Reverse 4 link

[N2TRUX]

I'm thought this was interesting. I don't quit understand why someone wants to reinvent the wheel, but it is interesting to look at.....

[hotrodhomi]

was that done because the frame is lower in front of the axel?

[67Fleet]

Originally Posted by hotrodhomi

was that done because the frame is lower in front of the axel?

good observation. Wonder why they did the notch with a step-up in the back like that. Strange.

[hotrodhomi]

I would like to see the whole truck.

[TravisH]

I thought reverse setups were fundamentally wrong?

[Shev]

Originally Posted by TravisH

I thought reverse setups were fundamentally wrong?

Yep...reverse four link bad...

[hotrodhomi]

Originally Posted by Shev

Yep...reverse four link bad...

Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with it.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by TravisH

I thought reverse setups were fundamentally wrong?

I think if you have 2 of the links going one way (forward) & 2 going toward the rear, that's when the problems arise.

We would prob need to know more of the owners intentions before passing any judgements about function.

[dwcsr]

If the panhard bar breaks in this type of setup the truck would lose control and most likely flip over because the rear wheels would try to steer in an opposite direction than the front end, its the shopping cart caster effect, run the caster backwards and it becomes unstable. The truck in this setup is being dragged by the rear end instead of being pushed like a normal suspension so the pinion angles go way out of wack as well. If its just a show truck it doesn't make much difference but if it a road truck it dangerous.

[bagged74]

Originally Posted by dwcsr

If the panhard bar breaks in this type of setup the truck would lose control and most likely flip over because the rear wheels would try to steer in an opposite direction than the front end, its the shopping cart caster effect, run the caster backwards and it becomes unstable. The truck in this setup is being dragged by the rear end instead of being pushed like a normal suspension so the pinion angles go way out of wack as well. If its just a show truck it doesn't make much difference but if it a road truck it dangerous.

This is completely untrue Is a reverse 4 link a good setup? NO , but not to the extent that you are claiming.
How do I know? I have had a truck with one on it. and I drove it about 20K miles without it "losing control and turning over"
Does it suck? YES does it work? YES
Since you probably hate 2 links too, i also had one of those
did it suck? YES did it work YES
This is probably not a very good setup but come on lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt here we dotn know any of the specifics on this truck

[70short/step]

Originally Posted by bagged74

This is completely untrue Is a reverse 4 link a good setup? NO , but not to the extent that you are claiming.
How do I know? I have had a truck with one on it. and I drove it about 20K miles without it "losing control and turning over"
Does it suck? YES does it work? YES
Since you probably hate 2 links too, i also had one of those
did it suck? YES did it work YES
This is probably not a very good setup but come on lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt here we dotn know any of the specifics on this truck

Did you choose this setup?? And if so Why?? Just trying to figure why someone would use this setup?? I have never seen this setup before.

[dwcsr]

Originally Posted by bagged74

This is completely untrue Is a reverse 4 link a good setup? NO , but not to the extent that you are claiming.
How do I know? I have had a truck with one on it. and I drove it about 20K miles without it "losing control and turning over"
Does it suck? YES does it work? YES
Since you probably hate 2 links too, i also had one of those
did it suck? YES did it work YES
This is probably not a very good setup but come on lets give the guy the benefit of the doubt here we dotn know any of the specifics on this truck

I think what I said was "IF THE PANHARD BAR BREAKS" it could lose control turn over.
And your right it does suck and no I don't have a 2 link, I don't hate them ,they have their place and have had for many years and worked well.

[hotrodhomi]

is the ride quality the same?

[bagged74]

the reverse 4 link was on the truck when i bought it, it did work. I never had any problems with it. It was triangulated though.
The 2 link i had i actually installed myself, it worked fine too, but could have been better.

[orange71]

I have a reverse linked truck that was built by the same company that did the truck above. The links on that truck have been engineered to work properly. I have been driving mine for 6 months and i have not yet ran into a problem. Other trucks that have been setup the same, and have had no problems either.

[hotrodhomi]

do panhard bars break often? I've never seen a broken one, but I've never had this set up either.

[bagged74]

you would really have to be screwing up to break your panhard bar. I have never seen one break, but that doesn't mean that they haven't. anything can break if you dont install it properly.

[hotrodhomi]

Originally Posted by bagged74

anything can break if you dont install it properly.

This is true.

[dwcsr]

this helps explain some of the problems with reverse setups
http://www.streetissuecustoms.com/reverse4.html
http://www.bagginit.com/research_paper.html

[darcane]

Originally Posted by dwcsr

this helps explain some of the problems with reverse setups
http://www.streetissuecustoms.com/reverse4.html
http://www.bagginit.com/research_paper.html

I'm not convinced that a reverse 4-link is an inherently bad design. Both of these imply that someone is simply taking a 4-link and installing it backwards so the instant center is behind the rear wheels. (Not surprising that both say this, since one cites the other). While this setup would undoubtedly be a bad design, I've never seen pictures of such a beast. Most of what I've seen are the reversed 4-bar setups like the picture in the first post on this thread. (Note: 4-bar normally means all four bars are parallel to each other and the instant center is at an infinite distance in front of the vehicle, while 4-link normally means that the bars are not parallel when viewed from the side of the vehicle and the instant center is in front of the rear axle.) A 4-bar will not have any effect on anti-squat, anti-dive, or pinion angle regardless of whether it is in front or behind the axle. So long as the rear of the bars are higher than the front, both setups should have acceptable bump/roll steer behavior. The only issue I can think of would be in an extreme lift situation the driveshaft could fall out of the tranny since the axle would move towards the rear of the vehicle. Not an issue for virtually every bagged vehicle out there.

I haven't seen any like this, but a reversed 4-link could be designed to provide anti-squat. Simply move the rear mounting points of the upper bars slightly upwards compared to a 4-bar setup. This would place the instant center in front of the axle where it should be. This would also change the pinion angle similarly to how a normal 4-link would. There may be some dynamic issues that I'm not considering here, but I don't see it as the inherently horrible design everyone seems to think it is.

[bagged74]

[bagged74]

not a very good picture but you can see the bars. I will find a better one.

[valleycustom]

Originally Posted by bagged74

not a very good picture but you can see the bars. I will find a better one.

This would make a good point if the front had 10" of travel. If your running bags and you run a reverse setup you might have issues with the trans yoke pulling out from the trans. That would be bad because your car will become airborne when the driveline gets hung up on something.

BTW that's a bad A$$ car

[1972C10]

Here is what a good 4 link setup looks like Friend of mine fabbed it up I welded It . This is a Pic Before the CrossMember Was Installed Along With The Bags It's A 94 Isuzu Pickup With a 350/Th400

[Izzy]

He's gonna pull the driveshaft out of the tranny if that thing has too much lift.