DTSFab.com (Desert, Trail and Sand)
Automotive Powered Off Road (AKA: Buggys, Jeeps, Trucks, Etc,Etc. ) => "AP" General Discusion => Topic started by: dsrace on November 12, 2017, 09:49:25 AM
-
so i am starting a thread as i would like to hear some opinions on diff rear end styles. this may prove to be interesting and informative. so .....anyone that has seen my build/update thread knows what i did but prob not why. why is simple as sooooooo many have pointed out over the years, i am never happy LMAO, not true but i will let them know when i am LMAO.
a dual a-arm rear end is self explanatory imo
(https://s18.postimg.org/piroqg1qd/engine_f1_stresed.gif) (https://postimg.org/image/piroqg1qd/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/yf7irmof9/CVInstall2.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/yf7irmof9/)
a multi link rear end encompasses 3 link style to 6 link style. drakart, revolt and king sand car units utilize a 3 link. several others a 5 link and then there was short sand cars that utilized a 4 link. in all my builds i started with 4 link then moved on designing 5 link then wound up utilizing 6 links for an added safety margin from the 6th link. i have never liked a 3 link rear end due to its limitations.
4 link
(https://s18.postimg.org/5a9d1qdut/R1-6.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5a9d1qdut/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/lmecuoe8l/IMG951323.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lmecuoe8l/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/fdy2y5a3p/Chingon_buggy.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/fdy2y5a3p/)
5 link uses a plunging axle with a 3rd inboard link.
(https://s18.postimg.org/po0hx1zvp/1216120139.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/po0hx1zvp/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/as1ypjohx/1216120820.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/as1ypjohx/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/l8i2rzaol/DSCN0941.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/l8i2rzaol/)
6 link uses 2 forward links like the 4 link and 5 link but 4 inboard links rather than 2 or 3.
(https://s18.postimg.org/4bszzqilx/DSCN1931.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/4bszzqilx/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/52lq56d5x/DSCN1929.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/52lq56d5x/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/dkv69kwk5/DSCN2385.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/dkv69kwk5/)
i hope we all know what a trailing arm rear end is!!! ;D ;D ;) ;)
so now having experienced a 6 link rear end to an a-arm rear end on the same chassis, but with diff motor, i can say they drive/load the sand rails differently. it is very interesting to experience the differences! the5/ 6 link doesn't squat as much on take off but this also depends on where you connect your forward links in relation to mounting points on carriers. it actually feels like a better hole shot on dirt and pavement but spins more in the sand. the 5/6 link also tends to jump more than wheelie. i say this as this current rail always wanted to just launch when one tried to stab the throttle off a roller to try and wheelie where the now/current a-arm rear end will wheelie in the same event or as i found out full throttle off a roller is more likely to try and flip you over lol so also interesting is the way the way the articulation of the whole chassis really but def the rear end changes from 5/6 link to dual a arm. i can say i do prefer the dual a arm but it is heavier ( a tad) more indepth to set up but has a few more beneficial benefits in a sand application imo. in motion , when i ( i thought wot) hit the throttle for a sudden accel it squats in the rear and hooks up very well. the 5/6 link in sand would accel very nice but never got the same hook up and would tend to spin the tires more. now tire spin or roost is fine especially when you need to get even with people like members doug heim but not so good when you start a chain of people passing the roost down the line LMAO i still have the video and still laugh to this day carl, fabr LMAO on a diff note i am going to have to swap rides with allen so i can make sure i get even with doug in a way he can never return!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now i have never ran a trailing arm rear end so i cannot personally speak on the differences there as i am not a fan of the trailing arms due to the limiting factors associated with them.
can anyone add to this with there experiences?
-
btw i do not recommend a 4 link rear end unless you fully understand them and are meticulous about maintenance!!!!!!
anyone that comments on the diff between trailing arms vs other rear ends please post a pic as i do not have any of trailing arms.
