Front 4 link build - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
 25Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of 60 Old 09-27-2020, 03:19 PM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by 87TPIYJ View Post
Tuck them in right behind the radiator on either side of the crank pulley and just missing the lower radiator hose.
Yeah that's kind of the plan but it'll be tight. I'm also considering cutting the top of the upper link mounts off as well to give a little more clearance. I'll get some pictures later.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 60 Old 09-27-2020, 05:23 PM
jsawduste
Web Wheeler
2006 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waternut View Post
Well based on your scenario, I'd say you're likely getting more out of your leaf springs than at least 99% of leaf spring users. I'd also venture to say that you're getting more out of your leaf springs than the majority of people running coilovers who didn't use or don't understand how the 4 link calculator works and/or don't understand how to tune their springs/shocks. The other thing that's worth mentioning is the simplicity of leaf springs vs the complexity of a link suspension. I've got a friend who sat his Jeep down at the end of 2018 to do a 3 link front and 4 link rear. 2 years later and it's still down. He's a very capable fabricator but I think analysis paralysis got the best of him and there are too many compromises that he just hasn't been able to work through efficiently.
Thanks for your input. Been off the gird for a few days on a wheeling trip.


Several; new builds joined this time. All with link suspension and no two the same design/setup. It was very interesting watching how the vehicles reacted to various obstacles. And than how the owners reacted to the performance.


One of the guys set up a short but varied obstacle course of sorts. We ran through it while he did video.


By far the worst was a JK running an EVO coilover kit with Kings. Typical SD/14 bolt on 40`s with a stock WB. The vehicle simply didn't react very well. The squat was way off and the ultra wide mounting of the front links to the axle created a lot of apparent binding. The F/R balance was way off for the tire size and WB.


An LJ with a RK system......at least it had an RK sticker........looked pretty good but a sheared rear track bar mount ended that guy early. He didn't want to get it welded up...He left early...... ??


Waternut, as archaic as the leave system is. In the group we ran this weekend it simply worked better on the whoops and ledges, rocks etc. Flex wasn't an issue. No unexpected unloading or wheel hop in the sand. The setup simply cycled up and down in a controllable manner and kept the Jeep planted.


I'm very envious of the undertaking your doing. From reading here and several other sites your a member of you have a good grasp of the dynamics and will be able to make the system work well. Not many can say that. It really makes sense when you consider the cost of custom leaves and shock tuning.


Was lucky that the folks at Deaver had done the homework and was able to supply a package that worked pretty well straight away. Watching the video`s was reveling.
Waternut likes this.
jsawduste is offline  
post #18 of 60 Old 09-27-2020, 06:03 PM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsawduste View Post
Thanks for your input. Been off the gird for a few days on a wheeling trip.


Several; new builds joined this time. All with link suspension and no two the same design/setup. It was very interesting watching how the vehicles reacted to various obstacles. And than how the owners reacted to the performance.


One of the guys set up a short but varied obstacle course of sorts. We ran through it while he did video.


By far the worst was a JK running an EVO coilover kit with Kings. Typical SD/14 bolt on 40`s with a stock WB. The vehicle simply didn't react very well. The squat was way off and the ultra wide mounting of the front links to the axle created a lot of apparent binding. The F/R balance was way off for the tire size and WB.


An LJ with a RK system......at least it had an RK sticker........looked pretty good but a sheared rear track bar mount ended that guy early. He didn't want to get it welded up...He left early...... ??


Waternut, as archaic as the leave system is. In the group we ran this weekend it simply worked better on the whoops and ledges, rocks etc. Flex wasn't an issue. No unexpected unloading or wheel hop in the sand. The setup simply cycled up and down in a controllable manner and kept the Jeep planted.


I'm very envious of the undertaking your doing. From reading here and several other sites your a member of you have a good grasp of the dynamics and will be able to make the system work well. Not many can say that. It really makes sense when you consider the cost of custom leaves and shock tuning.


