So, I've seen some pics of vehicles with this setup, and I can't beleive how much travel can be obtained from this setup. Has anyone thought about custom fabbing up a system like this for our 3rd gen 4runners? Eventually, when I get my company car, I'll be turning this thing into a trail only rig, so the potential for some radical suspension setup is highly probable. Has anyone thought about the pros and cons of such a setup? Is there any other setups that could yield that much travel and be easier to fabricate?

Chris

 

A properly executed coil-over 4-link would flex as well if not better.

Search on PBB.

Your gas tank will get in the way regardless of which you chose.

This is most often not done as a bolt on sort of thing, more of a one off.

 

not to mention,you cant really drive a 1/4 elliptical on the road.... not sure why but i know it says that there not streetable after you put on on when you do it to a samurai, i looked into it, but i think that if i just 4 link it it will definatly flex better, be able to handle pavement if needed ever a little better, and will actually be about 200 less, if i fab most of the stuff, which i would have to do alot of work to get the 1/4 elliptic stuff on.... imho, i would just 4 link it.....
later
wade

 

1/4 elip is way cheaper than coilovers... And you can drive on the street if its set up right. Actually, rubicon express has a 1/4 elip kit for front & rear that is streetable - its for jeeps though.

 

With both coilovers or 1/4 elip you need to link the suspension - 3,4, or 5, whatever you choose. The suspensions will be the same except for the spring set up.

 

Awesome guys! Does anyone know who wouold be a good spring board for ideas on location, design and setup of one of these systems?

Chris

 

I'd search on pirate but I wouldn't ask about it since the topic has been beaten to death there and the flame factor is pretty high.

 

i was basing all my stuff from what i was told doing research on my sammie, i think that im still going to 4 link with coil's, not sure though.

wade

 

Yeah, I'll have to start doing a bunch of searches on the pirate board for sure. Thanks for all the help guys!

Chris

 

yeah, ill be running an airbagged 3-link instead of the 1/4 elip, i think i can get a little more flex out of the bags vs. the springs, and im too cheap to buy coilovers.

they all have the same potential for flex, there are just diferences in pricing.

 

This I need to see. When I get around to my SAS, I plan to do a 3 or 4 link and air bag it. The flexibility of the Airrock system from ORO is unequalled. Just think about the possibilities for off camber stuff.

I want to work up something similar for my 2nd Gen eventually...

I wonder if I could bag the IFS for some better performance and maintain the streetability? Hmmm.......

 

ill be doing it as soon as the weather breaks this spring, maybee even sooner if i get a week or so of nice weather. i'll make sure i get pics and all that fun stuff for you.

 

Mike, they already make something for IFS that will do that, they are called air shocks.

Look on ODW for the article on rear air shocks and apply to the front. You could make a system that would allow pressurization and depressurization along with linking and unlinking of the crossover. Only problem is with IFS you will impact alignment by changing height.

Search on PBB, post some pictures when this gets done.

Sliders help wheeling too.

 

This whole cross linked air shock thing has me totally confused as to why it would be any better than a stock setup. In a lot of situations when I off-roading I would want the compressed side to send a lot of its air to the other side. I just would have to see it in action I guess.

Also, I was thinking that if we had some sick travel in the rear, it could really compensate for the little amount of travel that IFS has. My rear works way harder than my front end as it is. I was riding with some guys this Saturday, and one of them had a SAS'd Rodeo, and to see this thing articulate was really cool, but his rear end didn't move much, so as a result his front end moved and did most of the articulation. I thinking that is he had similar springs in the rear that he had in the front, that thing would have been bad a$$.

Back to the rear suspension setup deal I started. What's the difference between the following setups, and what are their advantages if any:

- |/\| link setup

- |\/| link setup

Which would provide the most movement and flex. Would one be easier to build than the other? Also, is Spidertrax the best company to get the control arms from for durability and strength?

I've got a lot of questions, and I'll have everything planned out on this project before I do anything. I really appreciate everyone's input.

Chris

 

A spring is a spring, reguardless of how it looks..

If you do your homework, you will find the action/reaction of any suspension has nothing to do with WHAT type of spring used, but the spring rates, the make up of the links/geometry, the width of the axles, the weight of the axles and so on....

 

The first one will interfere with your driveshaft. I think it is probably more important to consider vertical separation and antisquat.

 

Would you mind explaining in more detail what you mean?

Chris

 

Hey Chris, do a search on pirate specifically for a book on vehicle design or suspension design. I remember somebody over there mentioning that.

Also, check out BillaVista's tech section: http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/

At the bottom is a 3/4 elliptic conversion and also search through the "Data mine" PDF area, there might be something good in there.

 

Man I've been reading now for quite some time on there, and they have a ton of great information. It's an awesome sight if you can weed through all the BS arguing that we don't have to put up with over here as much.

Chris

 

I think the book is probably "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams.

Another good one for info is "Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics" by Thomas D. Gillespie