-
it is very interesting to experience the differences! the5/ 6 link doesn't squat as much on take off but this also depends on where you connect your forward links in relation to mounting points on carriers.
that statement in the above post is sort of like anti squat http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0406-antisquat-explained/ here is a decent article that explains this better than i can but this doesn't just apply to 3 link.
3 link independent
(https://s18.postimg.org/mz5p719tx/post-9157-0-15206600-1420838283.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/mz5p719tx/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/cp3a7up45/post-9157-0-81040300-1420838281_thumb.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/cp3a7up45/)
-
I'll just add this. Trailing/semi trailing arms are tough and are predominantly the rear suspension of choice for the vast majority of cars out there. Why is that? IMO,it is because many/most builders just go with the flow and build whatever is the current best/most accepted practice. Does that make it the best? NO,but resale value seems to definitely favor trailing/semi trailing setups. Now ,with that said,I feel that a arm rear suspensions are superior to all other types in terms of toughness,suspension geometry accuracy and maintaining that accuracy throughout the wheels vertical travel. Having a predictable camber curve that enhances handling and the natural resistance to chassis roll in a corner without a sway bar is a definite plus. Is there a negative to a arms? Yes,just as with all other types of rear suspension other than true trailing arms , the tire/wheel will move laterally throughout the vertical travel that tends to push the rear of car left or right when landing off camber . I have no issue with this personally. The other negative of a arms is that the vertical travel is limited to less than what can be had with semi trailing arms and trailing arms to a lesser degree.Honestly,I feel 3/4/5/6 link suspensions are suited only to light weight or small cars where they work fine. Where semi trailing/trailing or a arms come into play are for bigger heavier cars or for the small lightweight car where the owner wishes the benefits of the a arms superior handling.
Now to comment on trailing arm/semi trailing arms in general. They both have a reputation for their raw strength and ease of designing. Wellllll, I think we have all seen ta/semi ta cars with a lot of negative camber or one side having it and the other not. How can that be if they are so tough? The truth is that a ta/semi ta arm has to be well designed of it is just a limp noodle.I always hear that ta/semi ta arms are lighter than dual arm suspensions. BS,not if both are well designed. The one true negative to a arms is the cost of all those heims!. The absolute benefit of a arms is their massive adjustability , raw strength and lack of body roll.
In case no one can tell,I'm an a arm believer.
-
it is very interesting to experience the differences! the5/ 6 link doesn't squat as much on take off but this also depends on where you connect your forward links in relation to mounting points on carriers.
that statement in the above post is sort of like anti squat http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0406-antisquat-explained/ here is a decent article that explains this better than i can but this doesn't just apply to 3 link.
3 link independent
(https://s18.postimg.org/mz5p719tx/post-9157-0-15206600-1420838283.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/mz5p719tx/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/cp3a7up45/post-9157-0-81040300-1420838281_thumb.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/cp3a7up45/)
Brian,you know I respect your knowlwdge of all these styles of rear suspensions but I have to disagree with you on any anti squat properties with ANY independent rear suspension. There can be no anti squat benefit due to the fact there is no reaction from the application of power into the chassis. It just is not there.To have anti squat there has to be rotation of the rear end housing in relation to the chassis. We don't have that with any of the independent rear suspension styles due to the fact the center section is solid mounted and does not allow any rotation to be input into the chassis suspension mounting points.
