1. I assume you go about measuring things with the Jeep at ride height? So I'd have to take the axles out, roll my new axles under and go from there with the Jeep somehow at my ride height (even though I have no idea what that will be)? Anyway to figure this out on stock suspension?
Sure...just take some measurements at your present ride height and then start extrapolating. If you know you're going to run X" tire with Y" springs, then you can take your stock measurements and start figuring from there based on the differences. You don't need to unbolt anything...just get out some graph paper.
2. How much is to much/not enough triangulation? Some setups I see have lower links at each end of the axle and meeting together at a new cross member behind the transfer case, in essence making a triangle. While the top links go from the frame to the center of the axle housing, making another clearly defined triangle.
You're describing a double triangulation. "Enough" in my book is "an amount that doesn't allow the axle to move in an undesired/sideways direction" and "an amount that fits comfortably without undue compromise" and also "an amount that yields the numbers I'm looking for with the previous two issues already considered."
On the other hand, I see others like this:
Like you can tell that it would eventually make a triangle (the top of the triangle being at the front axle), but it's not as defined as the previous setup I described earlier in my post. I'm basically talking about the two extremes.
That's essentially a single triangulation...or a triangulation and a half. Whatever. Single triangulation - by my understanding - can allow more rear-steer, and double triangulation tends to abate that effect, somewhat. There are also differences in the roll axis. Actually, here's a very
with someone asking the same questions.
I'll go ahead and repeat something that's been said both here and on that linked thread: often, it's more about what you can physically fit in the given space than it is the benefits or drawbacks of either design. Just as Mike mentioned with his desire for uptravel, there are often a LOT of changes that have to be made in order to make a given design work out; take a look under your rig and see what hits and what fits and the available designs will make themselves known. This is one area where I think that playing with the four-link calculator can give you lots of information; you can move link/axle/mount locations around at will and see where the numbers change, based on your under-rig measurements. Coupled with a good understanding of the terms and their meanings, you can learn a lot this way.
3. A WJ isn't ideal for a LCOG setup (unless I cut the hell out of it). That brings me to the topic of trying to links parallel to the ground. Messing with the calculator, that variable obviously plays a big role in what numbers you get. I have to run a decent amount of lift (6"-7") to fit/stuff 37s, even with a fair amount of fender trimming. That being said, that kind of limits me as far as trying to keep links somewhat parallel to the ground. Any input on this would be appreciated.
Personally, I'd stop worrying about center of gravity and start thinking on how the rig is expected to perform and how much work it's going to take to get there. I'm not that familiar with the WJ platform, but it seems to me that you're going to be looking at MASSIVE trimming and modification work in order to allow 37's enough room to move...and that would be more on my mind than the relative sex appeal of my rig's center of gravity height.