Atn: All suspension gurus.. | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

Atn: All suspension gurus..

Spas

Explorer addict
Elite Explorer
Joined
August 27, 2001
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
101
Location
Down by da river, hon
City, State
North East, MD
Year, Model & Trim Level
'95 Sport
So, I'm not having much luck with figuring out the best link set-up for Blackjack and I thought I'd throw this thread out for argument's sake (Not having much luck meaning: set up that causes the least amount of headaches and doesn't destroy my wallet).

I've seen these two set ups many times but I can't find any pro's or con's about why one would be better than the other. The upper links are green in all pictures, the lowers are red.

Is there any advantage to having the upper links mounted to the axle pumpkin as opposed to the ends of the axle?
4_link_a_setup_Small_.jpg


4_link_v_setup_Small_.jpg



And then, of course, there's my total shot-in-the-dark idea, which very few people have done but supposedly is better than the other two designs.
satchell_photoshop_Small_.jpg



Any one have any experience running any of the above set-ups? Or have any information on why one might be better than another for a porky little Explorer sport who will be putting down in excess of 400 hp?

..I don't even want to THINK about the front suspension at this point.


*Pardon my awesome photoshop skillz... I need to train under Master Froader a bit more*
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Assuming this is for the street, I'd say 4-link parallel + panhard (looks like a panhard will fit nicely in between the frame rails). If this is for apexing corners, maybe make the panhard mount adjustable so you can dial in the roll center with the CG.
 












I'm pretty sure I'm giving IZ grey hair :D Parallel wasn't something I considered (mostly because I hate panhards and side-to-side axle movement) but I think you have a good point there, 'cause this shizzle is giving me migraines...

Techie, I've been checking out Dezert Ranger front end stuff for a while, I'm definitely going to lose the torsion bars and go coilover after the rear suspension gets figured out. Just haven't figured out how to work the whole 'lowering' aspect into that equation (not safely anyway), since we all know that there is no such thing as drop control arms or spindles for 2nd Gens :(
 






I'm pretty sure I'm giving IZ grey hair :D Parallel wasn't something I considered (mostly because I hate panhards and side-to-side axle movement) but I think you have a good point there, 'cause this shizzle is giving me migraines...
You dont really have to worry about side-to-side movements for the street considering the suspension travel is probably going to be less than stock.
 


















My bad, I meant the things I've seen on their forum :p: I'm still curious as to the potential differences in handling of the first two designs that I posted.
 






Here's how they do it for classic Mustangs. From what I know, it works pretty dang well :)

108397.jpg
 












I'm still curious as to the potential differences in handling of the first two designs that I posted.
I tried to look for my suspension book last night but unfortunately, the fail-boat sailed in (I'll try again later). But I have this vague recollection that the inverted triangulation (first pic) has a "jacking" effect under hard acceleration which tilts the chassis to one side (more so than normal) due to torque.
 






Just about every 4 link I setup they are like the first pic, don't weld your tabs to the cast diff unless you really know what your doing and have the propper equipment. You could do a parallel with a watts link as well. But either way I would run longer bars than shown. At least 24-26" for the straight bars.
 






Back
Top