Ah yes... the one suspension we have yet to delve into... a short armed link suspension.
For the most part, 'pinion wrap' shouldn't be a real issue with a solid link suspension... but I am sure with the power of your big block... it does have some influence in pinion angle change under load, not very much... but its there.
The thing about link suspensions... is where "designed ride height" actually is. In particular to the suspension you chose, once the system is installed you may not have adjust-ability with-in an appropriate kinematic arch. So... if one were to go lower than the "designed ride height"... it would put the suspension at a different place initially, in the arch at static ride height. Since link type suspensions are actually limited by there respective arm lengths in a specific range of motion... and with the suspension being at or closer to the top of the geometric arch... the pinion angle change becomes more exponential as the suspension compresses. So if you were to start out with 4 to 4.5 initially... and compressed the suspension... it could possibly open that up beyond the working angle range of the universal, or enough to induce related problems.
So yeah... big block power, unknown designed ride height and possibly lowered below the previously mentioned unknown value... and I would expect issues.
The instructions for pinion angle with the G-Bar state, "As an example, a two-degree downhill drivetrain angle would require the third member to be set at two degrees with the snout slightly raised." And the note at the bottom of page 12... drives a point to tighten the number by 1 or 2 degrees down from what you have at static ride height (your 4.5 number) to combat system flex from high power drivetrains and high traction... but not actually to set it negative at static ride.
Good thing you brought this up... it was a good refresher for me to re-hash this in my head... and it passes more tech onto the masses.
