|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: Chally426]
#1755941
02/17/15 08:56 PM
02/17/15 08:56 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,462
Mrytle Beach SC
johnscudashop
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,462
Mrytle Beach SC
|
Quote:
I have it in my Cuda, But haven't had it on the road yet...Very Easy to install and seems like quality stuff
Same here. Very easy to install. Great stuff
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: Cudajon]
#1755944
02/18/15 10:47 AM
02/18/15 10:47 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,695
Bitopia
|
Pros and cons? Many including myself, feel 95% here on Moparts in a handling rich environment will never exceed the capabilities of a well sorted out OEM system with the typical upgrades. I have the Highest regard/respect for Bill's long proven designs, and I own a AlterK, except for this rear suspension. We have had this public disagreement before, and nothing yet has convinced me this is mainly other then an adaption of a typical multi decade plus suspension used in the past on the Fox body and other cars. And if you do your homework on Fox bodies, the first thing they do is dump the rear suspension. Why is that? It's target seems to be for the uninformed who want to spend money and have something different to show their prowess of making their classic mopar modern. The FOX OEM 4 link system relies on bind, and is mainly for packaging and low cost, to achieve an objective, not for performance.  Sorry Bill
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: jcc]
#1755945
02/18/15 02:41 PM
02/18/15 02:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi
Penguin-hating Ginger
|
Penguin-hating Ginger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
|
I agree, the triangulated 4 link is a compromise. GM used them before the fox body of course, including even in the Aussie Holden Toranas like I have. They have been road raced since they came out in the 70's and have been very good at it. But...the factory 4 link setup does as mentioned bind and is not an ideal setup if you are doing it for road racing.
I know a bunch of people who race competitively, and leaving the rear suspension stock is usually only done if the class dictates it.
Some guys as they did in the 70's just add a panhard bar, but that induces a bind when used with the triangulated upper arms. Going to soft upper bushing helps some but then you end up with more movement.
Some class guys that need to keep the stock location arms run basically sponge rubber bushings to make the stock upper arms useless, then add a 3rd center arm and a panhard or even better still, a watts link.
From scratch people who can run anything seem to be going with a similar 3 link setup with a watts link.
If you were going to run a different suspension setup like going going from Mopar leaf to anything from scratch, I think that would probably be a better route to think about.
That said, the triangulated 4 link is not terrible, and do know guys who are very competitive with them when they have no choice and are limited to it, but it still is not the best.
The length of the arms, and lots of other things play a big factor too, and you'd want to make sure they were designed for correct instant center, roll center, etc and not just what was best for packaging.
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: B5 Bee]
#1755948
02/18/15 06:26 PM
02/18/15 06:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi
Penguin-hating Ginger
|
Penguin-hating Ginger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
|
Quote:
If spherical rod ends were used on a triangulated 4-link instead of bushings, wouldn't that eliminate binding during extreme body roll?
Even a 3 or 4 link with a Wishbone or Watts linkage would bind if the 3-4 links had bushings instead of rod ends.
The rod ends may help some, but I think it is the twisting motion that still is the issue with the triangulated 4 link moving in one plane, and the panhard bar trying to push the diff to the side in another plane. That is why the Watts link of course would be better as it moves straight up and down with no side to side arc. But a 3 link with bushings won't bind since the arms are all moving in the same plane...straight forward and rearward that is...
At least as far as I seem to understand it. 
There was a good thread on the rear suspension design issues on a Torana site I am on a while back, have to try and dig up a link, it was very interesting when it comes to the factory design (triangulated 4 link) versus "fixing it" in different ways.
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: Supercuda]
#1755949
02/18/15 06:31 PM
02/18/15 06:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi
Penguin-hating Ginger
|
Penguin-hating Ginger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I agree, the triangulated 4 link is a compromise.
snipped for brevity
The length of the arms, and lots of other things play a big factor too, and you'd want to make sure they were designed for correct instant center, roll center, etc and not just what was best for packaging.
above the snip - don't go over to the street rod forum and say this. Below the snip - most street rod builders and manufacturers focus on packaging and that is it.
My 96 Mustang was squirelly, stock. Put in poly bushings and it helped a bit. Added a watts linkage and it was as good as it was going to get for a DD without a complete redesign/different style suspension.
