2 link controversy....

Originally posted by BioMax



Originally posted by str8azztaco



Bottom line is... it is the cheapest to build, and easiest to set up. Thats why people do it.

Exactly! It's the same reason that grocery stores sell "brown label" food, that Wal-mart sells $100 mountain bikes and $5 sun glasses. Most of the world isn't that concerned about "Hi-end" products. The sun glasses keep the glare out of your eyes, the bikes ride down the road and the food fills your stomach.

If you guys really want to continue arguing that 2-links or reverse 4-links suck or are just fine, you're wasting your energy. I have posted plenty FACTS about this subject. I can't afford a $500k Ferrari to drive everyday, my 2000 Toyota Tacoma makes me plenty happy. Does that make me stupid? No. Does my Tacoma drive as nice as a Ferrari? HELL NO! And I know better than to tell everybody that it does.

If you have a 2-link or a reverse 4-link (or ANY other system for that matter) STOP telling people that it drives perfect. It doesn't drive perfect. You can be happy with how it performs, it is probably a nicely set-up system that does exactly what you want it to, but it's not perfect. I spent $15k on a rear suspension for a vehicle that does exactly what the customer wanted it to, but it is far from perfect. It handles like crap and drives like hell too, but the customer is happy that it does what he want it to. That is the bottom line, make the customer or whoever is driving the vehicle happy.

haha.... thats sooo true.... i get tired of the phrase "it rides and handles like a caddy!" HAHAha.... for real i ask... then ask them have they ever road in a nice caddy? i dont recall the back end of a caddy bouncing up and down in the air hitting small bumps like most of our trucks!?! LOLbut then again... i know its just a phrase to show how THEY are Happy with the suspension or try'n to brag how good they think it is... but still makes me chuckle....lol

I feel ya ,one time a older gentleman asked me why I spent all that money and time on a ranger ....... why not trick out a nice vehicle.

Originally posted by BioMax



Originally posted by KAOSS



Originally posted by BioMax



A 4-link is only considered a suspension design to minitruckers, there isn't a book out there that would even acknowledge it.



I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate? More on the only a suspension design to mini truckers, not the book part. Thanks.

.

I'm sorry I meant that the REVERSE 4-link is not an accepted suspension design.

I'm with Russ on this one. Any factory "2-link" cannot be compared to a garage designed 2-link because the engineers involved have incorporated an allowable amount of flex in the system so that the suspension can articulate within the suspensions design travel. And an RV has V-E-R-Y different needs than a passenger car or truck. When you bag your vehicle, do you hope the whole time you're building it that is drives like an RV?

"Dude that would be awesome wouldn't it? If this this thing handled like a diesel-pusher when it was done. God, I can't wait!"

I just don't see that happening.

bahahaha that was awsome max. like i said, i didnt think that it makes it right to do on a truck, and ive had a reverse four link and a 2 link and a reg four link and an independant rear. i dont like reverse fours at all, 2 link did ok for the money i had in it. the last two were far the best drivin.

i was jus statin that i had seen em and thought it was weird. and those pushers ride good but i dont want my truck to drive like em.

i HATE RV's and jerry too.

you guys r killing me im just to the point of weldng my 2 link on now i dont know what to do 87 burb tow pig 2600,s all round

look noone is ever going to argue that a 4 link is a preferred method of doing the rear of a truck... but when customers want things they want them... it drives perfect to the customer then so be it, I wouldnt run one on my vehicle... but thats just me, all im saying is if you set it up right it will work, not saying it works as good and articulates like a 4 link but it gets the job done. every one here has a good point, but saying that a 2 link is garbage is invalid.

^^^ I haven't said that 2-links are garbage, in fact I have been defending them. Are you only reading the posts from the people that are bashing them?

a 2 link works, but it will move sideways if you dont do something to stop it. like a panhard, or a track bar is what i do. put a bar with heims at each end that connects from the front of one link to the back of the other link... a big triangle, it will never move and if people tell you it will, they are dumb, its all geometry and you can make anything work, there are billions of 4 links out there that dont work too, just depends on how its built

My friends Chevy was 2-linked. When he went up driveways you could see the bed move up next to the rear glass, which si about a 2.5" or 3" gap. Frame did all the flexing.

Originally posted by BioMax





A 2-link will "plant" the tires to the ground under acceleration, but a 4-link will actually lift the tires off of the ground.

A 4-link is only considered a suspension design to minitruckers, there isn't a book out there that would even acknowledge it.





Max I'm confused on these 2?