Agreed. OP is talking about installing a parallel 4 bar in his car. He was told that the triangulated four bar is too complex for a novice to install.

He wrote and I quote:
"Scott with AME said the triangulated would be a tough install for a first timer. And after I read all the Ron Sutton stuff the parallel sounds like the way to go."

Don

Not sure -- since I didn't go back to research -- who told him that (too difficult for a novice to install)... but that's really arbitrary. There are novices that shouldn't do ANYTHING and there are guys with pretty good brains and decent skills that can do a good job at most everything they touch.


I think ol' Jarhead is up to the task.


There's plenty of folks around here that would be happy to guide him if he needs it.

AME told him that. I have no reason to doubt that he is up to the task. I was more surprised that parallel 4 bar suspensions (aside from the Quadralink) are being recommended on this forum.

Don

Agree Don -- Parallel 4 bar is the worst suspension if a guy wants to go around a corner. This is the style I built for Rudy's pro-street Camaro. That's what he wanted. It's almost impossible to ROLL the rear suspension since the suspension just wants to go up and down in a PARALLEL motion from side to side. This stye suspension is great for big fat tires and straight lines. And it really should be called a 5 BAR -- because you need a PANHARD BAR (the 5th bar) in order to keep the rear end stable from side to side. Whereas the triangulation of a triangulated 4 bar doesn't need the Panhard bar for location.


I certainly don't see ANY reason at all for the "harder to install" comment. ZERO - NADA - ZIP.... if a guy can measure - cut - weld - understands SQUARE - PARALLEL - LEVEL etc -- They should be fine.

I agree completely Greg. We used all the individual components of the AME triangulated 4-Link in the chassis I built for the truck. Some strings, level, square, Plumb Lines etc. No problem.