I thought it was interesting based on the fact that everyone here is claiming it's shit and making assumptions its not well thought out or could be better. Which they may not be wrong, trying to understand why is all.
New Motobilt 4-Link Suspension
- Thread starter antighboatye
- Start date
- Status
I thought it was interesting based on the fact that everyone here is claiming it's shit and making assumptions its not well thought out or could be better. Which they may not be wrong, trying to understand why is all.
RockJeep98
New Member
I’d get the popcorn from here on out
So I came on here to give information or answer questions. I’m not here to talk shit but rather give feedback.
Welcome (again). If you have been here before, you know how this forum works.
The questions have been asked if you read the thread from the start.
Amen…. What I would like to know is who here has competed, build rigs a or has any idea what those numbers mean in the real world. Please, enlighten me! Who are these guys? Bench racers with a suspension calculator?
What was the motivation to put the belly and the frame side lower arm mounts as low as they are?
Why the amount of disparity in the upper and lower arm lengths?
Last edited:
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
My main question here is what does this long-arm suspension system attempt to solve? It seems that with a design like this you compromise everything to gain nothing.
Put a rig with this suspension system next to the same rig with a very well setup short arm and where am I going to see the huge improvements?
Put a rig with this suspension system next to the same rig with a very well setup short arm and where am I going to see the huge improvements?
RockJeep98
New Member
Well this kit is a double triangulated 4 link front and rear as most “long arm kits” are not. The front being triangulated means that you would need to run full hydraulic steering. This is not meant for the person wanting a long arm that drives the vehicle on the road. Our other kit is meant for those Jeepers as it can be run as a 3 link in front with a track bar. Considering that you are running full hydraulic steering you would typically be running one ton axles and stretching the wheel base out back and in front. This being stated is why we offer our front or rear back half kits. This is not a hey build your rig this one way but rather a builders kit. This allows you to run the axles, wheelbase, etc that you want.
Last edited:
Because by doing that it gives better link angles than a “flat belly”. In allows for more vertical separation without having to cut the tub. It allows for more up travel before frame interference. It allows you to run any motor/tranny/t case combination. Simply look at every single competition rig and they all run a “sub frame” for the exact same reasons.
Absolutely! The easiest thing to see is “suspension roll steer”. As the suspension drops out on a short link, the axle will move forward/backwards MUCH MUCH more causing “roll steer”. It’s super noticeable in a deep crack where you end up fighting to keep the rig straight
This explains who the kit is intended for, but what benefits will they see out of it? (going back to @Chris' question of "what does this attempt to solve")
Being someone who has more link separation and is running 12" travel shocks with 6" of up travel on both ends on a mostly intact TJ frame without holes in the tub and a quite high belly - all thanks to a smallish body lift, why would I want this MB suspension setup?
RockJeep98
New Member
Well they are no lower then the factory skid plate. It may look like they are but they are not. Having them at this height allows for the transition point on the ”boatside” skid plate and the link mounts to be smooth. Ie. No grapple hook effect. Having them also allows for the separation stated w/out having to install a body lift. If you look at most rock crawling buggies out today most have a very similar type of setup. Disparity in what regards do you think there is an issue?
I'm curious too. As somebody who has all of that, PLUS a flat belly (flat plate bolted to bottom of frame) I'm just not seeing why I'd want to go back to the stock "shovel" skid design... What am I missing?
@jjvw @psrivats @Mike_H @rasband @mrblaine all seem well versed in link setups and what works and doesn't work.
@Bender The belly clearance critique does come up here a lot on this forum, as a tummy tuck can really make it or break it for a lot of rock crawling and is a great place to start at solving problems when building off the stock TJ/LJ and even the YJ.
@Bender Was this kit designed around long travel, 50/50 bias shock travel? or a LowCoG down travel bias design? I would agree if running 12 inch or 14 inch coil overs, a 50/50 bias would leave noting on the table.
Last edited:
Specifically on the front, the MB disparity in arm length is going to change the caster and effect the steering during higher speed events. Whereas a parallel link setup of similar arm lengths will maintain caster as the suspension cycles.
A body lift is one of the most beneficial modifications you can do, in terms of how much benefit it can provide in terms of added clearance. Why will I NOT want to have a body lift, and find a way to raise the belly skid up further than running it at the same level as stock? Doesn't matter if your skid is smooth, it is still lost clearance.
Or have you built in raised placed body mount frame brackets as part of this that I may have missed in photos/renderings posted so far?
What is a preferred tire size for this setup? And once the ride height is established, what is the belly height and suspension travel and travel bias with this tire size?
And on this example, what would the wheelbase be?
Similar does not equal same. The reason why having a lower belly works for purpose built Ultra4 cars and rock buggies is because they essentially move the frame rails inward 6" on each side to boat side. This keeps them out of the rocks. This results in room for linkages and TC, not much else... Their exhaust must be routed round the passenger compartment instead of next to the frame rail like you'd want in a trail rig. Your sub-frame seems to stick down exactly where clearance is needed most?
I would say you don't. You are not the market customer. They explained who the market customer was and not everyone fits that description.
If I was the manufacturer, I wouldn't get on here and argue with this crew. I would take care of those who are actually contacting you directly and answering their questions. These threads aren't going to deter or promote your product, it just becomes noise.
- Status