They would have great articulation, yes. Unfortunately there's slotted radius arm bushings, but only for a d1/d90/rrc as far as I can tell.

 

poly bush? holey? drill press and drill bit?

still,if that is no go, the parallel 5 link looks to be a simple improvement, but can't find much on it performance wise...

 

I visited these people when in the UK recently. They are big offroaders (bought all the Terrafirma shocks and front springs from them) if you scroll through their home page there are some crazy wheel/vehicle angles in the photos.

Might be worth a chat with them also about D2 shocks and axle articulation - just another view on the subject. The guy's name is Keith, nice bloke and helpful.

Challenger 4x4 | