3 link suspension
 

Does any one have a 3 link suspension. I have been looking for an inexpensive way to set up my 73 camaro and I have heard a little bit about 3 links but cant seem to find one or even a custom one on any ones car. I have seen Triangle 4 links and it doesnt seem to be to difficult to build or have built but what about 3 links.

I would like to see a pic of one. any body out there help.

Lateral Dynamics is going to unveil their three link rear suspension to the public in a couple of weeks at SEMA. I'm sure when Mark of Lateral Dynamics(Mean69) sees this thread he'll reply with some info for you.

From what he's told me, this is going to be a kick-ass package for sure. :thumbsup:

yes
 

hello

go to my cars page (69 rambler) youll see i have a three link.
torque arm with two control arms....ive been told 4 link setups dont work as well as three links, not that people dont use them but that according to the guy who helped build my setup (he builds asphalt circle track cars)races them and wins... three links are the way to go......i know somebody will try and debate or give me crap about it.DONT CARE !!! that this company does this and builds 4 links chassis setups .blah blah blah....i was explained why 3 is better than 4 . so i went 3 link...

YOU COULD RUN A SETUP LIKE MINE

radrambler

No one is going to debate that 3-link or T/A arrangement is a better way to go than a 4-link in a "G" machine application, it is a fact not an opinion. Your post does come off a bit arguementative though.

I did in fact speak to Mark (Mean69) and his rendering was awesome it really looks like a fine peice of work. but I have yet to see any 3 link package that was put on. I just wanted to see if it has ever been done on another car yet and if anyone has pics of it.

inexpensive and high performance
 

do not go together period.
no matter how you go you will spend just about the same amount if you paid your self for labor, whether you buy stuff from ame and hack together a 4 bar or buy a detroit 4 link or a lateral dynamics 3 link.
however if you want your car to perform the lateral dynamics 3 link is gonna kick some ass and be worth every dollar they ask for it.
mark and crew will strive to make it THE BEST bolt/weld in custom rear suspension out there check for them at sema i am sure orders will come in fast.
goodluck
jake

no biggie
 

:thumbsup:
i just wanted to stop anyone before they started with ..this company does this in a 4 link blah blah blah...BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE KNOWS..HARMLESS OR NOT
IM NOT ON HERE TO DEBATE..IM ON HERE TO HAVE FUN....THATS THE WHOLE DEAL FOR ME .FUN.I DIDNT WANT ANY PISSING CONTESTS WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESNT ALREADY KNOW 3 LINKS ARE BETTER....3
ITS ALL GOOD....I DONT WANT TO SOUND NEGATIVE TORWARDS ANYONE ...
I JUST WANT TO SHARE THE CAR THING AND HAVE FUN!!!!!!

THANKS
RADRAMBLER

I saw your car and I like the way you have your set up. It really doesnt look to complicated. Did you have to cut up any of your floor?

Hi guys,

***Rad: I don't think you need to worry about the debate between four link setups, and three link setups on this forum, it is pretty simple to show the benefits of a three link over a four link. Technically, what it sounds like you have is a torque arm, and though there are three physical links on the system, it behaves quite a bit differently than a "three link" (the main thing being that the center link on a torque arm is rigidly mounted to the axle assembly, whereas a three link is joined via a bushing or link, and is allowed to rotate in bump/droop).***

Attached is a Solid-model of the Lateral Dynamics Three Link setup, all of the work was engineered in Solidworks software, including strain/defelection analysis on critical points. We use Bill Mitchell's WinGeo to model the actual suspension kinematics for those of you familiar with the software packages available. This design is an "improved" version of what has been in our test mule for nearly a year now. Improved, meaning the brackets and other aspects are a bit better thought out than the prototype, but the suspension geometry is the same, and we are pretty proud of it.

The setup has yet to be installed on a customer car, though two cars are in the process of installation at this time (one first gen on the east coast, one second gen in our shop in California). Both cars are on rotisseries, and will serve as the basis for generating an extensive installation instruction and setup guide. The setup is commercially available right now, though due to the SEMA show, deliveries will be a couple weeks out. We had some issues finding reliable suppliers early on and that cost us a good amount of time, but we now have found reliable, capable folks for the elements we don't have the tooling to build, thanks to some key contacts from friends in the industry. All of the crossmembers, brackets, and most importantly, the rear end assembly (9" Ford based assembly) are fixture welded by us, I am very confident that you will be extremely pleased with the quality. You won't have to fuss with welding brackets to the axle tubes and needing to straighten things afterwards, we take care of that for you. Installation is not terribly complex, but does involve some careful cutting, and of course, welding of the crossmember brackets. It is no more complex than installing a set of mini-tubs, or through floor subframe connectors.

