Tri four Link Which way is better - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

jaws61 · 04-12-2016, 01:29 PM

Tri four Link Which way is better ??
Having a cross member and connecting to that or have them connect to the side of the chassis?

HUSSEY · 04-12-2016, 01:41 PM

I think the only real reason you see it like that in your picture is because of interference issues, such as with the gas tank.

I think most guys go to the chassis which eliminate the cross member.

Either way, I think it's accomplishing the same thing.

**mr48chev** · 04-12-2016, 08:26 PM

I'd have to agree with Hussey in that it is primarily builder's preference but I have no idea if one has an advantage over the other. I'd think most guys pretty well emulate what GM did with the Chevelle size cars for over 20 years and that's like your top drawing below the photo.

jaws61 · 04-12-2016, 10:48 PM

Thanks guys, helps me get an idea and good to know either way works.

Speedbumpauto · 04-13-2016, 10:29 AM

I personally would be very skeptical of the pictured set up. I can't explain it in engineeringese but lots of strength is lost in having the mounting brackets that close together. The triangulation strength is somewhat proportional to the length of the sides and angles. Morrison won't sell their tri 4 link for a truck application. They say the frame rails are too close together for optimum strength.

dsraven · 04-14-2016, 05:14 PM

there are a few good write ups on the geometry of a 4 link and how it works for traction and suspension. the angles pertain to centre of gravity and a whole bunch of other factors. an evening in front of the computer screen is well worth the time on this subject if you want it to work properly.

mphudak · 04-15-2016, 05:39 PM

I've built a few 3 links and 4 links over the years. There isn't just one right way, but there are lots of wrong ways. Here is a good thread on pirate that will detail everything you ever wanted to know. Post 383 is the excel calculator created to let you run numbers to see what you anti squat, roll and other stats are based on your configuration. I have used these calculators for almost 10 years and have never been disappointed.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gener...204893?page=39

dsraven · 04-15-2016, 07:47 PM

that's what I was talking about. I looked at that site before but couldn't remember the name.
good luck.

04-12-2016, 01:29 PM	#1
jaws61 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 136	Tri four Link Which way is better Tri four Link Which way is better ?? Having a cross member and connecting to that or have them connect to the side of the chassis? Attached Images

04-12-2016, 01:41 PM	#2
HUSSEY Registered User Join Date: May 2013 Location: Kansas City Posts: 572	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better I think the only real reason you see it like that in your picture is because of interference issues, such as with the gas tank. I think most guys go to the chassis which eliminate the cross member. Either way, I think it's accomplishing the same thing. __________________ My 49 AD Build / S10 Chassis -- Thread -- Pictures -- S10 Conversion Mounts

04-12-2016, 08:26 PM	#3
mr48chev Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toppenish, WA Posts: 15,719	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better I'd have to agree with Hussey in that it is primarily builder's preference but I have no idea if one has an advantage over the other. I'd think most guys pretty well emulate what GM did with the Chevelle size cars for over 20 years and that's like your top drawing below the photo. __________________ Founding member of the too many projects, too little time and money club. My ongoing truck projects: 48 Chev 3100 that will run a 292 Six. 71 GMC 2500 that is getting a Cad 500 transplant. 77 C 30 dualie, 454, 4 speed with a 10 foot flatbed and hoist. It does the heavy work and hauls the projects around.

04-12-2016, 10:48 PM	#4
jaws61 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 136	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better Thanks guys, helps me get an idea and good to know either way works.

04-13-2016, 10:29 AM	#5
Speedbumpauto Registered User Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 917	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better I personally would be very skeptical of the pictured set up. I can't explain it in engineeringese but lots of strength is lost in having the mounting brackets that close together. The triangulation strength is somewhat proportional to the length of the sides and angles. Morrison won't sell their tri 4 link for a truck application. They say the frame rails are too close together for optimum strength.

04-14-2016, 05:14 PM	#6
dsraven Registered User Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: calgary alberta Posts: 8,347	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better there are a few good write ups on the geometry of a 4 link and how it works for traction and suspension. the angles pertain to centre of gravity and a whole bunch of other factors. an evening in front of the computer screen is well worth the time on this subject if you want it to work properly.

04-15-2016, 05:39 PM	#7
mphudak Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Canton, GA Posts: 196	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better I've built a few 3 links and 4 links over the years. There isn't just one right way, but there are lots of wrong ways. Here is a good thread on pirate that will detail everything you ever wanted to know. Post 383 is the excel calculator created to let you run numbers to see what you anti squat, roll and other stats are based on your configuration. I have used these calculators for almost 10 years and have never been disappointed. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gener...204893?page=39 __________________ 55.1 GMC Suburban Hydramatic

04-15-2016, 07:47 PM	#8
dsraven Registered User Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: calgary alberta Posts: 8,347	Re: Tri four Link Which way is better that's what I was talking about. I looked at that site before but couldn't remember the name. good luck.



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.