-
I'll just add this. Trailing/semi trailing arms are tough and are predominantly the rear suspension of choice for the vast majority of cars out there. Why is that? IMO,it is because many/most builders just go with the flow and build whatever is the current best/most accepted practice. Does that make it the best? NO,but resale value seems to definitely favor trailing/semi trailing setups. Now ,with that said,I feel that a arm rear suspensions are superior to all other types in terms of toughness,suspension geometry accuracy and maintaining that accuracy throughout the wheels vertical travel. Having a predictable camber curve that enhances handling and the natural resistance to chassis roll in a corner without a sway bar is a definite plus. Is there a negative to a arms? Yes,just as with all other types of rear suspension other than true trailing arms , the tire/wheel will move laterally throughout the vertical travel that tends to push the rear of car left or right when landing off camber . I have no issue with this personally. The other negative of a arms is that the vertical travel is limited to less than what can be had with semi trailing arms and trailing arms to a lesser degreeHonestly,I feel 3/4/5/6 link suspensions are suited only to light weight or small cars where they work fine. Where semi trailing/trailing or a arms come into play are for bigger heavier cars or for the small lightweight car where the owner wishes the benefits of the a arms superior handling.
Now to comment on trailing arm/semi trailing arms in general. They both have a reputation for their raw strength and ease of designing. Wellllll, I think we have all seen ta/semi ta cars with a lot of negative camber or one side having it and the other not. How can that be if they are so tough? The truth is that a ta/semi ta arm has to be well designed of it is just a limp noodle.I always hear that ta/semi ta arms are lighter than dual arm suspensions. BS,not if both are well designed. The one true negative to a arms is the cost of all those heims!. The absolute benefit of a arms is their massive adjustability , raw strength and lack of body roll.
In case no one can tell,I'm an a arm believer.
nope no one can tell lol ;D i am now a big fan of the dual a arm
i agree !!
you said The other negative of a arms is that the vertical travel is limited to less than what can be had with semi trailing arms and trailing arms to a lesser degree......can you expand on that?
i ask as it has always been my opinion that a dual pivot trailing arm requires huge amounts of axle plunge that can limit it's vertical travel not to mention they move the wheel forward and back during there swing increasing and decreasing wheel base but the axle plunge ,imo is more limiting of vertical travel but now this all depends on the builder and there skills as well as choice of product (manufacturer). a stock style vw tailing arm swings in two directions. again i have no real experience with trailing arms though so i really don't know.
-
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0406-antisquat-explained/ That article is correct and it also does not apply to our cars. If you will notice the car in the article has a rear end with axle tubes like all cars without independent rear suspensions have.The rear suspensionn attachment is to the axle tube and the chassis. The attachment to an axle tube is the critical difference that makes antisquat happen . It is that axle tube that allows a reaction to acceleration to happen. With independent rear suspensions the is no axle tube and therefore no reaction to the chassis can occur. Anti squat is simply not available with independent rear suspension. That is not to say that where links are mounted will not have a dramatic effect on how a car reacts to acceleration but there will be no anti squat reaction available.
-
Brian,you know I respect your knowlwdge of all these styles of rear suspensions but I have to disagree with you on any anti squat properties with ANY independent rear suspension. There can be no anti squat benefit due to the fact there is no reaction from the application of power into the chassis. It just is not there.To have anti squat there has to be rotation of the rear end housing in relation to the chassis. We don't have that with any of the independent rear suspension styles due to the fact the center section is solid mounted and does not allow any rotation to be input into the chassis suspension mounting points.
thank you.....you can put whatever term to it that best fits but based on my personal experiences with locating the forward links in diff vertical positions on the same vertical plane i can feel the differences in the the way the rear end hooks in the dirt. i call it anti squat. it is more likely the way in which the load from the wheels drives/loads/pushes the chassis in a forward momentum however with dual a arm rear end seem want to lift the nose of the rail much more transferring weight in a diff way.
-
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0406-antisquat-explained/ That article is correct and it also does not apply to our cars. If you will notice the car in the article has a rear end with axle tubes like all cars without independent rear suspensions have.The rear suspensionn attachment is to the axle tube and the chassis. The attachment to an axle tube is the critical difference that makes antisquat happen . It is that axle tube that allows a reaction to acceleration to happen. With independent rear suspensions the is no axle tube and therefore no reaction to the chassis can occur. Anti squat is simply not available with independent rear suspension. That is not to say that where links are mounted will not have a dramatic effect on how a car reacts to acceleration but there will be no anti squat reaction available.
i have seen that article and i understand it. like i said i have personally experienced similar effects by locating the forward/lateral links in diff positions above the horizontal plane on the same vertical line in relation to the location at the carriers.
