# 4 link pic



## Sivik (Jan 21, 2006)

does anyone think there is somthing wrong with this 4 link??


----------



## BIG DIRTY (Jan 31, 2002)

WELL IT LOOKS LIKE A TRUCK REAR END, BUT IT HAS THE UPPER LINKS, AND LOWER LINKS, AND THEN STABLIZERS FOR THE BAG SET UP. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD WORK PRETTY GOOD


----------



## Airborne (Oct 23, 2005)

Looks good to me.


----------



## groundscrapingcustoms (Dec 8, 2007)

nice it looks good it kinda looks like a b2200 back end you got any more pics of the set up ?


----------



## blacksmith (Feb 1, 2009)

looks ok on the ground, but more importantly is how it looks at drive height. also need another pic because if your differential is offset then your bars will be off since they are located via the diff. and possibly not side to side. but it looks good. welds look good. more pics fool


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 12, 2002)

once you get some proper upper supports done,with the amount of lift it will be getting, it should be fine, unless we're missing somthing.


----------



## Sivik (Jan 21, 2006)

yea its a mazda b2000, heres some more pics. it al works up and down side to side good. but the bags seem to lean towards the front of the ute when fully up. its the first link setup so did it the best i could


























cant find any pics of it fully up


----------



## lgh1157 (Jan 11, 2005)

The angle of the rear brackets on the pumpkin are wrong, they should be sitting straight up and down, otherwise they will bind, i know you have Heim joints so it might be ok, but it would move more easily with less wear if those tabs were moved . . . . . . . 

If you look down [ birds eye view ] on the 4 link you shouldn't be able to see the side of the tabs - does that make sense ?


----------



## REV. chuck (Jun 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lgh1157_@Oct 15 2009, 07:36 PM~15370664
> *The angle of the rear brackets on the pumpkin are wrong, they should be sitting straight up and down, otherwise they will bind, i know you have Heim joints so it might be ok, but it would move more easily with less wear if those tabs were moved . . . . . . .
> 
> If you look down [ birds eye view ] on the 4 link you shouldn't be able to see the side of the tabs - does that make sense ?
> *


he wont get enough travel for it to bind with the bags over the axle like that


----------



## RIVERSIDELOWRIDING (Feb 7, 2007)

ID SAY ITS OK BUT I WOULD BE WRONG , LOWERS ARE TOO LONG AND SHOULD BE RIGHT UNDER THE AXLE NOT PASSED IT , AND DUDES RIGHT ABOUT THE UPPERS BEING MOUNTED WRONG , SHOULD BE MORE ON THE TOP OF THE AXLE... ILL GO SNAP A FLICK OF MY LINKE TO POST IT...


----------



## torrance (Dec 22, 2007)

you dont really need the forward bridge bar. then you could move your 4-link brackets to the top of the pumpkin. they would be less likely to bind up, if they were more verticle.


----------



## nyccustomizer (Dec 13, 2005)

I agree with the link tabs on the rear. They are angled wrong. 
The reason the rear twists upsetting your bag angle is due to a combination of bar lengths and pivot positions. Do you have any side view pics? Have you checked pinion angle through it's travel? That should be a concern.


----------



## regalman85 (Feb 6, 2009)




----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

Nice to see some backyard building. Looks good homie!


----------



## joebomber52 (May 21, 2003)

your upper links are to straight for the angle of your lowers as you rais eit up your gonna be nose down 
everything else is fine
your heims are a little funky but fuck it they will compensate with pivot 

clock the lower axel brackets to 6:00 and shorten the brackets if needed

and raise the lower frame brackets just a bit and keep the lower bars longer than uppers


the least you can get away with is clocking the lower brackets at 6:00 and shortening the lower bars 

after that you would want to raise the lower frame mounting point by 1.5 inches

whats happening is as your ride goes up your lowers are puching out and the uppers are pulling in


----------



## HECHO EN MEXICO (May 2, 2007)




----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

PS: 

I've got absolutely nothing bad to say about your setup, or anyone elses that might look similar , but I see a HUGE no no in the air ride 4 link setups these days and I see the problem all the time. 

The way guys build triangulated 4 links 90% of the time is incorrect. Excuse my crude Microsoft Paint examples but this is how your setup looks. Now imagine how these bars are going to travel up and down. They are going to want to close in on each other due to the geometry of the pivot points. As the rear end travels up and down from theoretical ride height with the pivot points set up the way they are currently the triangle will close up. 










The way pivot points should be setup for ZERO binding is as follows. All the pivot points in the 4 link should be parallel with each other. An even better way of saying it would be that the points need to all run on the same axis in order for nothing to bind.


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

This is a great picture to show how a correct triangulated 4 Link works, but like I said I wasn't knocking your work. In fact I think your rear suspension setup is really nice. In most cases the rear end of the vehicle won't travel far enough for binding to ever really be an issue anyways.


----------



## baggedout81 (Jan 5, 2009)

> _Originally posted by ShibbyShibby_@Jan 13 2010, 03:38 PM~16279557
> *This is a great picture to show how a correct triangulated 4 Link works, but like I said I wasn't knocking your work. In fact I think your rear suspension setup is really nice. In most cases the rear end of the vehicle won't travel far enough for binding to ever really be an issue anyways.
> 
> 
> ...


