Lateral-g Forums - Ron Sutton Offset 3-Link install

Lateral-g Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/index.php)

- Chassis and Suspension (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=38)

- - Ron Sutton Offset 3-Link install (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48576)

You don't have to add more tire just getting rid of unecassary fluff and making room for the unknowns. Exhaust, fuel system and I know it's always nice to have the just in case space.

Just saying it's easy to do now and why not push that tub out to the new frame rail.

Don't worry, these guys know what they are doing and should have it buttoned up sooner than you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince@MSperfab (Post 591745)

Don't worry, these guys know what they are doing and should have it buttoned up sooner than you think.

You know he's not happy unless his hair is on fire.

Looks good. Was there a reason you didn't fully remove the old "frame rails", and push the new ones out the the edge of the wheel tubs? It looks like the rail bends would have fit nicely with the floor if they were a few inches out. For Ron S., what sort of effect would having the top bar offset on the rearend, but angled toward the center of the car have on handling? Weird roll steer? I'm trying to think of packaging in a 2nd gen Camaro, with a rear seat, maybe split bottoms like a 4th gen Camaro uses.

IMO that 2x4 cross member under the drive shaft is going to hit the ground it will also limit your droop on the rear end. it is so far ahead of the wheel and 4" below the rocker. just saying

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveN69 (Post 591992)

Hi Steve, I'll answer both of these ...

We made the frame rail placement decisions based on performance, not looks. In the end, when Mike Tolle does the sheet metal work, it will look sweet. But the frame rail location is optimum for the 3-link & shock mounts.

I'd better clarify three things ...
1. The shocks are more responsive (more grip) the farther out we place them. The ultimate location for the lower rear shock mounts is inside the rear wheel. I've done that many times, but you have to run a separate shock mount from the trailing arm mount.

2. The lighter the rear end assembly ... specifically out at the ends near the wheels ... the more responsive (more grip) the rear suspension is. For optimum grip, we want to pay attention to weight out at the wheel, including of course, the tire & wheel, brake system & any extra mounts.

3. When we mount the shock on the back of the trailing arm mounts ... and place the shock, trailing arm mounts & trailing arms ... outside the frame rails & next to the tire ... we can get dang close to ideal shock placement ... without having to weld a separate shock mount on the rear end. I have found this to be the optimum set-up.

Some simple math for sake of conversation ... if we put ...
A. 1" of clearance from tire to frame
B. 2" frame rail
C. 1" of clearance from frame to trailing arm
D. 3/4" to the center of the lower shock mount
... we have the lower shock mounted 4.75" away from the tire.

For Ron Myer's Camaro that would have put the:
* Frame width at 38"
* Shock Mounting width at 30.5"

On the other hand ... if we put ...
A. 1" of clearance from tire to trailing arm
B. 1/2" to the center of the lower shock mount
C. 1.75" of center of the shock mount/TA to frame
D. 2" frame rail
... we have the lower shock mounted 1.5" away from the tire.

For Ron Myer's Camaro that puts the:
* Frame width at 33.5"
* Shock Mounting width at 37"

Summary:
Whether the frame rails are 33.5" or 38" wide ... will have basically no effect on the handling of the car. But the lower shock mounts being 37" wide or 30.5" is a very big deal with a significant handling & grip gain to the wider option. So in other words, shock mounting width trumps frame width for performance.

-----------------------------

Your question: What sort of effect would having the top bar offset on the rearend, but angled toward the center of the car have on handling? Weird roll steer?

Not roll steer, but definitely torque steer. Which way you offset the top link ... with it angled back to the chassis centerline ... would determine which rear tire is loaded more, causing the car to drive harder off of one tire. Not suggested.

:cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake Foster (Post 592099)

IMO that 2x4 cross member under the drive shaft is going to hit the ground it will also limit your droop on the rear end. it is so far ahead of the wheel and 4" below the rocker. just saying

Good eye Blake. With the car at ride height the crossmember "as it sits" would only have 2" of ground clearance. But Mike Tolle already planned to "trim" it down & re-box it.

:cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveN69 (Post 591992)

P.S. The old frame rails are fully removed ... now ... just not in the earlier photos.