I just upgraded the stock suspension on mine Holden. I boxed the lower arms,better bushings, and use adjustable Edelbrock uppers. (Chevelle arms are slightly shorter but adjustable ones will work fine).
The more I read and understood about ways to change things around it, and not really worrying about keeping my car stock, some of the redesigns out there do look like an awesome way to go, but do take some fair modifing.
(I use an aluminum drop tank...oversize fuel tank...which limits my space for a watts link at this point without changing the tank, and to get a proper length 3rd link and drop the factory upper arms means the back seat gets a bit iffy. Another option would be a 3rd link like a late 90's Camaro...seen a few guys go that route when the class they are in doesn't let them go through and into the floor to run a top mount 3rd link)
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: OzHemi]
#1755950
02/18/15 06:47 PM
02/18/15 06:47 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,020
Pangaea
B5 Bee
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,020
Pangaea
|
Quote:
Quote:
If spherical rod ends were used on a triangulated 4-link instead of bushings, wouldn't that eliminate binding during extreme body roll?
Even a 3 or 4 link with a Wishbone or Watts linkage would bind if the 3-4 links had bushings instead of rod ends.
The rod ends may help some, but I think it is the twisting motion that still is the issue with the triangulated 4 link moving in one plane, and the panhard bar trying to push the diff to the side in another plane. That is why the Watts link of course would be better as it moves straight up and down with no side to side arc. But a 3 link with bushings won't bind since the arms are all moving in the same plane...straight forward and rearward that is...
At least as far as I seem to understand it.
There was a good thread on the rear suspension design issues on a Torana site I am on a while back, have to try and dig up a link, it was very interesting when it comes to the factory design (triangulated 4 link) versus "fixing it" in different ways.
Why add a panhard bar to a triangulated 4-link?
No need for one, that's why the upper bars are triangulated.
The two 3-link suspensions I've seen, old PS Camaro and Vega, didn't have the top bar in the same plane as the lower two. The top bar was on the right side, angled towards the center of the car. Both cars used wishbones for housing locators.
I once owned a Duster (former PS car) with 4-link and a Watts linkage. It's the more complex method to locate the rear housing but if I were building for the street, this is what I would go with over a panhard bar that will induce binding or a wishbone that puts a side load on the Heim joint.
|
|
|
Re: Anybody running an Reilly Street Lynx rear suspension?
[Re: B5 Bee]
#1755953
02/18/15 06:54 PM
02/18/15 06:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
OzHemi
Penguin-hating Ginger
|
Penguin-hating Ginger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 104,346
Garden Grove, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If spherical rod ends were used on a triangulated 4-link instead of bushings, wouldn't that eliminate binding during extreme body roll?
Even a 3 or 4 link with a Wishbone or Watts linkage would bind if the 3-4 links had bushings instead of rod ends.
The rod ends may help some, but I think it is the twisting motion that still is the issue with the triangulated 4 link moving in one plane, and the panhard bar trying to push the diff to the side in another plane. That is why the Watts link of course would be better as it moves straight up and down with no side to side arc. But a 3 link with bushings won't bind since the arms are all moving in the same plane...straight forward and rearward that is...
At least as far as I seem to understand it.
There was a good thread on the rear suspension design issues on a Torana site I am on a while back, have to try and dig up a link, it was very interesting when it comes to the factory design (triangulated 4 link) versus "fixing it" in different ways.
Why add a panhard bar to a triangulated 4-link?
No need for one, that's why the upper bars are triangulated.
The two 3-link suspensions I've seen, old PS Camaro and Vega, didn't have the top bar in the same plane as the lower two. The top bar was on the right side, angled towards the center of the car. Both cars used wishbones for housing locators.
I once owned a Duster (former PS car) with 4-link and a Watts linkage. It's the more complex method to locate the rear housing but if I were building for the street, this is what I would go with over a panhard bar that will induce binding or a wishbone that puts a side load on the Heim joint.
Even with the triangulated 4 link you can still get side to side diff movement...which was found out on the track in the 70's with Holden Toranas at least, and the early cars did add a panhard bar to the t-4 link on the track (sort of got away with that is )
As said the watts link is a better way to go, but more complex than a panhard. (since it lets the diff move in a straight up and down motion and not an arc like the panhard)
|
|
|
|
|