Your missing something :biggrin:


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

> _Originally posted by baggedout81_@Jan 14 2010, 09:26 AM~16288544
> *Your missing something  :biggrin:
> *



ha ha the bags?


----------



## BAGGD (May 20, 2009)

> _Originally posted by ShibbyShibby_@Jan 13 2010, 04:38 PM~16279557
> *This is a great picture to show how a correct triangulated 4 Link works, but like I said I wasn't knocking your work. In fact I think your rear suspension setup is really nice. In most cases the rear end of the vehicle won't travel far enough for binding to ever really be an issue anyways.
> 
> 
> ...


OH SNAP THATS MY CAMARADAS S10!!! :wow: :biggrin: 

Stockfloored on 22s.


----------



## nueve5 (May 14, 2009)

yo yo yo


----------



## nyccustomizer (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ShibbyShibby_@Jan 13 2010, 02:36 PM~16279538
> *PS:
> 
> I've got absolutely nothing bad to say about your setup, or anyone elses that might look similar , but I see a HUGE no no in the air ride 4 link setups these days and I see the problem all the time.
> ...



I was thinking about this as well and agree 100%. Its hard to understand why without moving the bars to see what happens. Try to make a small mock-up and in 3D youll see that the 2 bars want to spread open at the rear end as they go through their motions. When the pivots are set up as shown in the lower pic, they rotate smoothly through an arc, keeping the ends in the same position on the rear end.

Good point.


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

> _Originally posted by nyccustomizer_@Jan 14 2010, 05:29 PM~16292837
> *I was thinking about this as well and agree 100%. Its hard to understand why without moving the bars to see what happens.  Try to make a small mock-up and in 3D youll see that the 2 bars want to spread open at the rear end as they go through their motions.  When the pivots are set up as shown in the lower pic, they rotate smoothly through an arc, keeping the ends in the same position on the rear end.
> 
> Good point.
> *




Yeah man it's difficult to imagine unless you can see it in real life.


----------



## REV. chuck (Jun 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ShibbyShibby_@Jan 13 2010, 03:38 PM~16279557
> *This is a great picture to show how a correct triangulated 4 Link works, but like I said I wasn't knocking your work. In fact I think your rear suspension setup is really nice. In most cases the rear end of the vehicle won't travel far enough for binding to ever really be an issue anyways.
> 
> 
> ...


dont try and 3wheel 


most cars produced in the late 70's to late 90's were setup the exact way your telling these guys not to set up their links


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

> _Originally posted by REV. chuck_@Jan 18 2010, 10:32 AM~16325813
> *dont try and 3wheel
> most cars produced in the late 70's to late 90's  were setup the exact way  your telling these guys not to set up their links
> *



Yeah but cars from the 60's, 70's and 80's used huge rubber bushings. There is so much give in those bushings that the geometry made up for it. Ever notice when you tear down and original Impala that the rubber bushings are completely fucked? Ever wonder why they're so fucked up? This is also true in an 80's G-Body. Yes the triangulated links aren't like I said they should be, but look at the size of those rubber bushings!

We all use really tight spec'd Urethane bushings in our cars these days, and for the most part guys are using Johnny Joints or Heims on at least one end of the trailing arms and on one end of a wishbone. Like I told the guy I think his suspension is perfectly fine, especially with his Heim joints. 

Go have a look at the front end of your car. Doesn't matter the make or model, I guarantee you every pivot point lies along the same axis. (give or take a slight front end alignment angle)


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ShibbyShibby_@Jan 13 2010, 03:36 PM~16279538
> *PS:
> 
> I've got absolutely nothing bad to say about your setup, or anyone elses that might look similar , but I see a HUGE no no in the air ride 4 link setups these days and I see the problem all the time.
> ...



I have 28" of travel with my arms straight. its no big deal.and they are shorter than most bag guys arms. you just cant take the bolts out very easily with it lifted. the 'binding' as you call it, is nothing at all, compaired to pulling a side move.

But tell me, how do you adjust your calculations to figure lateral constraint points with the bushings turned parallel with the framerails?


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

> _Originally posted by AndrewH_@Jan 21 2010, 07:25 AM~16361658
> *I have 28" of travel with my arms straight. its no big deal.and they are shorter than most bag guys arms. you just cant take the bolts out very easily with it lifted. the 'binding' as you call it, is nothing at all, compaired to pulling a side move.
> 
> But tell me, how do you adjust your calculations to figure lateral constraint points with the bushings turned parallel with the framerails?
> *




"Binding" can't just be shrugged off of the shoulders. It's a pretty important thing to think about. You start taking things for granted and before long you'll figure out why you should have payed more attention to it in the first place. 

Explain to me what you mean about adjusting my calculations for lateral constraints with the bushing axis perpendicular to the longitudinal frame rails? Cause I have no fuckin idea what you just asked me.


----------



## ShibbyShibby (Jun 2, 2008)

So I've been thinking of this all day at work and I think you're asking me what the stresses would be on the weld where the bushing meets the tube of the 4 link? I think you're thinking that there is going to be more stress at that point because the bushing and the 4 link tube aren't perpendicular like yours are? 

Like this:









If that's not what you meant then I still don't have a clue.


----------