The kit is a very complete setup, less components that are very customer preference specific. Namely, the center section/differential/gear setup, axles, and brakes are not included. The reason is that there are so many options, it would be very difficult for us to stock all of this at this time, though we can recommend and supply these components as an option to the kit. Brakes are based upon the highly popular Corvette "C5" configuration, so any commercially available C5 kit will work, from the very good, budget friendly GM parts, to aftermarket endurance race setups, and anything in between. The base kit comes with a set of Bilstein mono-tube coil over shock absorbers, custom valved for our application so you don't need to fuss with setting. A matched set of Hypercoil or Eibach springs is also included. Penske Racing Shocks are available as an upgrade, and though relatively expensive, these shocks are generally regarded as the best practical racing shock, and are highly supported: you can't go to a track these days and NOT find someone that can rebuild/service Penske's. The model shown has heim/rod ends in all pivot locations, however, high durometer rubber bushings are included on the base kit to help keep road noise down. Rod ends in all locations are also available. Because we control all aspects of the design, custom width rear ends, full floating axle-hub setups, and other configuration are all available.

Our website is under construction, we will have a temporary one up in a few days with more details and pictures of the setup. We will be at SEMA with a booth (#52425) and a display setup, so if you attend the show, please stop by and say hello. I'll drop some pic's of the hardware here in the very near future.

Mark

Mark that is a nice set-up! Are you going to be doing anything with A-bodys...just wondering!

Looks great though :thumbsup:

Thanks Travis, and yes, we will be doing many more like products for various cars in the near future. Current plans are to do a front subframe for second gen F bodies (projected release February '06), a first gen subframe, and then we will be looking at different platforms, including Mustangs, other GM cars, and Mopar as well. If you have some ideas or needs, we'd love to hear about them.

Here are a couple of pic's of the first gen crossmembers. We should have some pic's of the rear end housing in a day or two, as well as the Watt's bracket. Moving steadily along. Matt won't let either Katz or myself weld any production stuff, it's an ongoing internal joke for us. Here's an example why.

Mark

no cutting
 

in my application of the "torque arm" suspension setup i did NOT want to cut the floor BUT WANTED GREAT HANDLING .thats why the arm was fabbed to fit .instead of using something that was designed for another car and modified. it attaches with bushed endes that are adjustable at the housing and at the trans cross member.ALMOST WENT WITH ACTUALL THREE LINK BUT SPACE WAS SO CLOSE TO MESSING WITH FUNCTION.SO MY CHASSIS GUY SAID THIS IS THE NEXT BEST THING
this is not aN ACTUALL "three link" even though it attaches the rear end at three points to the chassis.
MEAN69 IS CORRECT...THE "THREE LINK" LETS THE REAR PIVOT FROM THE REAREND TOP LINK ALSO MINE DOESNOT .....

WHAT EVER YOU USE, GET SOMEONE WITH GREAT KNOWLEDGE OF HOW SUSPENSIONS WORK AND HOW TO FABRICATE THAT WILL SAVE YOU TIME AND HEADACHE....
GOODLUCK

RADRAMBLER

Nice
 

LOOKS LIKE NICE PRODUCTS......WISH YOU GREAT SUCCESS

Cool....that is a nice looking piece mark welds look nice! I was just wondering seems like the camaros are always taken car of first then companys usually start on other stuff I was just interested in what else you had in mind.

Thanks for the info MARK good luck, products look nice!

just outa curiousity.... what kinda products for early mustangs are ya thinkin about?

Rodz, at this point we have a couple of ideas in concept only. It would be natural for us to do a three link derived off of the F body deal, and we will most likely do that, but the front stuff is a bit different due to the "fixed" front frame. The stock frame structure is decent enough to build off of, thankfully, but it might make better sense when we look deeper into it to remove the front and replace with a new setup. It will certainly be a front steer rack and pinion based unit, and rather than design a system "around" an off the shelf rack, our approach is to start with the suspension, and then develop a rack to compliment "it." If you have ideas, we'd love to hear about them.

The early Mustangs make terrific track cars due to their light weight. It makes everything a lot easier, you don't need as much power, brakes become more effective, etc. There are lot of them too, especially coupes. I can't think of a better supported car in terms of replacement parts (i.e. body panels, trim pieces, etc), so it kind of baffles me why there aren't more of them in the "PT" theme. We have a 65 Fastback, but that car will likely be prepared in vintage legal trim next year, so when it comes time for product development, we will likely do a mid 60's coupe.

