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.