Was lucky that the folks at Deaver had done the homework and was able to supply a package that worked pretty well straight away. Watching the video`s was reveling.
A lot of good insight right there... I had 2 friends come over today who are looking at linking their rigs and wanted to get an idea of what was involved. I'll be impressed if either of them open the calculator and even more impressed if either actually asks a question on what something means.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
 
post #19 of 60 Old 09-28-2020, 06:46 PM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Well I think I'm done until Thursday or Friday when I get the link material in. I'm not seeing any problems with clearance but tough to cycle the axle when I only have 1 upper and 1 lower link (all the spare material I had). The rear mounts for the upper and lower links look close but it will take about 8" of up travel for the lower link to the hit mount for the upper and I'm only planning for 4-5" of up travel.

It's kind of funny that I've extended some mounts and cut others down. I may still cut the upper link mounts down on the axle if I need more clearance but we'll see. Everything is still just tacked in place if there is some kind of clearance issue.
Attached Thumbnails
PXL_20200928_184434613.jpg   PXL_20200928_192557025.jpg   PXL_20200928_192543523.jpg   PXL_20200928_232000669.jpg  


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #20 of 60 Old 09-28-2020, 10:26 PM
bobracing
Member
1992 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kennewick
Posts: 477
Since you have a couple of days.
How did you choose the coilovers?
How about the valving? From what I’ve found 50/70 is what the standard is for those parts.
Believe these are the same on the back, felt any need for different valving? Being emulsion shocks, ever feel any fade? I know you’re not desert racing but trail riding can work the shock fairly well.

92 YJ
https://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/open-mouth-insert-jeep-2878945/
bobracing is offline  
post #21 of 60 Old 09-29-2020, 07:27 AM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobracing View Post
Since you have a couple of days.
How did you choose the coilovers?
How about the valving? From what Iíve found 50/70 is what the standard is for those parts.
Believe these are the same on the back, felt any need for different valving? Being emulsion shocks, ever feel any fade? I know youíre not desert racing but trail riding can work the shock fairly well.
Most of my efforts on shocks selection was done last year when I did the rear 4 link. I looked at air shocks pretty hard but ultimately decided against them over fear of fade on the road. I chose Fox coilovers for price, quality, reputation, and availability. King shocks are just too expensive in my eyes at $550 for a 14" emulsion shock. Radflo seems to be good and inexpensive but I don't know a whole lot about them or even where to get replacement parts if needed. Big Air shocks are inexpensive but hard to find any meaningful information on them. FOA are inexpensive and have both a lot of good and a lot of bad reviews. However, when you comparatively price an FOA shock by adding the 7/8" chrome shaft with dual spring hardware and bump pad, the price is $278 which is basically the same as what I paid for the Fox shocks. Granted Fox's 14" emulsion shock has a standard price of $350 but because they're so common, you can regularly find sales/deals on them even on Amazon.

As for valving, the standard 50/70 valving is WAY WAY too stiff. When I first took the Jeep out with rear coilovers and standard valving, it felt stiffer in bumps than the leaf springs I was replacing but felt more like driving a waterbed around turns. Here is the standard Fox valving chart and the site where I've bought all of my shims and parts. https://www.kartek.com/mm5/graphics/...shim-chart.pdf I tried several different things including a lighter valved flutter stack and wasn't happy. After several iterations, I found what worked well for me. I ended up drilling an extra 1/16" bleeder hole, dropped from a 7w oil to 5w oil, went to a #30 on rebound, and went to a #20 on compression (it's not on the list but follow the trend and the two biggest diameter shims are 0.006"). Technically, you can order your shocks from Fox with whatever valving you want. Instead of the Fox 980-02-011 for the standard 14" emulsion shocks, you'd order the 980-02-011-1 but I'm not positive how you'd specify the valving you want and AJ USA showed 4-6 week lead time on custom order shocks.

I haven't run the emulsion shocks yet. My rear shocks are reservoir shocks and after sifting through fact and internet rumors about what reservoirs do, I felt like buying reservoir shocks again for the front was a waste of money and would just create more of a headache to package them. From what I can conclude, the reservoirs have more oil which does help slightly with cooling but that's not it's purpose despite what people believe. The reservoir is there to allow fluid and nitrogen to be separated giving a much more consistent shock damping. How much more consistent? No clue... Since the emulsion shock has nitrogen mixed with the fluid, it does tend to create cavitation/bubbles making it less effective over time but it seems like this may be something that is only noticeable for people who are bombing through the whoops in the desert. I originally bought the reservoir shocks to aid in tuning. However, when I contacted Fox, they said 200psi in the shock no matter what. It could still be a tuning thing and people just don't listen to the shock manufacturer but I haven't gone down that road yet. Just seems like lowering pressure in the shock is reducing the forces on the piston which could be done in other ways without risking coil cavitation.
bobracing likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #22 of 60 Old 09-30-2020, 08:56 AM
daddyjeep87
Registered User
 