Mark

loooooooooooooooong reply
 

welllllllll.......... here is my $.02 on the mustang idea.... and i just happen have my 64 1/2 coupe sittin up on the chassis table right now. initially i thought about doin the SN65 treatment(full sn95 "pan"), ... but finally decided against it for a few reasons. so im bck to square one.

now this is really a backburner project, as my 34 truck is priority after paying jobs.... so i have been mostly thinkin about different ways of doin it.

i have a few priorities with the project that seem to be the biggest problem, #1, the car will be a daily driver, weekend autocross/track car. #2, the car will be really low... most mustangs are usually about 1-2" lower than stock, mine should sit about 3-4" lower than stock.

the first problem i have with the early mustang platform........ is the complete lack of anything structural....... frame connectors are at best just a bandaid for the piss poor structural design. the fixed front rails are really nothin more than 16-18ga sheetmetal, and really rely on the shock towers and the rest to hold it all together....as its a true unibody. an aftermarket weld in crossmember that gets rid of the shock towers has got to be one of the "sketchiest" things that can be done to the early mustangs, granted for 99% of the people that just "cruise" their cars.... its more than enough, not for me.

well for my project i already decided it will use a 3 link on a sn 8.8 (track width will be more as i want minor flares) i really like the design of the top mount that you have pictured... so something similar will be worked out for this car. the rear is the easy part.... now working forward. a complete chassis stiffening kit, similar to what mustangs plus sells, ties the rockers to the t-boxes f&r, then ties back to the frame connectors. it also increases the size and effectivness of the the front torque boxes....and drasticaly increases the strength of the rockers... which in any unibody car are extremly inportant.

now that we have the chassis rigid from the firewall back we start with the front frame "stub"... and this is the point where i am at on the mental drawing board. ideally you would make something that ties into the factory rails...unfortunatly, they are way too thin to tie anything into... and without the towers...they are nothin more than sheetmetal spot welded to the floor pan.... so in reality.... the stub would need to be constructed with the sfc's as part of it. the front of the stub would triangulate back to the top of the beefed up t-box.

for front suspension i was planning on a sn based "k-member" converted to sla setup, and use a hub carrier type upright, so 13"sn cobra brakes could be used.

the main downfall to this whole set-up is gonna be added weight, and obviously install. i cant see the weight difference being more than 100-150 lbs, after the stock "everything" is gone and new "everything" fabbed up outa lil heavier material, i think its a small price to pay for a stable and rigid platform without a full cage. the install is what the real killer is, as there is nothing "bolt-on" about it, major welding and fitting issues will prohibit the average guy from stepping up to the whole system. where this isnt a big deal for me in my one off situation, it would be for 99% of potential customers.

this really sounds overkill...and probably is. but IMHO early mustangs are crap, they were the geo metros of the 60's never ment to become true muscle cars, so by expecting them to handle and perform with todays "standards" the entire system needs a complete rework.

i have driven quite a few early mustangs, one of which was a gt350 coupe(1 of 6).... i got to flog it around the kart track(our local autocross venue), and while the car was better set-up for road racing than my car, i found it to have the same "issues" with chassis flex and poor steering, inconsistant "feeling" etc....as EVERY early mustang i have ever driven with "stock" chassis config. so yeah.... overkill for one guy...means its just about right for someone like me :D

anyway...these are just my ideas.... i cant wait to hear what you have in store....... as you said...there really is no "support" for the early mustang crowd. (im leaving out 1 place.... as i dont like them, after talkin on the phone with them, gxxxxs motorsports can kiss my a$$)

Mark,

How much is the 3-link going to cost? Is it a SEMA secret :unibrow: ?

Also, I know this is kind of branching off from the whole topic here, but how would this affect a car that is drag raced? Also how would it compare DSE's 4 link for auto-x and drag racing?

I know there is a very complicated answer there, and many don't want to compare products...

Thanks in advance.
Max

Along with the above questions, how much of the floor would have to be modified in a Camaro to run your three link set-up? Can I still use my factory back seat? Thanks
-Jason

Without question, the early Mustang leave a LOT to be desired in terms of chassis rigidity. For serious track duty, a full cage and "real" subframe connectors are in order. I know exactly what you are talking about in regards to the front frame rails, there are some super thin extensions that come off of the front frame horns, kind of silly how they did that, but the cars weren't designed to rip through turns with contemporary tires, as you stated. The good thing is that even though you will add weight to stiffen things up, at least the car is light to begin with.

