3 links rule, everyone else is just jealous

Jody Treadway said:
Granted, as said, I beat the piss outta that rig and have a ton of (2nd place) trophies to show for it. If I was heart set on a crossmember mounted tower, it would be gusseted 6 ways to Sunday and frenched into the tube.
Click to expand...

That is what I did to mine. To clear everything under the rig I had to french the link mount down into the custom crossmember to get everything to fit and not put the upper link at an extreme horizontal angle.
 
CasterTroy said:
All this fear mongering created by someone who has never run a 3link, and hasn't wheeled hard enough to break anything in a decade :gtfo::laughing:
Click to expand...

If you ask the wrong questions, you're going to come to irrelevant conclusions.

The benefit of a 3-link is that it's cheaper than a 4-link, so it's a decent budget option. They also have packaging benefits in certain applications (again, that is often driven by cost/benefit). The downside is that when they fail, they do so catastrophically. We wheel with our kids, so catastrophic failure isn't an option. We had a guy in our group on Fins & Things lose a front upper. It took out both coilover shafts, the oil pan, and the driveshaft. We spent all morning cobbling it back together just so he could spend about a grand with an off-road tow truck company. His "once in a lifetime" trip was ruined on day one because he wanted to save a couple hundred bucks on an upper link. Cyd still thinks Fins & Things is a shitty trail. I imagine this has something to do with it.

3-links also don't behave symmetrically, but that's something few people notice.

If you have a TJ with a stock drivetrain, a 4-link doesn't have any link clearance issues other than the motor mounts (and that's easily addressed). With stock short arms, a TJ front axle will travel more than the drag link will allow, and will eat up everything a 14" shock has to offer. Is it usable travel with the links drooped 30* relative to the chassis? Probably not, but the notion that short arms can't travel is just an internet rumor spread by people who have never looked into it themselves. And if short arms can move like that, what benefits does a 3-link bring?

It all comes back to priorities.
 
shawn said:
If you ask the wrong questions, you're going to come to irrelevant conclusions.

The benefit of a 3-link is that it's cheaper than a 4-link, so it's a decent budget option. They also have packaging benefits in certain applications (again, that is often driven by cost/benefit). The downside is that when they fail, they do so catastrophically. We wheel with our kids, so catastrophic failure isn't an option. We had a guy in our group on Fins & Things lose a front upper. It took out both coilover shafts, the oil pan, and the driveshaft. We spent all morning cobbling it back together just so he could spend about a grand with an off-road tow truck company. His "once in a lifetime" trip was ruined on day one because he wanted to save a couple hundred bucks on an upper link. Cyd still thinks Fins & Things is a shitty trail. I imagine this has something to do with it.

3-links also don't behave symmetrically, but that's something few people notice.

If you have a TJ with a stock drivetrain, a 4-link doesn't have any link clearance issues other than the motor mounts (and that's easily addressed). With stock short arms, a TJ front axle will travel more than the drag link will allow, and will eat up everything a 14" shock has to offer. Is it usable travel with the links drooped 30* relative to the chassis? Probably not, but the notion that short arms can't travel is just an internet rumor spread by people who have never looked into it themselves. And if short arms can move like that, what benefits does a 3-link bring?

It all comes back to priorities.
Click to expand...
Have you considered golf? :flipoff2:
 
Last edited:
For a street driven rig with hydro assist, how is the best way to go about doing a front 4 link? Single (uppers) triangulated or dual?
 
XJsavage said:
For a street driven rig with hydro assist, how is the best way to go about doing a front 4 link? Single (uppers) triangulated or dual?
Click to expand...
With a track bar, you need conventional steering to keep the geometry happy (trackbar and drag link moving in the same arc, at the same angle, with the same length) so that there is no bump steer, because the trackbar causes sideways motion when the suspension moves. With a triangulated 4 link, on the street, the suspension motion is primarily vertical, so the arc motion of a drag link actually will cause bump steer. So for a 4 link, full hydro is a good option.
 
Last edited:
jeepinmatt said:
With a track bar, you need conventional steering to keep the geometry happy (trackball and drag link moving in the same arc, at the same angle, with the same length) so that there is no bump steer, because the trackbar causes sideways motion when the suspension moves. With a triangulated 4 link, on the street, the suspension motion is primarily vertical, so the arc motion of a drag link actually will cause bump steer. So for a 4 link, full hydro is a good option.
Click to expand...
Over the years and as more folks have dove into long road hauls with full hydro and the dialing in of such, that may be what I do.
Thank you, Ultimate Adventure.
 
XJsavage said:
For a street driven rig with hydro assist, how is the best way to go about doing a front 4 link? Single (uppers) triangulated or dual?
Click to expand...

A parallel 4link with trackbar would likely be the best setup to keep a steering box. Something similar to mid/long arms on a JK or Dodge/RAM/Ford truck.
 
paradisePWoffrd said:
A parallel 4link with trackbar would likely be the best setup to keep a steering box. Something similar to mid/long arms on a JK or Dodge/RAM/Ford truck.
Click to expand...
True. However, if I do go the extra mile to 4 link my front, I'd likely do so to ditch the track bar.
I'm doing some studying up and pondering on full hydro for street use. Not legal in most places, but it's a risk I'll take in a non-inspection state.
If not, a 3 link with track bar and HA has never let me down so I always that that to fall back on.
 