daddyjeep87's Avatar
1987 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Smethport
Posts: 2,047
Garage
Looking good. I can't wait until I get to redesign my front suspension. I have found the limitations of my radius arms and need to build a proper linked suspension.

87 YJ, 5.7/TH350/NP241/HP Dana44/9", Custom 4 link/ Radius Arms, ADS Nitrogen Shocks, 35" Cooper STT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
daddyjeep87 is offline  
post #23 of 60 Old 09-30-2020, 10:27 AM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
I'm bored at work and can't really work on the Jeep at home so thought I'd put together some things that aren't very well documented and might help others in the future. Might also explain why I'm doing/using what I am.

Material of tube
DOM - The universal material for everything aftermarket in the offroad world is DOM. I don't really know why but I suspect this has been the go to material because it's easy to work with, easy to weld, and can be used in a variety of applications so it's easier for fab shops to stock multiple sticks of a few different DOM tube sizes and call it good for everything. DOM tube is generally 1020 or 1026 steel and has a strength of 70ksi. Pricing of 2 - 30" pieces of 2x.25" DOM is about $90 while pricing of 2 - 30" pieces of 1.5x.25" DOM is $78 totaling $168. These 4 pieces together weigh 40 lbs.

Square tube - Standard structural square tube has a strength of 58ksi which is roughly 21% weaker than DOM. However, square tubing 2x2x.25" has 27% more area than round tube so the extra metal makes up for the loss the strength. The price of square tube is much cheaper than DOM with 4 - 30" pieces costing only $73 total and weighing 54 lbs. This is a nice budget material that offers a lot of advantages and if used exclusively instead of two different sized pieces of DOM only weighs about 14 lbs more (call it 30 lbs if you 4 link front and rear).

Aluminum - 7075-T6 seems to be what the hardcore offroaders use as the Grand Poobah of link materials but honestly I can't find any hard evidence as to why. It has a strength of 81ksi or 15% stronger than DOM and 40% stronger than square tube when considering only tension and no one breaks a link suspension by pulling the link material in half. Aluminum is roughly 1/3 of the stiffness of steel. Some claim they can bend more and will return to straight but if you do manage to bend it past it's yield, you cannot bend it back. In my opinion, I don't want anything to bend! 7075-T6 links come in solid bars instead of tube so you are getting a lot more material but your weak link is still bending and the fact that you are threading your super strong heim joint into an inferior metal. Don't forget that aluminum and steel have galvanic corrosion issues. These links aren't cheap at about $125 per 30" piece and have a total weight of 38lbs (only 2 lbs lighter than DOM). Ultimately, I think it's a cool concept but honestly I don't get it.

Pipe - Schedule 40 or 80 pipe should not be used mainly because of the way the governing spec is written. Where as DOM or other tubes are governed by strength, pipe is primarily governed by dimensions and weight so strength can be grossly compromised if made using poor practices.

Square tube vs round
I touched on the strength of DOM vs square tube above but us rock crawlers generally bend links or break heims/bolts/mounts rather than rip a link in half so tensile strength of the material isn't very informative. Stiffness is more important to us unless you're an aluminum link guy and want your stuff to bend and spring back for some reason. Since I personally don't want to bend a link, I believe square tube is the way to go. Square is geometrically superior in bending. Round is superior when considering internal pressures which we don't see. Square tube is 75% stronger in bending than round so you could technically use 1.5x1.5x.25 square tube and have nearly the same bending resistance as 2x.25" round DOM and it'd be the same weight as the DOM combo. Good luck finding a tube insert for that size square tube but that's the math...