Pricing on the setup is not set in stone at this point, we have a good idea where it will be, but haven't firmly set retail pricing as of today. I will say that it will be competitively priced relative to other "like" systems that are available, when you consider everything that is included (all brackets and hardware, fully welded rear end housing assembly, coil-over shocks and springs). This setup will not be for everyone, you will need to do some cutting of the car to install the forward crossmember, and to make room for the upper link. You can use "a" back seat, but not "the" stock back seat, at least not in the first gen Camaros. The seat will require split seat bottoms, like in a secong gen F body, or a late model F body, in order to clear the tunnel extension box (for the upper link).

Our opinion is that this setup offers the highest performance potential of any commercially available rigid axle suspension system on the market, period. We are very close to finishing the product brochure, so hopefully some of the questions will be answered in that text. Also, we hope to have at least a temporary website on line in the next day or two with more info, and more pic's. Sorry for the general comments at this time, very specific info is coming soon, in great detail.

Mark

Mark,
Great stuff, it looks like a really good system. I'll look you guys up at SEMA.
On the subject of back seats, if you install a roll bar with seatbelt anchor cross brace, you won't ever want to have a back seat passenger in the car, it just isn't safe having them sit back there with a bunch of tubes right in front of them.
My wife's 73 Camaro has an Autopower roll bar and back seat but I can't even get back there to clean the rear window let alone sit there.
David

I just tried to visualize getting to my back window to clean it with the cage I am planning and I threw out my back thinking about it.

Back seat? Guess I wont be having one.

Anyone know if you can buy carpet remnants from ACC large enough to cover the rear firewall?

out back
 

you know why? its 11:30 pm....get some sleep! LOL you could do an anti roll bar of some sorts...but it won't be sanction legal.
Mark, design looks good. BTW what ws wrong with your welding? LOL
second thought how would one get a "new" design sanction legal? just up late

Race-rods
 

I know this is off base but im not afraid of being black flagged...
for Race-rods concerns for lack of early stang support. Having the creator of lateral dynamics an early car owner can be a blessing for us. So being patient may reap great rewards.
Im local to Griggs and you must have caught them on a bad day? But they do tend to be who do you know types so f em too...for a front suspension try these guys, im sure you saw the link on pt but i'll post it here for those who don't frequent it anymore. I too wanted to improve the Ford Chevy II design by grafting a QA1 or Grantenelli style tube front end so I can use off the shelf tubular arms. It looks like it could be done so I may look into it.
As far as the rear its very close to a Camaro rear so a couple changes could yeild a 3 link for Mustangs.Time will tell. Vin

Yeah, it is late. The cage I am planning is going to be a lot like the one in Stevo's car, but the a-pillars will go through the dash, and the door bars will be a bit different.

Total Control Products is building a pretty wild track car http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/...ecar/main.html might be good place to look in terms of a project headed in that direction.

Maier apparently has some stuff for the early 'stangs as well.

http://www.maierracing.com/index.html

I dunno about their early stuff, but their late model stang stuff is pretty widely used by the guys racing in NASA.

Mark,
Great looking kit. Sometimes you can just casually glance at a design and know that quality and function are present. You system surely qualifies. If you don't mind, show us a 3D rear view.

F-Body back seats are completely useless anyway. I built a nice shelf that holds a beach towel and a small cooler as well as some stereo equipment. And yeah, I put my contortionist skills to work when climbing in the back of my car. If I'm not very careful, my voice raises by two octaves while stepping over the horizontal bar. But I only need to get back there two or three times per year, so no biggie.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I will have to agree with you all in terms of backseat issues, I pulled the backseat out of Lateral I, there really is no use for it anymore. But, there are folks that would like to have a rear seat for small kids, etc, and we didn't want to exclude them from being interested in our kit. Honestly, the design didn't make that requirement terribly difficult to solve. I will say though, our feeling is that the performance of the cars we are building REALLY speaks to safety, and that means a well executed cage for cars that will be driven (which are the ones we are really interested in). You really just never know what will happen, on the street, auto-cross track, or road course, this hobby is inherently dangerous.

Vince is right, we also have a 65 Mustang project car that has been on hold for quite a while that is likely going to end up as a mule for a Ford development kit, including chassis structure kits, etc. The TCP car is actually already built, and it ran quite a bit with the American Iron race series last year. I have a friend that drove the car in one of the races, and he really liked the car. Our intention, from the suspension side, is to take the performance potential one step (or two, maybe three) higher than their setup, same goes for brand "G." We actually consulted with the guy I mentioned when we were debating early on about which approach we should go with the rear setup (i.e. primarily a non-invasive approach that would leave resulting performance compromises), and the strong feedback we got was to put performance first. That's what we did.

