landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Interested in people's thoughts on the front 4 link kit being sold by '4xForce' That seem to be something to do with Kirton. And has anyone got any more information? I will put up some photos when I get home later. The kit appears to be all bolt-on with no modification of the vehicle. It uses bushes at the axle end and what appear to be HUGE track rod ends at the Chassis end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I looked at their rear A-frame solution and had a talk with the designer. Got his card if you need his details Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToyRoverlander Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Hard to say anything about without any info whatsoever. But anything bolt-on is basically made to be easy and convenient, not made to be a good working 4link front end that has good behaviour. Just like the safari guard 3link kit back in the day.. Why bother with a 4link front end anyway. When the rest of the front end is fairly standard you probably wont have room for a double triangulated 4link (and you'd have to have full hydro steering too). A 4link with parallel arms and panhard has no advantages over a 3link with panhard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbekko Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I can't see how you can bolt on a 4-link with any sort of usable geometry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moose Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Is this Kit for the front or back ? I can't see how you can bolt on a 4-link with any sort of usable geometry I completely agree... there is not any where near enough separation using stock mounting locations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 It has been described in TOR a few months ago. It looked ok-ish, but the single shear setup made me question the strength. Daan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 I'm talking about the kit for the front Paul, But they do do a setup to 4link the rear (Shown in one of the pictures below). Pictures for you all. I know it will never be as good as a properly built set-up. But is it any better than the other bolt-ons out there? like the SG 3 link and the QT 3 link? The single shear stuff made me question it too. Which month Daan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderzander Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Excuse my ignorance - what is the single shear stuff ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 The bushes are double shear in that the bolt goes through all the way and into something the other side. The single shear is the TRE bits, they are only bolted on one side if that makes sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderzander Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Perfect sense. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 Anytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Personally, on the rear stuff I can't really see the benefit, yes you have freed up the movement of the a-frame ball joint, but you can get wider angle versions of these, or the QT arrangement, both of which are pretty well proven, (yes even in single sheer.... on one joint!), and the trailing arms can be made to flex nicely with a crank or some X-Arms if you are so inclined, again, well proven stuff. Flex on the rear of a coiled LR product has never been that difficult or expensive to do... I just don't see the advantage over a nicely setup backend using stock axle links. The 4-link front will still require a panhard, as it's not triangulated, so you are losing out a bit there, but I can see that the axle should move more freely, and that (I think) axle roll should be reduced by having the top link shorter than the lower, but they are still far too short, well IMHO. The adjustable length would be a handy feature when running lifts I am sure For a bolt on kit it is probably quite good, but you won't get perfection without a bit of cut'n'weld. I can't find them on the internet anywhere, did anyone else have any luck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zim Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 That is not a conventional 4 link. Looking at the arms, they don't exactly look very strong in my opinion. I wouldn't buy it. G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 Should have been clearer.. its a 4link + Panhard. I haven't had any luck searching online for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Oh, and he needs longer front brake lines! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 So the front end is now a parallel 4 link with shorter top links. Correct me if I'm wrong, I often am lately, but not only have we lost the antidive geometry and 'leading arm' effect, that neutralises front end jacking when climbing, one feature of radius arms, but the diff pinion no longer points at the transfercase when the suspension droops. Back to the drawing board ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Doubt you're wrong Bill, but a good explanation of your thought process there would be invaluable I reckon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 Bit more detail would be great Bill. Yours was one of the opinions I was fishing for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Doubt you're wrong Bill, but a good explanation of your thought process there would be invaluable I reckon Well I don't have my protractor handy, but the way I see it is that a parallel 4 link with equal length links will maintain a constant pinion angle relative to the road as the suspension rises and falls. Make the upper links shorter and the pinion will rotate downwards as the axle droops.Make the upper links longer than the lowers and the pinion will rotate upwards. Making the upper and lower links non parallel so that the projected lines through the links converge at around the same distance from axle to chassis as radius arms will keep the pinion pointing at the transfercase and restore antidive and 'leading arm' effect. But then we get back to the problem of radius arms in that good articulation will require much more compliant bushings at bothe the axle and chassis. PS. don't the Puma series already have issues with front propshaft universal joint bind and destroying the front output housing of the transfercase ? Imagine the carnage with a link system that doesn't keep the pinion aiming at the t/case! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Yep, I had it the axle roll wrong way round, thanks Bill. So basically, it's just **** *edit* Can someone make up a suitable avatar for Bill, with 2000+ posts you would think he should have one by now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I recently posted on Dans Jeep Wrangler thread about a theory I have on an off centre One Link + panhard arrangement. No feedback so far, but if the theory makes sense then due to the difficulty of packaging other systems under LandRovers, I feel this may be worth investigationg.The one link wishbone would bolt directly to the radius arm mounts at the axle, and the only structural change to the chassis would be a new bolt on crossmember. Could be made to give standard antidive geometry, and if theory is correct, would have the benefit of neutralising driveline torque induced body roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid_From_Hell Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Do not underestimate the forces involved when a LR front axle twists. They are immense At that looks like it won't take long before its torn itself and its mounting to sheared bits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 The only real bonus with this system up front is caster... a radius arm locks the axle in as you extend the suspension you loose caster (steering gets nervous and worst case death wobble) this system keep caster constant meaning handling stays constant on rough roads As for loss of anti dive Bill, that is easy to tune on a link setup, to simplify things its the angle down from the chassis mounts to the axle mounts, steeper the angle more antidive under brakes... to say how much antidive this system has is impossible to see in this photo as the axle is flexed, you need to see it at rest, at a guess I'd say that the truck is lifted with the short links there would be a resumble amount of angle so I'd say its not going to be too bad for AD looking at the mounting points if its not lifted I'd say it would be a drop in AD on a standard height truck The drive shaft is a big issue and I'd guess has been replaced with a extended slip joint Over all not worth it, if your going to all the trouble do it properly lift the pan hard link up (better roll resistance) do a three link (means you can leave your steering standard with out bump steer) make your links longer (yes they have to be larger but you get less roll of the pinion due to suspension travel) and decent separation of the links at the axle (stronger) and play around with a link calculator to place your top link on the chassis (so you still get Anti dive) As for all this single shear carp about the rear end LOL what is standard.... one single shear joint... this system has two so is more than likely stronger, would I bother with it no... does the rear standard joint brake? the change in geometry is so slight you'd have to be a race car driver to notice the difference so there is nothing really gained other than a lighter wallet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtydiesel Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I tried using unimog track rod ends at the chassis ends of a 3 link system, I never did break them but they always seemed to work themselves loose. I think above system would probably work better than the stock setup, but it looks quite weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missingsid Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I know nothing technical about this but, it is orange and the second pic shows the top link has been rubbing on the link chassis mount so the design must be flawed surely? The first pic shows a split in the steering link powder coat, annother impact with a link or just fitting damage? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.