There are a few downsides to square tube though. First, you may have to grind the weld seam out of the inside to fit your tube insert. Takes me about 1-2 minutes so not a huge deal to me. Some believe square tube is ugly. I personally think it looks better but to each their own. It is slightly heavier but if 15 lbs is a deal breaker for you, I suspect you're into more serious racing and Chromoly is your choice. Last, if your jam nuts on the heims aren't welded or tightened extremely well, there is a possibility that a rock can twist your link causing some axle shift. After fighting my jam nuts for several months, I set everything and just tacked the jam nuts in place and nothing has moved.

Heim size
One of the last topics of design that I think is worthwhile is heim size. Everyone says that 1.25" heims belong on the lower links with 3/4" or 1" heims on top. This seems to be the universal advice regardless of whether you're running a 4000lb 4 cyl Jeep on 35's or a 6000lb big block buggy on 44's. This had me questioning the validity of this advice. First and foremost... The bigger the heim, the more expensive it is but if you break a heim, I assure you that whatever else you break after breaking the heim will cost more than the difference in buying the bigger heim. So there is some validity to just buying the bigger joint.... or is there?

A quality heim typically gives you an ultimate strength rating. For Barnes4wd heims, a 1.25" and a 1" heim have a strength of 76,200lbs, a 7/8"-7/8" heim is 45,000lbs, a 7/8-3/4" heim is 55,692lbs, and a 3/4"-3/4" heim is 28,081lbs. So yeah more is better all the way up until you put a 9/16" or 5/8" grade 8 bolt through it. Since all of our link mounts are double shear a 9/16" grade 8 bolt in good condition will break at a minimum of 50,000lbs and a 5/8" bolt will break at a minimum of 56,000lbs and both of those are assuming the shank goes all the way through everything which it usually doesn't without several washers under the nut. So really... if you truly believe a 1.25" heim is necessary, you need to be using a 3/4" bolt through it. Meanwhile, no bracket on Barnes's site is drilled past 9/16" and some brackets on Ruff Stuff's site have an option for a 5/8" bolt. So the bolt is almost always the weak link with a few exceptions and these exceptions may be why the "bigger is better" mentality is in place. If you size your links improperly and don't have enough heim shank in the tube, a bigger heim diameter will help fix your error. If you don't tack the jam nuts and let the heim wiggle around in the tube, a bigger heim will help fix that error also. Lastly, a joint that isn't loaded as high is probably less likely to wear out faster over time. Who knows how much or if that's even true but it seems logical.

At the end of the day, the 4 link calculator says my lower link load reaches 39,000lbs. Kind of high because of my low link separation at the axle but still lower than anything I'll be using. I chose 7/8-3/4" heims for all of my links with 9/16" bolts. I tried to figure out how the 4 link calculators numbers were created and everything seemed a bit confusing but my big take away was it's suspension geometry combined with your vehicle weight times 6G's (forces of gravity). A top fuel dragster hits 6-8G's on launch so I feel like the only way for us to hit that is a big bounce on the rev limiter followed by both tires having a ton a traction on the landing.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #24 of 60 Old 09-30-2020, 12:07 PM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddyjeep87 View Post
Looking good. I can't wait until I get to redesign my front suspension. I have found the limitations of my radius arms and need to build a proper linked suspension.
Do you have the cast in wedges on your D44 or can they be cut off? I feel like that would be the biggest hiccup between what you have and what I'm doing.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #25 of 60 Old 09-30-2020, 12:50 PM
daddyjeep87
Registered User
 
daddyjeep87's Avatar
1987 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Smethport
Posts: 2,047
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waternut View Post
Do you have the cast in wedges on your D44 or can they be cut off? I feel like that would be the biggest hiccup between what you have and what I'm doing.
My 44 has the cast wedges, My 60 on the other hand... lol. I will be reworking the front suspension when I swap in my 03 Superduty Dana 60.

87 YJ, 5.7/TH350/NP241/HP Dana44/9", Custom 4 link/ Radius Arms, ADS Nitrogen Shocks, 35" Cooper STT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
daddyjeep87 is offline  
post #26 of 60 Old 10-01-2020, 06:09 AM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Well it wasn't a perfect solution but was able to confirm that there weren't any clearance issues yesterday. These pictures were with 5.5" of up travel which I don't think I have with the full hydro unit but at least it proves I'll be ok and don't really need to cut down the upper link mounts...yet. I actually think the low pinion front axle is saving me a little in this case by giving extra clearance. Maybe a HP would work but hard to say how much higher the HP would put the driveshaft. It's looking like the shocks may fit under the fender but I think I'm going to have to cut the fender anyway since there probably isn't enough room for the hoop and the shock at full bump.