Ron S. , Thanks so much for the informative reply. I realize this car is being built for serious track oriented use, and now I'm aware of how important shock/spring placement on the rearend is.
I really enjoy reading your forum posts, they are incredibly detailed, yet easily understandable for us non engineer types ( sometimes I do read them over 2 or 3 times though) Thanks for taking the time and sharing your wealth of knowledge, it's really appreciated.
Looking forward to the rest of this build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake Foster (Post 592099)

IMO that 2x4 cross member under the drive shaft is going to hit the ground it will also limit your droop on the rear end. it is so far ahead of the wheel and 4" below the rocker. just saying

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Sutton (Post 592122)

Good eye Blake. With the car at ride height the crossmember "as it sits" would only have 2" of ground clearance. But Mike Tolle already planned to "trim" it down & re-box it.

:cheers:

Agreed and thanks for chiming in Blake. I've not yet seen the crossmember mod; Ron is measuring and building ground clearance at each fab step. Latest pics and a good example of ground clearance, Ron and Mike set up the subfr to connect and align with the work going on in the rear.

Trimmed down. I think Dave and Payton have run into this as well:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...pswko7ldlt.jpg

Which also had to trim the core support bushing:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8tnnhb7z.jpg

And then we connected the sub with bolts and crush sleeves:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps4i5zeb3l.jpg

There's more progress, but I'm on the road and will speak with Mike by Friday.

:cheers:

Hot sauce awesomeness!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregWeld (Post 594576)

Hot sauce awesomeness!!!!

Thanks G-Dub. Aren't you supposed to be lounging somewhere right about now? :D

Gaetano, Jerr Dog... notice the open trunk floor??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal (Post 594580)

Thanks G-Dub. Aren't you supposed to be lounging somewhere right about now? :D

Gaetano, Jerr Dog... notice the open trunk floor??

Just woke up from my nap!!

Aloha from the Four Seasons in Wailea.

Loving it Ron!! Keep plugging buddy!! :thumbsup:

Yep that looks OK Ron's ( both good and bad Ron ) :D :D

This set up is looking killer. Who's floater rear end are you running?

I think you missed a few camera angles.... can we get moar?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash68 (Post 594618)

I think you missed a few camera angles.... can we get moar?

I got the new MOAR F1-20 MOA reticle in my NightForce B.E.A.S.T. scope.

I may use it to inspect the tolerances of the various suspension pieces in this over the top garage queen.

Answers to FAQ

1. The square tubing struts are simply for mock up purposes to simulate where the shock goes & hold the rear end at height.

2. The sub frame rails Ron Myers found from a company that makes a lot of frames rails … didn’t fit perfectly. With the front of rails against the floor & the back of the rails against the floor … there was a ¾” gap between the frame rails & the floor in the middle. Of the various installation options, the lowest priority was the middle. So there is a gap there.

3. The Watt’s Link bellcrank & links are just mock up pieces. The final bellcrank will look similar but be longer & use ½” bolts on the outer two rod ends & will be either the shiny aluminum you see of anodized bright black … Ron Myer’s choice.

4. The links will be powder coated black, but with one will have curves, not straight like the mock ups. The lower right link actually curves to form a slight S stepping forward … so there will be only a small ¼” spacer between the rod end & shock. Not the 3 big spacers shown in mock up.

5. The rod ends are heat treated chromoly wide body design. The ball rides on an injection molded nylafiber liner that is self lubricating & keeps the dust out. These are the best low maintenance rod ends & they do have about a pound of stiction. For pro race teams that clean & lube the rod ends after each event, we run a similar rod end without the nylafiber liner for zero stiction, but more maintenance.

6. I see a lot of Watt’s links where the bellcrank bolt attaches to a plate with holes. There are two major negatives to that strategy. One … if you have to jack the car up … unbolt the bellcrank … move it to a different hole … and rebolt it in … that takes time & work … and you are less likely to do that at the track as a common tuning tool. Second … by the nature of holes in a plate … the adjustments are somewhat coarse. Typically the holes are 3/4” to 1-1/2” apart. That is a big change. That would be ok if the car was out to lunch. But if the car is pretty good handling & we’re tuning for track changes … most times we need anywhere from a 1/8” change to 3/8”. Raising or lowering the roll center ½” is a bigger change than many guys might think.