-
nope no one can tell lol ;D
i agree !!
you said The other negative of a arms is that the vertical travel is limited to less than what can be had with semi trailing arms and trailing arms to a lesser degree......can you expand on that?
i ask as it has always been my opinion that a dual pivot trailing arm requires huge amounts of axle plunge that can limit it's vertical travel not to mention they move the wheel forward and back during there swing increasing and decreasing wheel base but the axle plunge ,imo is more limiting of vertical travel but now this all depends on the builder and there skills as well as choice of product (manufacturer). a stock style vw tailing arm swings in two directions. again i have no real experience with trailing arms though so i really don't know.
At some point an a arm will run into just too much lateral scrub and it gets exponentionally worse as travel increases. The HUGE benefit of a arms in addition to superior handling,IMO,is the lack of heat issues with cv's. Maintaining zero/near zero plunge is why no where near as much heat/wear with a arms.
-
thank you.....you can put whatever term to it that best fits but based on my personal experiences with locating the forward links in diff vertical positions on the same vertical plane i can feel the differences in the the way the rear end hooks in the dirt. i call it anti squat. it is more likely the way in which the load from the wheels drives/loads/pushes the chassis in a forward momentum however with dual a arm rear end seem want to lift the nose of the rail much more transferring weight in a diff way.It is,as you said above,due to mounting locations but,it is not due to antisquat.
Your experience is absolutely correct but you truly need to ditch using the term antisquat to describe what you are feeling since antisquat,by definition, is definitely not occurring. It is impossible for antisquat to occur with independent rear suspensions.
-
def a huge heat reduction there!!
the part that has always concerned me about trailing arms and at the same time amazed me is that there is very little inward support. from a hard cornering or sudden side impact from say a mound of sand or trees lol in my case. the amazing part is the larger/heavier higher hp rails use them and they seem to last. although i have seen a few rails (personally seen) that have ripped them off the chassis's or broke the trailing arms. again though manufacture and choice of product/materials.
-
Your experience is absolutely correct but you truly need to ditch using the term antisquat to describe what you are feeling since antisquat,by definition, is definitely not occurring. It is impossible for antisquat to occur with independent rear suspensions.
well any suggestions so a better descriptive term? cannot call it anti diver really as that pertains to the geometry of a front end with brakes.
-
i have seen that article and i understand it. like i said i have personally experienced similar effects by locating the forward/lateral links in diff positions above the horizontal plane on the same vertical line in relation to the location at the carriers.
I know you understand it but I also think you are missing the critical difference of the axle tube mounting points as compared to the rear hub and no axle tube mounts. Without that axle tube connecting the hubs to the differential/sprocket there can be no antisquat reaction. The reaction is what makes antisquat occur. Now,the location of mounting points can and definitely will effect how a car reacts to acceleration/braking forces on an independent rear suspension but it is not due to any antisquat property. I know this may seem like I'm splitting hairs but using the term antisquat to describe how an independent rear suspension reacts to acceleration/braking is like calling margarine butter. Two completely different things that are not related in any way. It gets confusing when wrong terms are used .
-
def a huge heat reduction there!!
the part that has always concerned me about trailing arms and at the same time amazed me is that there is very little inward support. from a hard cornering or sudden side impact from say a mound of sand or trees lol in my case. the amazing part is the larger/heavier higher hp rails use them and they seem to last. although i have seen a few rails (personally seen) that have ripped them off the chassis's or broke the trailing arms. again though manufacture and choice of product/materials.
That is why we see bent up ta's all the time. Most are very poorly engineered. The pros know how to do it right but most builders just wing it ,throw some tubes together with little to no understanding of how to build a light yet strong arm able to take sometimes massive loads especially in the lateral direction as you describe. A well engineered ta is very hard to bend. Most are not well engineered to say the least.