I had another thought while this was going on not related to the 4 link... Been debating whether to cut the grill slightly behind the winch to gain some clearance for the full hydro hoses. I don't think anyone would see it but seems a little sacrilegious.
Attached Thumbnails
PXL_20200930_220853891.jpg   PXL_20200930_220833622.jpg   PXL_20200930_220736396.jpg   PXL_20200930_224724406.jpg  


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #27 of 60 Old 10-01-2020, 01:31 PM
bobracing
Member
1992 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kennewick
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waternut View Post
Anti-dive is 107. The calculator is meant for a rear suspension so a lot of things are reversed. My understanding is that 107 anti-dive raises the front slightly under braking but is basically a 93 in anti-squat when under acceleration in 4wd. The other thing that I think people forget is that the loads on the links will be reversed so compression is on the upper links and tension on the lowers. Therefore, you may not want to go too skimpy on the upper links in the front or they might buckle.
This has been very bad on my brain. All the calculations are the same on conversion lines of instant center per the bar placement. So why does it matter which way the tires are turning?

92 YJ
https://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/open-mouth-insert-jeep-2878945/
bobracing is offline  
post #28 of 60 Old 10-01-2020, 01:47 PM
daddyjeep87
Registered User
 
daddyjeep87's Avatar
1987 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Smethport
Posts: 2,047
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobracing View Post
This has been very bad on my brain. All the calculations are the same on conversion lines of instant center per the bar placement. So why does it matter which way the tires are turning?
The direction of the links versus the direction of the forces would change it from antisquat to antidive. The geometry is the same, but the force applies is reversed. It would be like backing up. All of the forces are reversed.

87 YJ, 5.7/TH350/NP241/HP Dana44/9", Custom 4 link/ Radius Arms, ADS Nitrogen Shocks, 35" Cooper STT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
daddyjeep87 is offline  
post #29 of 60 Old 10-01-2020, 01:55 PM Thread Starter
Waternut
Web Wheeler
 
Waternut's Avatar
1988 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Macon
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobracing View Post
This has been very bad on my brain. All the calculations are the same on conversion lines of instant center per the bar placement. So why does it matter which way the tires are turning?
Yep daddyjeep87 is right. I'll try to say it another way.

Might be tough to to explain in words but I'll try. The tires are spinning the same direction but the forces and links are on the opposite side of the axles. We all know as you hit the gas, the rear axle pinion wants to go up which is why leaf spring people need anti-wrap bars. This is because the torque of the wheels is the opposite of the torque on the axle tube. If you look at the backside of the rear axle as the pinion in front goes up, the back of the diff goes down. So transfer that same principle to the front axle and as you give the vehicle gas in 4wd, the front pinion goes down. So when you hit the gas in a rear 4 link setup, the top tubes are being pulled in tension but if you hit the gas in a front 4 link system, the top tubes are being pushed in compression.

In fairness a lot of this stuff is tough to comprehend because no stock vehicles are set up like this.

The one that's really tough to comprehend is body roll. The further below the vehicle CG that the roll center height is, the more body roll you'll have. This is normal and what we're used to but if the roll center height is above the vehicle CG, technically the body will roll into the corner which sounds like a good thing in a race car but it would be super awkward and handle weird.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Waternut is online now  
post #30 of 60 Old 10-01-2020, 04:22 PM
bobracing
Member
1992 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kennewick
Posts: 477
I do understand what is being said, opposite force should reverse the numbers.

But why does it matter which direction the axle is trying to twist? The bars are pushing energy, compression or tension, to the instant center, does it matter how it got there? The instant center gives "squat" by being below or above the 100% line by geometry.

I just can't find anything that says anti-dive calculations are different from anti-squat.
Being a little simplistic, wouldn't the link calculator program have a front/rear configuration if they were?

92 YJ
https://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f22/open-mouth-insert-jeep-2878945/
bobracing is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome