there are engineers out there who are concerned about such things with regard to registration compliance.

I have seen photos of 5 link systems in the US with Heim Joints everywhere. It would be interesting to know what is being twisted, bent or severely stressed when these setups are flexing. One engineer told me that when he did stress calculations on heim jointed 5 link systems of relatively short travel Hot Rods that many of the components were operating at close to yield point.

Bill.

Wendle wrote:coil sprung jeeps have this set-up from the factory, and look at the sort of people that manage to drive them without crashing!

good call

stu

Wendle wrote:coil sprung jeeps have this set-up from the factory, and look at the sort of people that manage to drive them without crashing!