Long Arm Kit

Probably right, that's why I want to change to coil overs up front, I may just run a shock hoop up front for now. my next mod will probably be to add a hoop in the cargo area, my shocks in the rear bottom out now.

I would like to at least get it dialed in, so I can start building my other rig.
 
The "radius arm bind" is WAY overhyped.. I've never seen a jeep on the trail "lose flex" due to a radius arm setup. Again, you can't go wrong with any brand name long arm kit over a short arm setup
 
Yes my problem is so much bind as the upper y-link getting in the way of my drive shaft. I never had a problem with this on my 30. But for some reason I am on my 44. I havent figured it out yet.
 
crazymoose1990 said:
Yes my problem is so much bind as the upper y-link getting in the way of my drive shaft. I never had a problem with this on my 30. But for some reason I am on my 44. I havent figured it out yet.
Click to expand...

I think what your problem is the difference between a 44 and a 30. but it could be the placement of the truss.
 
Yeah Im almost sure it's the placement of the truss, I gave Darrel the instructions when I gave him the axle and the truss, but to be honest I can remember having a conversation with him about setting it up for the best pinion angle, and castor angle, so maybe he overroad there instructions.

I wouldn't blame him, it was my decision.
 
crazymoose1990 said:
The y-link has bind now matter what you do. I could pull the passenger upper link off, that would help, but I would rather just change it to a three, or even 4 link.
Click to expand...

A 4 link also has inherent bind due to the extra upper link fighting with the pan hard. Not as much as the radius arm but it is still there.

NW-ZJ-SCOTT said:
The "radius arm bind" is WAY overhyped.. I've never seen a jeep on the trail "lose flex" due to a radius arm setup. Again, you can't go wrong with any brand name long arm kit over a short arm setup
Click to expand...

I think you guys are looking at the binding issue from the wrong way. The geometry of a 4 link and a radius arm setup DOES induce bind right from the start. It doesnt magically appear once the axle has articulated a certain degree like on a buggy. You just wont notice the bind as much because of how the system is designed. Notice how almost all 3 links are designed with solid joints? No bushings. That is because there is no bind. Then you look at a 4 link or radius arm, as a rule of thumb at least 2 joints on either of this systems needs to be a soft joint (rubber or poly bushing). This is so the bushings can squish and absorb any misalignment caused by the track bar and upper arms fighting.

Now this is why this is a concern. First, strength. How many guys have broken one of their UCA 7/16" bolts? I can assure you it didnt happed from sheer axle torque. What happens is when your axle articulates the control arm on the higher side of the obstacle pushes on its mounting location while the control arm on the lower pulls. Of course the axle cant twist so what happens is the rubber bushing inserts soak it up until they are pushed to far. Once pushed too far this leads to bushings wearing out quickly or even worse, the weakest link fails. The 7/16" bolt sheers or the passenger UCA mount buckles.

All this above and not to mention the fact that you are limiting how consistently your axle articulates. You have essentially added an inconsistent, inproper sway bar when our goal is trying to get the suspension itself to move as freely as possible. Then we properly spring and valve for our setup as well as add a tuneable sway bar if need be.

A 3 link will not induce any bind thus letting the suspension do its work.
 
redrider2911 said:
A 4 link also has inherent bind due to the extra upper link fighting with the pan hard. Not as much as the radius arm but it is still there.

A 3 link will not induce any bind thus letting the suspension do its work.
Click to expand...

how does this work, im cureious? if the panhard is heimed on both sides that is? wouldent you have the same problem in a 3link system if the upper link is on the same side as the panhard axle mount? like me...

i ask because i seem to have more droop on the single link side. i run a pass side upper and pass side panhard axle bracket. i think the drop is affected by my upper vs lower angles more but... i never thought about this. i follow to a point but dont fully understand

Bronze.
 
