ahardb0dy Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I haven't looked under my PF to see how it is mounted, and I like how you relocated the cross member but have a question. Would it have been possible to cut the stock cross member off the frame and just relocate the stock cross member further forward so you could use the longer arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY1PATH Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Not bad. What are the advantages of using equal length upper and lower links? Any disadvantages? To expand a little more on what he said about U-joint angles... With a short upper link the pinion points nose down as the axle drops. Having shorter uppers makes attaining the desired anti-squat, easeir to set up. With equal links the pinion does not change angle as the axle drops. But makes attaining good ati-squat a little more difficult. I imagine he will be going to longer lowers in the future. with short lowers the pinion noses up and maintians an optimal U-joint angle (on the pinion side only) at all times BUT it ruins every other aspect of suspension geometry. Having longer links in general reduces the angle change of the pinion (when using un-equal links) and reduces front to back movment of the axle as it moves up and down. It also allows for more freedom of flex and more drop when the opposite wheel is stuffed. You got me thinking on doing the same thing to those upper links. Now I wonder why Nissan did not build it like that. I guess they weren't really anticipating on that much flex. The gemety of the Stock Nissan suspension provided aprox 80-90% ati-squat to the Stock driving postion. What this means is when you step on the gas hard the vehicle resists sitting down in back. at 100% antisquat the vehcle stays perfectly level and at 110% or more the way the axle pushes on the frame actually pushes the wheels DOWN harder into the pavement and lifts the back of the vehilce. This is neat to watch on a car that has 120% or more but somewhat uncomfortable to because it is counter-intuitive to what the driver expects to feel and thus most cars/suv's are geometrically designed to to have ~80% anti squat. Without having exact measurments and an ati-squat calculator on hand its hard to predict what this mod has done for his anti-squat but I would like to see the result, hopefully it improved. nice job, wish I had your crazy mad fab skills, and tools, and time...... I just wish I had time and a housing manager that didn't care if I worked on my truck... A garage would be nice. I will be working on this in the morning... 12 inch travel shocks and see how far these stock springs will go before falling out. May need to capture the top and bottom of the spring so they have to stretch in order to flex beyond the normal unloaded static length. I prefer this way for the most part anyway.. makes side hilling not such a test of nerve. AK9849cy Make sure to cut a chunk out of your panhard backet next to your shock and re-enforce the bracket on the other side. or plate it in at a 45 angle (I plan to do this soon) my Right tire cannot drop as far becuase when only one side of the axle moves down the bracket binds on the shock. <This is the amount of Drop you need to hit the shock. Edited December 5, 2011 by MY1PATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovemaN Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 My right tire cannot drop as far becuase when only one side of the axle moves down the bracket binds on the shock. Why don't you just flip the shocks? I know it will be harder to reach the adjuster, but I believe that's how they are supposed to be mounted. The body on those 9000s is exceptionally large as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK9849cy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 I ran this through a 4 link calculator.. 90% Anti Squat and much more travel out of the rear links without a ton of cash spent. I haven't looked under my PF to see how it is mounted, and I like how you relocated the cross member but have a question. Would it have been possible to cut the stock cross member off the frame and just relocate the stock cross member further forward so you could use the longer arms? The upper arms are mounted at an angle... so being they are longer they will not mount in the same place (they are closer to the frame). The tube under that mount is dented in for clearance... so you can't just move the stock brackets around at will. I will probably not do this mod again.. was just trying to see how much I could get for how little.. it turned out to be exactly what I was after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY1PATH Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Why don't you just flip the shocks? I know it will be harder to reach the adjuster, but I believe that's how they are supposed to be mounted. The body on those 9000s is exceptionally large as well. Because they function like crap upside down. I ran this through a 4 link calculator.. 90% Anti Squat and much more travel out of the rear links without a ton of cash spent. Nice, so it did improve! Since you have all the measurements, would you mind running it again. Same alxe location and link length but I want to know if mounting the frame side higer or lower might yeild 100-110% Also does the ati squat reduce with a 3-4" lift (requireing different angles still)? Edited December 6, 2011 by MY1PATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK9849cy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Nice, so it did improve! Since you have all the measurements, would you mind running it again. Same alxe location and link length but I want to know if mounting the frame side higer or lower might yeild 100-110% Also does the ati squat reduce with a 3-4" lift (requireing different angles still)? Are you thinking on modifying your arms? Edited December 6, 2011 by AK9849cy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovemaN Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Would you mind sharing your vehicle specification numbers for the link calculator? I know my 4-door will be a little different, but I need a good starting place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK9849cy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Would you mind sharing your vehicle specification numbers for the link calculator? I know my 4-door will be a little different, but I need a good starting place. Remember my rig will have a one inch lift... anything different will throw the numbers off. Matter of fact I did the setup for no lift knowing there is a Dana 44 out back ready to go that will be put in there on a later date. The mounts on the axle will all be moved up to match how much lift it really ends up being thus the links will end up being the same angle. The angle of the links is crucial.. how they work together and where the extended lines of the links intersect compared to the CG and wheelbase is the name of the game. This rig is made to be a Swiss army knife type setup. It will do everything good but nothing perfect thus making it a daily driver that will hit the trails without worry. It is not a rock crawler by any sort of the imagination.. that is the other vehicle in my driveway. So what is your plan? How much lift you going to run? Long Arms? Edited December 6, 2011 by AK9849cy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovemaN Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 When I'm done I still want to be able to drive the truck to work or across the state for camping. I will be doing a 3-link up front with 12" coilovers. I was planning on having 4" uptravel, but keeping everything as low as possible while still being able to clear 35s. The rear will have longer arms, but I haven't decided whether to go with a triangulated or panhard setup. I was just wondering what numbers you used for total mass, front/rear unsprung mass (with d44 front, h233 rear and 35s) and CG height (stock). Of course I will have to adjust for CG height when I figure out exactly how high she will be sitting. I will probably stretch the WB a little too so I will have to take that into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK9849cy Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 When I'm done I still want to be able to drive the truck to work or across the state for camping. I will be doing a 3-link up front with 12" coilovers. I was planning on having 4" uptravel, but keeping everything as low as possible while still being able to clear 35s. The rear will have longer arms, but I haven't decided whether to go with a triangulated or panhard setup. I was just wondering what numbers you used for total mass, front/rear unsprung mass (with d44 front, h233 rear and 35s) and CG height (stock). Of course I will have to adjust for CG height when I figure out exactly how high she will be sitting. I will probably stretch the WB a little too so I will have to take that into account. I would recommend a pan hard bar. Less joint wear and play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY1PATH Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Are you thinking on modifying your arms? Yes I plan to do longer upper and lower. For now, cheap parallel links could do allot of good but eventually I will do slightly longer lowers and angle them inward (triangulation) so I can delete the pan hard bar. I have 3-4" of lift If you don't feel like running the numbers its ok, I'll understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK9849cy Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Yes I plan to do longer upper and lower. For now, cheap parallel links could do allot of good but eventually I will do slightly longer lowers and angle them inward (triangulation) so I can delete the pan hard bar. I have 3-4" of lift If you don't feel like running the numbers its ok, I'll understand. The calculator takes so many things in... the tire size.. tire size with weight on wheels to center of hub.. it goes on and on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now