Here's a shot of the rear/side view of the engineering model, as well as a look at the differential. We are really excited, at this time all of the assembly fixtures and techniques have been validated, so all of the prepatory work to gear up for production is basically behind us for this iteration. The approach we have taken for the design and build is a highly modular one, which means we will be able to configure the specifics for various platforms (Mopar, Ford, etc) very efficiently. One of the other things that I feel is important to point out is the technical basis for the design. Everything is done for a reason, load paths are triangulated to make the structures as rigid and light as possible. The software systems we use are so good these days, structural analysis is far, far easier to study as a result. For instance, something as simple as the radii on the bellcrank piece (the pivot you can see in the back shot) had a surprising effect on the strength of the piece: changing it from "x" inches, to "x +1" made a HUGE difference, it was a complete surprise. I don't mean to bore folks with this, but we have spent so much energy in the design of the setup, I just feel it is important to point out. Most of our competitors don't do this type of analysis.

Thanks!
Mark

Looks good Mark. When I first saw it the pic, I thought of Unique's setup, but yours actually makes sense to me and hell for stout. Should be an excellent alternative to what is out there for the more agressive people. So is Matt working solely for you, or just the reason he won't accept outside work? It is a shame all that welding he does will be on the bottom side of the car.

Mike

Damn that's sexy! When someone takes a peek under the back of my car, that's what I want 'em to see.

Ditto,
Just gotta find a way to fit it into the budget.

If you install one of these, the only view your competitors will see is of the back of your car, quickly disappearing out of their view. ;)

Mark

Wow thats one of the nicest SRA setups i've ever seen. Couple questions on it tho.

Do you have to raise the floor boards at all for clearance? Not a huge deal, just curious.

How is the unsprung weight? Seems like a whole lot of tubing and such that will be added to the rear end.

Are you going to share price, or do we have to wait till after SEMA?

Curious are you using a suspension specific modeling program or is it solidworks/3d studio based?

Ohh and :hail: :hail: :hail:

This is only available with a Ford 9" rear end, right? If so, this presents another problem, because I already bought Wilwood disc brakes for my GM 10-bolt... crap, I really want this.

sexxy little bitch
 

man i got a weird feeling in my pants when i saw that rear end pic. what will happen when i get one in real life?? no one knows but i will try to catch it on tape.gotta have one, this thing is gonna rock

jake

Well I have decided I really need this. I just put up my rear Wilwod disc brakes for sale, and the reupholstered rear seat. If anyone is interested they are in the for sale section on pro-toruing.com. I hope they sell! :willy:

hey
 

Jas, hold off on selling the brakes, when you order you 9 just have them weld gm housing ends to it. Vin

Ahh, thanks for the tip! I didn't even think of that!
-Jason

Does the 3-link suspension call for anything special with the gas tank?

Wow, thanks a million for the interest, and excellent questions, guys.

I will get weight figures for everything probably by the end of the day, Solidworks can tell you based upon the model, but it will be nice to get actual, physical weights. The good thing is that with the help of the modelling, we were able to reduce the wall thickness on the main axle tubes, and we use a Strange housing center. We had looked at a competitor housing center that was titled "light" weight, but the quality wasn't there on the piece. It was a bummer, it only weighted 21 pounds. Then we called Strange, their stuff was WAY nicer, likely sturdier due to the design, and best of all, only weighs 18 lbs.

For the modelling, we use Solidworks for the mechanical design and analysis, for the suspension geometry, we use WinGeo. Reference material comes from bascially all of the available literature from Milliken, Adams, Olley, Staniforth, etc.

No modifications to the floor pan are required with the exception of the clearance "tunnel" for the upper link. It was designed to work with all forms of commercially available subframe connectors, so if those are installed already, it should not be an issue. A word of caution, we do not have a tailpipe solution for the setup at this time, though we are working on one. It is pretty tight with the coil-overs and brackets for the Watt's linkage, we have something modelled up, but have not physically made one yet. This is something that we want to make available, most folks will want to run tailpipes (like me, I have dumps on my car, and though it sounds great and I love it, my neighbors don't seem to share the same passion for hot rods that I do!). There is no clearance issue with the gas tank, but here again, this might need to be changed for tailpipes, I can't give a solid answer on that at this time.

Brakes are set up for the C5 stuff, and due to the axles, it would probably be easier to make a new retainer/bracket than to run different housing ends, probably not a big deal, but we will need to look at it.

Thanks again for the feedback, guys, it is really helpful.

Mark

rear flange
 

Ok if your setting up to run a C5 backing plate flange pattern than that makes life alot easier especially for those who will run the new stuff. Any limitations on rim back spacing? Vin