Good question,
I think if you asked a Jeep engineer they say a stock TJ front a rear suspension is a 5 link design because they are counting both longitudinal and lateral link bars, thus the track bar is included. Chris Alston, who was a leader in the "4 link" world does not count the track bar in his design although he does have one.
So lets take a the rear Savvy design triangulated mid arm, it has 4 bars and each articulate independently and the lateral movement of the axle is controlled by the upper links triangle arrangement, there on track bar. So that would be a 4 link suspension.
But a front suspension with 3 longitudinal links, two lower and one upper and a track bar could also be a 4 link suspension but some may call it a 3 link.
Then a rear suspension with 2 longitudinal links and a upper wishbone could be called a 3 think but so could a early Ford Bronco front suspension with 2 fixed at the axle longitudinal links and a track bar.
Are you confused enough now? This way 3/4/5 link terminology can be hard to nail down in a conversation.
Last edited:
I look at what is winning in the racing world that most closely approximates the application I achieve.
In the case of a desert runner/rock crawler it would be the Bomber chassis. If you look at a Bomber it lower links both front and rear, are what the TJ world would call long arm, are parallel to the ground and the upper link triangulates, has an instant center that seem to pivot at the out shaft of the transfer case. Definitely there is a effort to keep the CG as low as possible, just look at how low the belly skid plate hangs. Shock travel at ride height seems to 30% up 70% down.
Bomber are winning so I would follow Bomber's lead.
@Chris can you change Bill M.'s username from Lightning to Bomber because his posts are bombing.
Thank you for the compliment. I have to agree never stop learning.
Thank you for the compliment. I have to agree never stop learning.
Try harder next time.
There has to be a point where we all agree that we're on a forum primarilly devoted to the Jeep TJ. I've seen some really cool suspension designs on buggies, and JK/JLs etc... and the Gladiator Forum thinks the Mopar 2" Lift is the best thing ever made... but none of their parts work on a TJ without a lot of work that would be better off spent working with designs and Ideas that have already proven themselves. Unless you're spending all that time and money just to be different, or maybe for research purposes, but for most of us the cost investment risk to reward ratio isnt worth it. At least to me it isn't.
Just so we can all see what Bill is referring to. Once again, the answer is a tube frame.
Kinda the wrong question, the correct question is how much wheel travel do they run and that is generally depends on the motion ratio and what they are doing but figure 24-30".
That's why I was saying what I said. A buggy might be faster than a TJ to the top of the rocks, but this isn't a buggy forum...
So on the low end 7” up and 17” down with a 30/70 split.
Probably helps hitting whoops and jumps at 100+.
It's a poke at those who use out of context examples to argue an indefensible point. Bomber chassis, as an example.
Most will try to run 50/50 or close to that. Their rules don't much apply to what we do. They run rear trailing arms with the shock and coil carrier moved forward from axle centerline. Depending on that ratio, (distance from axle compared to overall length of arm) they can get 20" of wheel travel out of a 12" shock. That is where the 2.5" and 3" coil carriers start to show up to run heavy springs and bypass shocks. They are working the shock and springs a lot harder than we do.