-
well any suggestions so a better descriptive term? cannot call it anti diver really as that pertains to the geometry of a front end with brakes.
Chassis reaction due to mount locations is the only description that applies. I've never been able to find a catchy term for it though. Actually antidive or at least braking reaction can apply to rear end brakes effect on handling. That is a whole 'nother topic though.
-
lol ok so how about irs anit lift?
-
All cars with non independent rear suspensions can take advantage of antisquat. On drag cars we have ladder bar or 4 link suspensions. Both can take advantage of of antisquat reaction and both can have easily adjusted "percent of rise" as coined by Chris Alston many years ago. Percent of rise can be most easily understood by looking at ladder bars first.Most cars will have 4-5 forward mount hole positions on about 1" centers. Those 4-5 holes allow from a mild antisquat reaction to a more aggressive antisquat reaction as the front mount is raised. For the sake of discussion we will call the lowest hole 10% rise ,second hole 20% rise etc.. This can all be calculated and plotted on a graph. My old door car with 4 link actually had 60+ different percentages of rise depending on mounting hole combination used. Some even went into negatives and of course,those are not used. rofl This refers to the amount of torque/antisquat that is transmitted through the rear end housing,along the arm/ladderbar and into the front mount. The more leverage,the more antisquat there is. This antisquat reaction,we call it chassis separation , is what firmly plants the tires on launch. Antisquat is the car trying to EXTEND the rear shocks on launch pushing the tires onto the track surface. Where the front mount is placed determines how much force is available(percent of rise)to cause chassis separation/antisquat. Look closely at a good drag car on launch and you will see that even though the rear of car may drop,the distance between the wheel well and rear wheel will actually increase. This is antisquat. What you describe you are feeling in your different cars is almost identical to this but there is no planting of the tires/antisquat with independent rears.
All that said,I don't think offroad/sand cars would benefit from actual antidive. Antidive might tend to "dig" in too much and possibly add to chances of burying yourself? The different mounting locations as you describe however,with no antidive as we have now determined does not exist in our cars, would definitely explain your experiences. The higher the mount,the more the tendency to wheelie with more weight transfer to the rear. Physics. The lower the mount,the less weight transfer on acceleration,the more wheel spin/fewer wheelies. Physics.
-
yes, i know this, but have always used that term as it has been the easiest way to describe that. the fundamentals are still felt even if they are not driven forces such as that of a non irs rear. the only rail that wheelied, until now, was the rear engine v6 3800 series II. diff animal yet again vs mid engine ( current) but on all the mid engine bike rails i have always found the the best happy med with the lower lateral rod mounted 3" above that at the wheel . never wanted to wheelie but always hooked really well and launched pretty true!
-
I've never understood the fascination with wheelies on dirt or sand. I just don't get it at all. 5: Mind you I always had the front tires off the ground about 4" for 60-100 feet with the door slammer and about 2" off for the same 60-100 with the dragster as well but that is for 60' performance ,you never really know you are wheeliing and you never feel it set down if suspension is tuned well. Off road I just don't get it at all. Cars that pull big wheelies on command are just not set up well. No offense meant to any of the wheelie lovers here but I always refer to wheelie monsters as rodeo clown cars. All it takes is a high center of gravity,way too much rear weight bias and suspension setups that have the rear suspension mount points too far above axle centerline. It sure doesn't have anything to do with power. I guess if wheelies are what a person wants they are set up well though. Of course ,that is all personal opinion and it depends what flips your pancake. My pancake gets flipped with wheels down. :m It's all 8) though so long as the car owner likes what they have. That's all that really matters.