It doesnt matter if the pan hard is heimed or running bushings. As long as 2 joints in the system are soft joints. It also doesnt matter if the upper link on a TRUE 3 link is on the drivers or passenger side. The pan hard ONLY locates the axle side to side. The lower links locate the axle forward to back. The upper links stop the axle from rotating under torque. Therefor, as the axle articulates the upper link doesn't have to fight another link while it is trying to keep the axle postioned properly as far as caster.

I might have confused come guys when I said the extra upper link fights with the pan hard. While this does occur dont forget that the reason it is fighting with the pan hard is because it cant fight with the opposite upper link.

Lets try to visualize this with a 4 link. The passenger side tire climbs an obstacle. The suspension compresses. The passenger LCA pushes the bottom of axle slightly forward while becoming more level and traveling through out its arc. The passenger UCA pushes the top of the axle keeping a consistent pinion angle correct? ok.
The drivers side LCA pulls the drivers side of the axle backward as the link drops out and the angle is increased through out its arc. We haven't run into any problems yet right? Now visualize the driver UCA. Can it pull strait back on the top of axle as the UCA drops out throughout its arc? No, why not? Because the passenger UCA is holding the axle at what it sees as its proper rotation. So what happens? The axle tries to walk to the passenger side in order to allow the UCA the extra length it needs. But it cant do that right because the pan hard is trying to locate the axle left to right.

Does that all make sense?

You may look into your steering joints to find the culprit as to why your drivers side will drop further then your passenger side. Im guessing you are maxing out their angle?
 
Last edited:
I have seen ALL of the kits from every manufacturer listed come through my shop. We've either serviced the rigs, upgraded, repaired links, bushings, etc. or who knows what else. The only kit that consistenly performs the way it's supposed to without wearing stuff out is the Clayton's kit. I ran one on my personal rig for 5+ years, then cut it off and put it on a buddy's rig that wheeled it another 3-4 years, and it's back on another XJ currently. They use the best quality parts, and it flat out works. Yes, you could design something custom, or worry about problems that are so beyond what 99.9% of the wheeling rigs see that it doesn't matter, but if you want the best off-the-shelf kit out there that performs and lasts, Clayton's is the answer.
 
I have done the same thing with our kit, lasted me over 5 years of wheelin on 3 different jeeps. Just had to replace the heim joints once. I believe most of Clayton's success is because they are using the johnny joints. Which is why we have added Currie Johnny Joints as an option. We look forward to putting the new joints to the test.
 
Ok after reading all this I can see where the points of views make sense to the person making the opinion. I had it in my head ( and this is why I asked the the question in the first place, to learn ) that the 4 link was just stronger because it has one more attachment point on the axle. Also because of the wheeling style of my jeep. Thinking the amount of flex I get from a "long arm" kit is as good as it was going to be. I can say that going down the road my jeep drives pretty dam good. But I know it can be better. But the only reason I was leaning to the 4 link or the Y link was because of that 1 more connection point.
 
kenny811 said:
Ok after reading all this I can see where the points of views make sense to the person making the opinion. I had it in my head ( and this is why I asked the the question in the first place, to learn ) that the 4 link was just stronger because it has one more attachment point on the axle. Also because of the wheeling style of my jeep. Thinking the amount of flex I get from a "long arm" kit is as good as it was going to be. I can say that going down the road my jeep drives pretty dam good. But I know it can be better. But the only reason I was leaning to the 4 link or the Y link was because of that 1 more connection point.
Click to expand...
Thats the same reason I've always been a proponent of the 4-link over 3 link systems too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Ironman 4x4 long arm
Replies
15
Views
857
Evan03
E
B
Long Arm kits, Pros, Cons, good the bad???
Replies
13
Views
653
Ghost
Ghost
bradleyheathhays
Getting this old track bar out of the XJ
Replies
9
Views
437
75SV1
7
G
Rough Country 6.5" long arm lift kit Cherokee XJ 84-01 - Kansas
Replies
1
Views
309
GeneralG
G
PopLockLSwap
WJ swap with OTK steering
Replies
7
Views
623
75SV1
7
Back
Top