[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by thekid54

I agree with bagged_gmc on the pinion angle comment.

However, 2-links aren't as bad some people make them out to be. For example, c-10's were produced for many years with a 2-link suspension, and it worked, and still works good. If you are going to bag your truck then pinion angle will be an issue. I personally went with a 2-link for my truck because I don't plan on varying my ride height that much while driving. I set it up for a ride height of 4.5" (lowest point of frame to the ground) and when aired out will lay frame. I set the pinion angle at this ride height because that's how I plan to drive it most of the time. If you max out your bags to get over a bump or go up a drive way momentarily, then it's not going to be too hard on your u-joints. Just my 2 cents.

The main reason the 62~72 2-link (aka trailing arm suspensions) work is because of the length & orientation of the arms within the chassis.

Most 2-link 'kits' are actually 2 'links' that are typically parallel to the frame/chassis & less than half the length of the 62~72 trailing arms. There was a thread @ bagit.com (or baginit.com?) about pinion angle change during suspension extension/compression when using this shorter style 2-link. It is a very good read. I did the little experiment that was suggested & was suprised to see almost 12deg of pinion angle change @ less than 4" total suspension movement w/a typical length 24" link (the 24" link is what would typically be used if swapping a leaf suspension over to a 2-link using the stock front leaf hangers).

That's a lot of change & even if you set the proper pinion angle @ the avg ride height, theres still a bunch of change w/the typical 2" of rebound or extension you'll experience driving down the road.

Just food for thought. I would suggest a 4-link for something that sees regular street duty & the 2-link for the weekend show warrior unless it's the 62~72 truck arm 2-link. We all know they work quite well.