-
rofl well once and a while is fun....that v6 did it easily in 1st gear after i stretched the wheel base to tone that down. coming up light in the front sucks when you want the cut and carve and eerie when your climbing a dune. this is why i pre mid engine however this rail does wheelie but only in low gear, punched at the right moment off a steep roller or peak. however as a mid engine that can get dangerous real fast rofl ;) ;)
-
Old green car with original semi trail arms, I bent first set first trip, bad design. After learning more, I rebuilt stout never another problem. Would only do semi trailing so you can get some camber. Mine was 15* angle on mount tube. Had +1* at full droop and -3* at full bump if I remember. Another thing w/ trailing arms, it allows a diff motor tranny to be used and only changing axles if inside cv cups distance changes.
I'm really happy with current wide spread A-arms I'm running. Strong, adjustable, non plunge cv's pretty easy to build. I didn't build in any camber, but that may change with new wheel hubs. They are harder to build around the center sprocket drive to get no plunge, some real head scratching and banging!!
-
well multi link and dual a-arms are definitely more difficult to design and build than trailing arms are to buy lol in your case build on that green single seater but for most they just buy them as 3x3 5x5 7x7 etc etc. the dual a-arm design imo is more difficult than a 5 or 6 link. principals are the same but getting every tube connected correctly and lined up for proper support in a manner where everything pivots on the correct plane for the cv's and still be able to adjust toe for alignment ......ya, def not for the beginners with a good enough attitude!
-
Old green car with original semi trail arms, I bent first set first trip, bad design. After learning more, I rebuilt stout never another problem. Would only do semi trailing so you can get some camber. Mine was 15* angle on mount tube. Had +1* at full droop and -3* at full bump if I remember. Another thing w/ trailing arms, it allows a diff motor tranny to be used and only changing axles if inside cv cups distance changes.
I'm really happy with current wide spread A-arms I'm running. Strong, adjustable, non plunge cv's pretty easy to build. I didn't build in any camber, but that may change with new wheel hubs. They are harder to build around the center sprocket drive to get no plunge, some real head scratching and banging!!
Zero plunge is not necessary but an a arm rear suspension must be designed as close to zero as possible though . Axle spline slip in the star will easily allow for any small error or deflection. I know you know this. Just mentioning it for any new builders needing info.
-
well multi link and dual a-arms are definitely more difficult to design and build than trailing arms are to buy lol in your case build on that green single seater but for most they just buy them as 3x3 5x5 7x7 etc etc. the dual a-arm design imo is more difficult than a 5 or 6 link. principals are the same but getting every tube connected correctly and lined up for proper support in a manner where everything pivots on the correct plane for the cv's and still be able to adjust toe for alignment ......ya, def not for the beginners with a good enough attitude!
CAD is my friend. Real CAD,notCardboard Aided Design either! :m Honestly,I'd find building and properly locating mounting tabs for semi/semi trailing arms just as hard to get right. Extremely small errors in locating tabs make big problems that cannot easily be corrected. I've seen countless trailing/semi trailing arm cars with some crazy alignment issues.
-
true....it all takes skill and learning. cad is very helpful for those that have it and can use it. of course going from cad to real world application also takes skill. there also a number of purchased trailing arms that aren't that great. a arm and multi link do allow for adjust to a point for those minor mistakes but at the same time its that adjustability that ,imo, makes them superior among other reasons.
-
yup!
-
CAD is my friend. Real CAD,notCardboard Aided Design either! :m Honestly,I'd find building and properly locating mounting tabs for semi/semi trailing arms just as hard to get right. Extremely small errors in locating tabs make big problems that cannot easily be corrected. I've seen countless trailing/semi trailing arm cars with some crazy alignment issues.
oh come on now .....i like cardboard or even better yet white marker board aided drafting lol ;D
-
on another note i think i found a 2d i may buy for my rail so i can get back to a 4 speed. i'll find out for sure tomorrow.
-
i like that.
-
on another note i think i found a 2d i may buy for my rail so i can get back to a 4 speed. i'll find out for sure tomorrow.
So this will allow to turn up da boost too the :s :m :s level?
