Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Alright so I have changed my mind multiple times since getting my swap started and now I think I have finally come to the decision that I am going to run 14 inch King Emulsion 2.0 Coilover's. First I was going to go with the 'normal' 78/79 coil bucket swap, then figured I'd just keep the stock ones with Broncoair coils and now I'm just saying forget the whole separate shock and coil thing.
:goodfinge

The pictures of the build are using the exact parts and ideas that I am was going to do. I was lucky to find this build. Here are the similarities between our builds:
-HD Dana 44 converted to 5 lug
-Ballistic radius arm/coilover mounts
-14 inch King Coilovers
-Shock hoops w/ engine brace

My main question is what do you guys prefer that you can compare the two styles using the same Ballistic mount? I can either go 4 link or radius arms and I am not sure what to choose. Since Ill have a good amount of travel, what is the best choice here so that they do not limit my articulation?

4 Link:



Radius Arms(same bracket):



Engine hoop, shock hoops and coilovers:


Lift height:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I imagine if you go with the radius arm type that there will be some binding as one side will try to twist the axle housing. I would go with a 3 link, or 4 link. Go big on the spherical joints and tubing so you won't have to worry about breakage. Make the rear pivot the same distance as the front output on the t case do the driveshaft won't require much travel in the spline area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I imagine if you go with the radius arm type that there will be some binding as one side will try to twist the axle housing. I would go with a 3 link, or 4 link. Go big on the spherical joints and tubing so you won't have to worry about breakage. Make the rear pivot the same distance as the front output on the t case do the driveshaft won't require much travel in the spline area.
What do you think about the 4 link that I posted above? Definitely going with some thick stuff for tubing. That's good advice on the length of the links, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
That 4 link looks good. Being that long, I would want 2" and 1/4" wall tubing to resist bending while dragging across obstacles. I used square tubing with the above dimensions and ballistic fabrication joints that used 3/4" mount bolts. Did a 3 link to take up less space. Burn your mounts in with some good heat. I've seen them pull off on other rigs, and when that happens, the axle housing rotates and snaps the shock shafts. It happened on 2 rigs at the Hammers a few weeks ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Try to keep your track bar and steering drag link at the same angles AND the same length to minimize bumpsteer. I'm having problems trying to put pics on. I'll take some lower resolution pics when I get back from my trip and post those. Not that you have to do what I did, but you can have another prospective. I hammer the crap out of mine, and am not worried about it failing. I've seen beautiful rigs use small link components take a tiny jump and fail and wad up the rig into a pile. Spend a little more for peace of mind. My 2 cents.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,431 Posts
I am contemplating the same arrangement, I will be using the truck for street and off road. I considered four link, three link and track arm with panhard bar. I settled on coil over 2.5 Fox Shox, and James Duff track arms or reasonable road handling. Another factor is three link will not clear the cross member, works good on Jeeps as they are wide open underneath. The truck would require removal / modification of the crossmember for three link or triangulated four link affecting the integrity of the frame. Could be overcome with a 8 point tube chassis but lots of mods. Another factor is dive, when reversing a four link under torque it will dive lower and raise while braking. This will affect road handling, that is why a track arm style front end is still used in heavy trucks still to this day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I run 2.5"x 16" King shocks in front with 3 link. Had to rim a little on crossmember and frame, but have a extensive cage like "yogib". I can flex the front tire over a 44" obstacle, jumps great, got body sway but I live with it. I run 200 lb over 350 lb so it's nice and soft. I don't notice much in the way of excessive diving. My front weight is 2750 lbs, rear weight is 3150 lbs even with a 4bt cummins in there. I've got Deaver leaves in rear with F. O. A. 18" shocks so it's soft. Built an articulating traction bar with lots of anti squat in it, so it plants the rear tires like crazy going forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I am contemplating the same arrangement, I will be using the truck for street and off road. I considered four link, three link and track arm with panhard bar. I settled on coil over 2.5 Fox Shox, and James Duff track arms or reasonable road handling. Another factor is three link will not clear the cross member, works good on Jeeps as they are wide open underneath. The truck would require removal / modification of the crossmember for three link or triangulated four link affecting the integrity of the frame. Could be overcome with a 8 point tube chassis but lots of mods. Another factor is dive, when reversing a four link under torque it will dive lower and raise while braking. This will affect road handling, that is why a track arm style front end is still used in heavy trucks still to this day.
Yeah I have noticed that we going the similar route. Just takes a little more work but I feel like the outcome will be well worth it. I always see people use the ballistic mounts as 'radius arm' mounts but it looks like it could serve to be a great 4 link even though it is not triangulated, definitely food for thought.