Just for the sake of conversation while I’m working today on SAS a f150, if you had more that adequate vertical separation (more than 1/4 of your tire size) wouldn’t that fight the twisting/axle wrap forces that cause so much of an issue with a 3 link? using 5/8” or 3/4” bolts, proper fish plates/gussets when mounting brackets would obviously helps as well? I understand the redundancy of a 4 link and having shared load on the upper links. When you’re using 10+ of separation at the axle vs folks using 7 1/2” ( round about what a stock TJ verticals separation at the axle is, JK is around 8 1/2-9”) from before they stepped up to 1 tons? How often have y’all seen home fabbed linked suspensions that wheel hop on obstacles? Not just radius arm style, but 3 and 4 link? I’m not saying I’m the suspension guru or anything but if you can package enough vertical separation you shouldn’t be putting, but so much force on those bolts because the added leverage to keep the “wrapping forces” at bay. I’m also the type that cut massive holes in my JK tub and clearanced my frame to keep my geometry the same as in the calculator with no compromises with a flat belly on it. It created a lot more work for me to do it but I know the end result will be more than worth it. Sorry for the rambling on, just curious to the collective thoughts of those more experienced than myself.
 
iwaxmyjimmy said:
wouldn’t that fight the twisting/axle wrap forces that cause so much of an issue with a 3 link?
Click to expand...
Sure, but going back to the "budget" question... if you're talking TJ, if you add a bridge over the diff to raise the upper mount, that gets into the oil pan, so you have to lower the bump stops. For the cost of the bridge, upper mount, and bump adjustments, you could buy a passenger upper arm. Likewise for lowering the lowers by an inch. "That'll kill muh ground clearance, Clarence!" It reduces the likelihood of tearing the stock TJ frame, though.
 
orange150 said:
Would that act different than radius arms?
Click to expand...
Think vector geometry. With radius arms, the forces in the axle all get resolved within the arm itself, then the arm acts on the chassis. With two links on each side, the upper and lower are each imparting forces on the chassis.
 
shawn said:
Sure, but going back to the "budget" question... if you're talking TJ, if you add a bridge over the diff to raise the upper mount, that gets into the oil pan, so you have to lower the bump stops. For the cost of the bridge, upper mount, and bump adjustments, you could buy a passenger upper arm. Likewise for lowering the lowers by an inch. "That'll kill muh ground clearance, Clarence!" It reduces the likelihood of tearing the stock TJ frame, though.
Click to expand...
so how many folks view getting their suspension setup after they complete all the supporting mods? Like a motor mount lift? Or rotating the steering box to allow you to stretch the front of a TJ to get the axle in front of the crankshaft? Because most folks forget all that sort of stuff in my opinion. Maybe I’m overthinking most the time and plan out things too much in advance to circumvent problems that can arise.
 
iwaxmyjimmy said:
so how many folks view getting their suspension setup after they complete all the supporting mods? Like a motor mount lift? Or rotating the steering box to allow you to stretch the front of a TJ to get the axle in front of the crankshaft? Because most folks forget all that sort of stuff in my opinion. Maybe I’m overthinking most the time and plan out things too much in advance to circumvent problems that can arise.
Click to expand...
Few people have checked to see if the drag link is limiting the travel of their front suspension. They just go on the internet and complain that "X" brand tie rod end is garbage.
 
shawn said:
Few people have checked to see if the drag link is limiting the travel of their front suspension. They just go on the internet and complain that "X" brand tie rod end is garbage.
Click to expand...
Going to have to have a ridiculous drop pitman arm, pitman arm with modified rod end so the heim or TRE points at your knuckle, or put two minor bends in your drag link to relax the angles.

Can’t have it all. Full hydro really sounds like money when you start pondering steering with long travel suspension.
 
NickMaul said:
Going to have to have a ridiculous drop pitman arm, pitman arm with modified rod end so the heim or TRE points at your knuckle, or put two minor bends in your drag link to relax the angles.

Can’t have it all. Full hydro really sounds like money when you start pondering steering with long travel suspension.
Click to expand...
Rod ends with misalignment bushings are capable of amazing things. Tie rod ends are not.
 
shawn said:
The benefit of a 3-link is that it's cheaper than a 4-link, so it's a decent budget option. They also have packaging benefits in certain applications (again, that is often driven by cost/benefit). The downside is that when they fail, they do so catastrophically. We wheel with our kids, so catastrophic failure isn't an option. We had a guy in our group on Fins & Things lose a front upper. It took out both coilover shafts, the oil pan, and the driveshaft. We spent all morning cobbling it back together just so he could spend about a grand with an off-road tow truck company. His "once in a lifetime" trip was ruined on day one because he wanted to save a couple hundred bucks on an upper link. Cyd still thinks Fins & Things is a shitty trail. I imagine this has something to do with it.

It all comes back to priorities.
Click to expand...

For me it had nothing to do with budget; I think that is a bit of an over simplification as the money saved is fairly negligible considering total cost of building a suspension system. Packaging was everything for my Nissan as combining portal one-tons, a high pinion differential, fitting the exhaust and front driveline in a fairly narrow width between the frame rails and keeping the vehicle as low as practical so engine and oil pan clearance was a design constraint as well. There just simply is no room for a driver side upper link; as it was fitting the track-bar required building a custom curved bar that could wrap over the pinion snout of the differential. So, to compensate the whole suspension design is overbuilt with 3" joints, 2.25" 1/4" wall links, a custom crossmember that is heavily gusseted, heavily gusseted link mounts, and a grossly overbuilt track bar assembly and mounts. Had I built the truck taller (or used "normal" axles) I could have made the entire design simpler and possibly had room for that driver's upper but as is it would be impossible. The only design element that actually worked in my favor was the portal offset, it "pushed" the distance from the center or rotation to the link mount on the axle up somewhat to lessen the force on the mounts.
 
Back
Top