I've seen many TA with a heim on outside to allow for alignment. But prob the big reason most use, simple bolt on and cust cant muck it up.
-
That one lonely heim only allows miniscule alignment adjustment. IM,the only reason any builder uses a heim there is just to make fab/installation easier. It really allows no alignment adjustments.
-
So this will allow to turn up da boost too the :s :m :s level?
I've seen many TA with a heim on outside to allow for alignment. But prob the big reason most use, simple bolt on and cust cant muck it up.
;D ;D i was going to anyway lol gut hell yes!
-
That one lonely heim only allows miniscule alignment adjustment. IM,the only reason any builder uses a heim there is just to make fab/installation easier. It really allows no alignment adjustments.
+1
-
well crap.....so come to find out the mendi ebox and 2 d are 2m narrower than a bus box or megasand. mark said mendi uses dana44 diff. so at this point iam going to tear my 4 speed down and look the gears over then prob send it off to have the 4 speed stack installed. this is a down side to a arm or 5 link rear ends. the cvas have to line up center of the pivot points of the heims. so at this point i will build a whole new chassis before i cut the cradle off again.
-
on the upside my new littl 30 gal fuel can arrived last night.
(https://s8.postimg.org/lgv2l1b9t/IMG_20171113_211110.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lgv2l1b9t/)
-
well crap.....so come to find out the mendi ebox and 2 d are 2m narrower than a bus box or megasand. mark said mendi uses dana44 diff. so at this point iam going to tear my 4 speed down and look the gears over then prob send it off to have the 4 speed stack installed. this is a down side to a arm or 5 link rear ends. the cvas have to line up center of the pivot points of the heims. so at this point i will build a whole new chassis before i cut the cradle off again.
They are HOW much narrower? Beyond that what is the centerline of the cv on a mendi vertically and horizontally compared to the MS box?
-
They are HOW much narrower? Beyond that what is the centerline of the cv on a mendi vertically and horizontally compared to the MS box?
Believe he told me 2" narrower, 1" ea side. Didn't mention the horizontal center, but that's a great point.
-
he didnt know the vertical measurement but 2" narrower. also bellhousing is about an 1" wider as well as i would need a diff starter as in the 091 style starter where mine uses the 002 style starter. i doubt shifting the 930 flange back 1" or abouts would change anything really other than a tiny bit of axle plunge. even thought about 1" spacers but already have 7\16" spacers with grease zerts so i would need basically 1.5" spacers and i don't think that would end well on the 930 flange as they are not that tight of a fit on the diff to begin with. i actually bought all the tube to build another frame as i actually plan on it just was hoping to enjoy this one for a while. i do have a 4 speed ms with a bad r&p sitting on my bench........i plan on tearing the gear stack out so i can visually inspect it and maybe just send them off to wright gear box and have it swapped out to a 4 speed. not the gears i want but really dont want to dump anymore money into a trans i know i wont be using eventually. as it is right now it is useable at ls no problem. once i swapped the cam and turbo the bottom end really came in so works pretty good now on a take off from dead stop but 1st gear would be better all things considered.
-
like i said this is a downside to a arms or multi link vs trailing arm but still pre fer a arm!
-
well with the guidance of fast i got the 4 speed apart to inspect the gears. 2nd has 3 teeth that are chiseled on the edges so would need new 1st 2nd since they are part of the main shaft. but this trans was 4.86 r&p....3.10 1st....2.15 2nd....1.67 3rd and 1.30 4th. i'll have to see what new 1 st 2nd main shaft will cost.
-
will need new mainshaft for 2nd gear
(https://s18.postimg.org/nv4zikuv9/IMG_20171116_071115.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/nv4zikuv9/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/89nnynt7p/IMG_20171116_071120.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/89nnynt7p/)
(https://s18.postimg.org/jyrnmnuh1/IMG_20171116_071142.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/jyrnmnuh1/)