I run 2.5"x 16" King shocks in front with 3 link. Had to rim a little on crossmember and frame, but have a extensive cage like "yogib". I can flex the front tire over a 44" obstacle, jumps great, got body sway but I live with it. I run 200 lb over 350 lb so it's nice and soft. I don't notice much in the way of excessive diving. My front weight is 2750 lbs, rear weight is 3150 lbs even with a 4bt cummins in there. I've got Deaver leaves in rear with F. O. A. 18" shocks so it's soft. Built an articulating traction bar with lots of anti squat in it, so it plants the rear tires like crazy going forward.
Hopefully you are able to get the pictures up because I would love to see some. In your opinion.. will the four link in the picture bind during articulation since the front mounts are stacked vertical but they are slightly offset in the rear mounts? I know that most 4 links are triangulated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I think that because of the minimal offset in the rear it shouldn't be too much of an issue. However, if you are making everything custom, I would put them as in line as possible. I took quite a bit of time lining things up in mine and testing how the links move with it all tacked on place without shocks. Articulating in all possible ways before final welding. I'll be back on the 13th and take some more pics for you.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,431 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I'm lucky enough to have a friend who owns a steel shop. We draw out brackets, and he has them Lazer cut out. I put about 8" of separation between upper and lower outs at axle end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I think that because of the minimal offset in the rear it shouldn't be too much of an issue. However, if you are making everything custom, I would put them as in line as possible. I took quite a bit of time lining things up in mine and testing how the links move with it all tacked on place without shocks. Articulating in all possible ways before final welding. I'll be back on the 13th and take some more pics for you.
Okay great. I will just make a bracket that puts them closer to directly above each other like you said and then there will be no possible chance for binding. That was my question that the thread was originally about, thanks for helping:thumbup and sounds good about the pics.

I'm hoping that sticking with using the same geometry as the factory radius arms will help in not having to do all those adjusts that 3 link and triangulated 4 link setups need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Well after looking under my truck for a while.. I realized that the 4 link from the pictures that I posted would not be a good idea. The top link looks like it would hit the body mount under extreme bump and my rock sliders are mounted directly where the top link mount is located on the frame.

So..... this is looking like a better idea. "triangulated radius arms"

What do you think @93dieselbronco?


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Since the pictures of the 'triangulated radius arms' are on a early bronco, it is not as easy to make a crossmember like that without having to make room for the driveshaft, transmission mounts/crossmember, etc..

So, like most of my Sunday afternoons, I spent it laying and looking underneath the bronco and I am thinking of just taking the flimsy transfer case skidplate and making one out of some thick steel and that would give me a long, flat surface to mount the rear links any position I want. I know most people make them so they follow the conjure of the transfer case but I'd rather take the factory idea and strengthen it and at the same time have a place for the rear mounts so that the radius arms can be triangulated. Just by looking at my current radius arm brackets, it should only lower the mounting height slightly more than they are mounted now.

Does anybody see any problems with using a skid plate like this as my rear link mounting points using these brackets? Too much ground clearance lost running 35's or 37's? I'm having a hard time figuring out where to mount them. Any ideas would be appreciated.

I would build a skid plate similar to this but follow the upwards bend that my current one has (who would of known bending the sh!t out of mine would of helped with this) that you can see perfectly in the picture below. Then the brackets would not stick down as far. Or would I be better off building a new tranny crossmember?


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
The adjustable radius arms will be nice for tweaking castor. As far as where to mount them to the frame side, there is no sense in trying to re invent the wheel on this one. I stick to mounting them more on the frame and less in middle a new cross member.

The parallel 4 link would be nice but, like you mentioned, you wouldn't want to mount it outside the frame due to interference from the body mount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The adjustable radius arms will be nice for tweaking castor. As far as where to mount them to the frame side, there is no sense in trying to re invent the wheel on this one. I stick to mounting them more on the frame and less in middle a new cross member.

The parallel 4 link would be nice but, like you mentioned, you wouldn't want to mount it outside the frame due to interference from the body mount.
I agree that mounting them to the frame would be much more simple. Since Im doing everything new, I thought having them inboard would reduce binding that radius arms usually cause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
With a radius arm setup the axle will always be a torsion bar. Regardless how a radius arm setup is implemented it will bind, that is why I would personally build something similar to the cage/duff/whoever's radius arms and be done. They seem to provide good flex with good street manners. With the more central mounting points it seems like it would be less streetable, though that is just my opinion. I haven't done any math to compare the two that is just how I perceive it.

Regardless what you end up doing I am interested to see what you build. I thought the 4 link idea was cool and unique. If you need anymore ideas for the 4 link check out some f250 4 link setups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
With a radius arm setup the axle will always be a torsion bar. Regardless how a radius arm setup is implemented it will bind, that is why I would personally build something similar to the cage/duff/whoever's radius arms and be done. They seem to provide good flex with good street manners. With the more central mounting points it seems like it would be less streetable, though that is just my opinion. I haven't done any math to compare the two that is just how I perceive it.

Regardless what you end up doing I am interested to see what you build. I thought the 4 link idea was cool and unique. If you need anymore ideas for the 4 link check out some f250 4 link setups.
I thought the same thing about the street characteristics. Apparently with coilovers it is not a problem because you have so many different ways to tune the shocks that you can compensate for it.

Regardless, I think you are right though. The binding issue must not be that big of a deal since duff,cage,etc.. all mount to the frame instead of inboard. I will definitely check out some more 4 link set ups though.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top