7. Adjusting the rear roll center is … one of the best tools to balance the handling of a car for changing track conditions. It is … or at least should be … one the easiest tuning changes to make too. But only if the adjusters have been well thought out.

8. The adjuster for the bellcrank in my Track-Star Watt’s Links like Ron Myer’s here … provide a full 6” of quick & easy adjustment. The second photo from the top shows a bottom view shot … where you can see a hole in the billet steel framework & a threaded hole in the bellcrank center bolt. That allows us to utilize a non-loaded threaded rod in the assembly … with an aluminum cone on top or bottom for easy adjustment.

7. When we mount the adjuster cone on the bottom … the Tuner slides in under the car with a ½” ratchet (no socket) and adjusts the rear roll center in any amount desired just by turning the cone with the ratchet. The threaded rod is 14 threads per inch … so each full turn is a smidge over 1/8” of an inch. You can see it allows pretty fine adjustments if desired.

8. When we mount the adjuster cone on the top … an aluminum rod attaches to that cone … goes up thru the tube in the crossmember … and protrudes a few inches up into the trunk area in front of the fuel cell … with an adjuster cone on it. This way the Tuner simply opens the trunk … reaches in & turns the adjuster cone with a ½” ratchet … without crawling under the car.

9. I typically plan the rear roll center adjustment range from 6” above ground to 12” above ground. This way you can optimize the rear roll center for whatever suspension strategy you choose & any type of track.

10. Frame mounted bellcrank versus housing mounted bellcranks? Housing mounted bellcranks keep the roll center basically the same at all times because the center of the housing only lifts or squats a minimal amount as the tires compress or stretch. The lay person may think that’s desirable but it’s not. Frame mounted bellcranks move the roll center with the chassis. So if you have chassis lift in the rear on corner entry the roll center goes up with it … minimizing the roll angle. On corner exit, as the driver lays power on the car squats in the rear to some degree … the roll center lowers with the chassis, providing more rear grip & forward bite for optimum corner exit acceleration.

11. Weight is our enemy, so I design all of my stuff to be as light as it can be & still as strong as it needs to be. Plus I work to multi-purpose things as much as possible … to reduce duplication of items & unnecessary weight.

12. For example the upper Watt’s link crossmember serves as the shock crossmember also. Why run two crossmembers only a few inches apart? That is unnecessary weight. Of course it took me some work to make the packaging all fit well. But there are no wasted tubes, no duplication of mounts or crossmembers & no unnecessary weight.

13. Another example is the Watt’s link housing mounts. I see a lot of heavy, bulky mounts that clamp on. Just adding weight to the rear end. Most have to add two mounts to the housing. My design here dual purposes the right rear shock mount. This not only saves the weight of the bracket & bracing, but bolt hardware too. All of this weight is “unsprung weight”. The lighter we can make the rear end housing … especially out at the ends … the quicker the suspension can respond to irregularities on the track. Lighter unsprung weight in the suspension = more grip.

14. A common question is about the additional load that shock bolt sees with the lower right Watt’s link attached to it. Anyone that knows me very well, knows how safety conscious I am, so you know I did the math. I have a bolt load stress calculation spread sheet I use.

For those that care … calc’s ran as:
* 4000 # Car
* 50% rear weight (2000#)
* 1.5 G load
* 3000# force

No, Ron’s car won’t be that heavy … LOL. I like to do my calcs with more load on stuff than it will actually see. Like a safety factor inside the safety factor.

The bellcrank bolt sees half of the total force going through the Watt’s link.
* 1500# force on ¾” Grade 8 bellcrank bolt @ 1.156” = .0017” deflection (17/10,000)

The four bolts & rod ends each all split the other half of the load four ways, for 375# of force.
For weight savings, I utilize lightweight, tubular chromoly bolts on most mounts that are in double shear. For single shear suspension items, I use special 170,000 PSI 12-point bolts.

