3-link rear susp. pics
-TJ
very,very sweet
Awesome
is that all the bigger the turbo is going to be. pathetic
ya what they said
man that thing is just insane! An awsome machine soo far!! cant wait to see it when everything is done with it!
:eek2: BY FAR the most BADASS car i’ve seen in my life :bigok:
wow
its about time
NIICE… but a question on the 3 link rear suspension. It looks like all 3 bars are going the same direction and practically parallel… what is keeping it from moving side to side? Isn’t the 3rd link typically to counter side/side movement of the axle? Your 3rd bar isn’t even a wishbone type link. Am I missing something in the pics?
It looks sick though, keep at it.
I was kind of curious about that as well. Also, why did you go 3 link? Just curious as to what made you go that way. There’s been a couple of independent rear end kits for the first gen, not sure what’s out there for the 2nd gen or even if they could handle the power you are going to be putting out. It is sexy though… Nice work! :boink
holy f#ckin badass. nice work :bigthumb:
This is one :mullet: i will :wackit: all over … amazing work man. That thing is top notch. Im still in drooling :boink
No, the 3rd link in a 3-Link setup is not typically used to counter “side/side” movement. The 3rd link is to counter axle wrap. The two lower control arms locate the axle front to rear and transfer most of the driving force to the body of the car. If you look at any 3-link or 4-link they are really 4 or 5-links respectively if you count the panhard rod. This car is no different, there is a panhard rod locating the rearend side-to-side.
We chose a 3-link and solid rear for this car because it is to be a jack of all trades. The car is not mine, it’s a good friend’s that I’m helping build. If it was mine I probably would have gone w/ a C5 rear suspension including the rear-mounted tranny. But I probably wouldn’t drag race my car very seriously.
He plans to put about a 15" width slick under it (which will clear thanks to the mini-tub I did, w00t) and leave very very hard. Yes, there are some brutaly fast C5 'vettes still using the IRS but even they will tell you a solid axle would be preferable. On the race gas this car will make over 1000hp.
He’s also going to road race and autox the car. If you look at the fast CP cars for autox and cars like Trans Am series road race cars they’re using a solid axle and IRS.
Overall it’s just insanely strong, reliable and functions well at many many things.
-TJ
man that car is soo badass!!! love how it will do everything!!
I did not see a panhard bar which is why I asked. Typically when I say 3 link I think of a 2 link with a panhard bar or a wishbone like I have.Looks like there is plenty of room under there, any specific reason he opted for a 3 link instead of a parallel (or triangulated) 4 link?
In any case I love that setup and am extremely jealous. Although I’d have inflatable springs in place of those coil overs. But thats just me :bigthumb:
He wants to use the car for AutoX and Road Race as well. 4-links are prone to bind and are not very good for handling applications at all. As the 4-link comes into bind the rear spring rate effectively becomes infinite (ie the rearend cannot move upwards anymore) and the car will become instantly loose. Very hard to control and obviously not any good for handling. A 4-link would probably only work for an extremely stiff sprung car on a perfectly smooth track where there’d be no body roll and no suspension movement to cause the system to bind.
In fact, the kit we used for the rear susp. out first was a 4-link. We left the coil-overs off and cycled the rearend to see when we’d get bind. You could get very, very little articulation of the rear axle before we hit significant bind. We decided to go to the 3-link and also move the LCA crossmember much further forward for LCA length to help prevent wheel-hop (particularly under braking). If you look close you’ll see the LCA brackets on the axle still have the upper control arm mounts. Also, if you look close enough in some of the pics you can see the panhard rod but it’s mostly hiden by the axle since most of these pics are from the front looking back. But if you really pay attention in those pics you’ll see it. And in the “ass shot” you can see it hanging just below the axle tube on the pass. side. I personally still want to do some work here. I want to get the PHR lower for better roll-center and level.
Look behind the axle in this pic:
-TJ
Thanks for the info :bigthumb:
Just curious, do you happen to recall how much articulation the axle got with the parallel 4 link? Wouldn’t a pan hard bar help in binding that setup as it pulled to either side? Probably no much as its a static height. In air-bag-world a panhard can cause serious axle shift with setups that get lots of lift. I also see you have bushings that sort of rotate (don’t know their actual name)… I have pivoting bushings in my setup and get pretty damn good articulation even with really short lower bars and a wishbone. I know its a little late now, but did you guys ever consider a watts link?
Sorry for all the questions, but knowledge is power!
I have suggested a Watts Link and that might be an option down the road. For now we’ll stick with what he have and see how the car handles as we sort it out. We’re not dealing with nearly the travel you are in a bagged vehicle so axle shift isn’t an issue.
I don’t recall the exact measurements but we only got a few degrees out of the axle as compared to the body before bind became an issue.
Oh, and yes we’re using heim joints or rod-ends as opposed to any sort of bushing. Both for strength and articulation.
I’m not surprised you get good articulation because the wish-bone acts much more like a 3-link setup than a 4-link. At the chassis where the 'bone ties in there is just one mounting point and the 'bone can rotate about that freely.
-TJ
PS- your setup looks pretty friggin’ sweet, nice work man!
Very nice work.
Just for fun look into a Mumford link. The roll center doesnt change with ride height.