The combo shock & Watt’s link bolt sees loads from both the coil over shock & the Watt’s link.
* 1600# force on ½” 160k PSI link bolt @ 0.3125” = .0002” deflection (2/10,000)
* 375# force on ½” 160k PSI link bolt @ 1.1875” = .0022” deflection (22/10,000)
* The forces are from different vectors so the deflection doesn’t really total .0024” … but it doesn’t matter anyway, as anything this small is negligible.

P.S. Shear strength ratings of the hardware is:
* ¾” Grade 8 bellcrank bolt = 39,762#
* ½” 170,000 PSI 12-point bolts = 20,023#
* Chromoly Rod Ends 5/8” shank & ½” hole = 31,390#

15. One advantage a panhard bar has, is it allows us to get the fuel tank closer to the rear end. But I work to get all I can, so this Watt’s link design is pretty compact, allowing us to place the fuel cell only 9.5” from the rear axle CL.

16. As mentioned earlier … by placing the frame rails narrower … we’re able to get the 3-Link trailing arms out wider … get the shock mounts out wider … and get the Watt’s link mounts out wider. All of this reduces the angle changes & geometry changes during suspension movement.

17. Getting the shocks out wider is a bigger deal than most people know about. The motion ratio affects the springs … but it’s no big deal to run softer springs for wider placed shocks & stiffer springs for narrower placed shocks. But the shock is more responsive … and has better control … the wider we place them.

18. In other words, we can partially make up for lower motion ratios of narrow spring mounting by simply increasing the spring rate. There are side effects though. The side view motion ratio doesn’t change … so a stiffer spring is truly stiffer as far as the side view motion ratio is concerned … and this affects the basic up & down motion for bumps, as well as affecting grip under acceleration. So we always want the springs out as far as we can get them to help with grip.

19. All shocks have delay in them. Gas monotube shocks have less delay than twin tube shocks, but again … all shocks have delay in them. The closer you mount the rear shocks to the chassis centerline … away from the rear tires … the greater the delay. Meaning … the longer time it takes for the shock to respond … which equals less control. The farther out we place the shocks from the chassis centerline … closer to the rear tires … the smaller the delay. Meaning … the shorter time it takes for the shock to respond … which equals more control. Control is grip.

--------------------------------

20. In future photos you’ll see:
* Curved Watt’s Links
* Smaller Rod Ends & Bolts
* Watt’s Adjuster Rod & Cone in place
* Rear 3-piece Sway Bar installation

:cheers:

Oh that looks sweet!

That sucking sound is money flying out of your bank account. You know I know that sound as well.

Looking good Ron squared...kind of like Duran Duran.

Ron M.. It's looking great!

Ron S..:confused59: I had to read that a couple times to follow what you are doing. Thanks for putting it out there for our benefit:thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal (Post 594580)

Gaetano, Jerr Dog... notice the open trunk floor??

:thumbsup:

If there isn't a progress report WEEKLY -- then you're either out of money and owe the shop --- or you're in the wrong shop....

So...... Where's the updates, because I know neither of the above fits your situation!

Thanks Guys for all the comments!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregWeld (Post 595738)

I should just let my PR rep (aka Skippah) reply, but...I travel almost as much as Rob. :D

Pics coming! :cheers:

We've already got cage pics ... but we're pacing ourselves. :hello:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal (Post 595747)

Thanks Guys for all the comments!

I should just let my PR rep (aka Skippah) reply, but...I travel almost as much as Rob. :D

Pics coming! :cheers:

Ron,

I brought some help...what could go wrong?

lol

Great thread and great looking 3-link design. I'm glad i stumbled on it, ive being trying to deside on a rear suspension for my truck for about a year and a half. And i think this would give me both street/autocross performance without cutting or welding on the truck. Very inspirational and thanks for posting.

Oh and PS Mr. Ron Sutton for President!!!!!

Not sure if it's been mentioned but what size heim joints are used on the 3-link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by XTRMEASURES (Post 597699)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but what size heim joints are used on the 3-link?

The 3-link rod end sizes are 3/4" x 3/4" and 3/4" x 5/8". Mild steel economy 2-piece rod ends would probably be OK but I can't bring myself to use them. There are 3 versions of chromoly rod ends. I use them all for different applications:
#1. Black lower cost versions that are the same size & shape as economy mild steel rod ends. Great value & extra piece of mind for a small price. These run no liner & need to be cleaned & lubed often. Zero stiction.

#2. Wide body 3-piece precision rod ends are the most expensive. The 3rd piece is a precision race that is pressed into the body. These run no liner & need to be cleaned & lubed often. Zero stiction.

#3. Wide body 3-piece precision rod ends with a Nylafiber race liner. The Nylafiber race liner is injected into the body. These are self-lubricated & self wiping, so they keep a high degree of grit off the wear surface of the ball. They don't require cleaning & lubrication often. About 1 pound of stiction.

Here are the radial load ratings & costs for comparison:
3/4" x 3/4" Economy Mild Steel: 18,810# (Cost $12)
3/4" x 3/4" Economy Chromoly: 25,000# (Cost $17)
3/4" x 3/4" Wide Precision Chromoly: 28,081# (Cost $33)
3/4" x 3/4" Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly: 28,081# (Cost $26)

3/4" x 5/8" Economy Mild Steel: 19,350# (Cost $12)
3/4" x 5/8" Economy Chromoly: 27,000# (Cost $17)
3/4" x 5/8" Wide Precision Chromoly: 40,572# (Cost $33)
3/4" x 5/8" Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly: 40,572# (Cost $26)

For low budget applications, I use & recommend the black economy Chromoly rod ends. The price is so close to mild steel & the strength is a big increase.

Both wide body Chromoly rod ends have the same shape, dimensions, materials & load ratings as each other. The body is almost twice as wide as the economy rod ends. I use these in all my race cars, Track-Star & AutoX-Star suspension kits. If it is going to be for an all out professional race car team that has the manpower to fully clean & service the car after each event, I use the Wide Precision Chromoly rod ends with no liner for zero stiction. For regular racers ... and ProTouring cars ... I use the Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly rod ends. They self clean & lubricate, last the longest and only add about 1# of stiction.

Special Note:
The Watt's link Bellcrank & links in the previous photos were just for mock up. This Track-Star Watt's link uses the right rear lower shock mount for the lower right Watt's link mount to reduce weight out at the end of the housing (which affects grip). The lower right Watt's link will have a S-bend step in it. The Watt's link Bellcrank will be 7.5" instead of the 5" version in the mock up photos & use 1/2" rod ends, not 3/4". It will be black anodized, as will the sway bar arms.

The Watt's link rod ends used are:
1/2" x 1/2" Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly: 16,238# (Cost $16)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Sutton (Post 597717)

Here are the radial load ratings & costs for comparison:
3/4" x 3/4" Economy Mild Steel: 18,810# (Cost $12)
3/4" x 3/4" Economy Chromoly: 25,000# (Cost $17)
3/4" x 3/4" Wide Precision Chromoly: 28,081# (Cost $33)
3/4" x 3/4" Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly: 28,081# (Cost $26)

3/4" x 5/8" Economy Mild Steel: 19,350# (Cost $12)
3/4" x 5/8" Economy Chromoly: 27,000# (Cost $17)
3/4" x 5/8" Wide Precision Chromoly: 40,572# (Cost $33)
3/4" x 5/8" Wide Nylafiber Liner Chromoly: 40,572# (Cost $26)

Ron,

Can you explain why the larger ends have a smaller load rating? And are the costs between the 2 sizes actually the same? Interesting...

I replaced all of the ones in the rear of my car last summer with a set of QA1 ends. I cannot remember the exact 'family' of parts I used at the moment, but I did get the ones with the liners. XM series perhaps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by carbuff (Post 597722)

The 3/4" × 5/8" rod ends have the same shank & body size as the 3/4" × 3/4" rod ends. Just the bolt hole & ball are smaller. So the 3/4" × 5/8" body has more material ... making it stronger.

:thumbsup:

Hello, I'm wondering are the bottom coil over shock mount also being used for Watts Linkage mount on passenger side? Is all this loading on the bolt being mounted in single shear?

Quote:

Originally Posted by XTRMEASURES (Post 597086)

Just an FYI ...
My Track-Star line of suspensions are far from "bolt-in". They require professional level fabrication & welding. Just saying this so there is no confusion.

For my clients that want to bolt in a higher level of technology & performance, I typically go one of two routes:
1. We work out their existing geometry, then I work up a harmonious suspension package of individual components from companies I like their stuff like Ridetech, Speedtech, Maier, JRi, etc. Together, we improve their suspension & steering geometry ... and put a more modern suspension package under the car. Almost always I've mapped out the correct sway bar & spring rates for a neutral, balanced handling vehicle. Plus we make the car run flatter (less roll angle) & run some level of higher grip shock valving.

2. Now with the Speedtech line of chassis & front subframes coming out, with optimized geometry from me, I simply work up the correct sway bar & spring rates for a neutral, balanced handling vehicle, make the car run flatter (less roll angle) & run some level of higher grip shock valving.

Those two routes above are how I work with my clients doing bolt-in projects. But I have quite a few projects in the works (most without build threads) with DIY clients or shops installing my custom Track-Star front subframes with long-arm, zero-scrub, high travel suspensions ... and/or four different versions of my Track-Star offset 3-links ... like Ron Myer's in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid LT1 (Post 598520)

Hello, I'm wondering are the bottom coil over shock mount also being used for Watts Linkage mount on passenger side? Is all this loading on the bolt being mounted in single shear?

I copied this from a previous post on this thread to answer your question.

11. Weight is our enemy, so I design all of my stuff to be as light as it can be & still as strong as it needs to be. Plus I work to multi-purpose things as much as possible … to reduce duplication of items & unnecessary weight.

12. For example the upper Watt’s link crossmember serves as the shock crossmember also. Why run two crossmembers only a few inches apart? That is unnecessary weight. Of course it took me some work to make the packaging all fit well. But there are no wasted tubes, no duplication of mounts or crossmembers & no unnecessary weight.

13. Another example is the Watt’s link housing mounts. I see a lot of heavy, bulky mounts that clamp on. Just adding weight to the rear end. Most have to add two mounts to the housing. My design here dual purposes the right rear shock mount. This not only saves the weight of the bracket & bracing, but bolt hardware too. All of this weight is “unsprung weight”. The lighter we can make the rear end housing … especially out at the ends … the quicker the suspension can respond to irregularities on the track. Lighter unsprung weight in the suspension = more grip.

14. A common question is about the additional load that shock bolt sees with the lower right Watt’s link attached to it. Anyone that knows me very well, knows how safety conscious I am, so you know I did the math. I have a bolt load stress calculation spread sheet I use.

For those that care … calc’s ran as:
* 4000 # Car
* 50% rear weight (2000#)
* 1.5 G load
* 3000# force

No, Ron’s car won’t be that heavy … LOL. I like to do my calcs with more load on stuff than it will actually see. Like a safety factor inside the safety factor.

The bellcrank bolt sees half of the total force going through the Watt’s link.
* 1500# force on ¾” Grade 8 bellcrank bolt @ 1.156” = .0017” deflection (17/10,000)

The four bolts & rod ends each all split the other half of the load four ways, for 375# of force.
For weight savings, I utilize lightweight, tubular chromoly bolts on most mounts that are in double shear. For single shear suspension items, I use special 170,000 PSI 12-point bolts.

The combo shock & Watt’s link bolt sees loads from both the coil over shock & the Watt’s link.
* 1600# force on ½” 160k PSI link bolt @ 0.3125” = .0002” deflection (2/10,000)
* 375# force on ½” 160k PSI link bolt @ 1.1875” = .0022” deflection (22/10,000)
* The forces are from different vectors so the deflection doesn’t really total .0024” … but it doesn’t matter anyway, as anything this small is negligible.

P.S. Shear strength ratings of the hardware is:
* ¾” Grade 8 bellcrank bolt = 39,762#
* ½” 170,000 PSI 12-point bolts = 20,023#
* Chromoly Rod Ends 5/8” shank & ½” hole = 31,390#

----------------------------------

Remember, the coil-over shock applies a max load of 1600# & the Watt's link applies a max load of 375#.

:trophy-1302:

Yes more pics would be nice.... Thank you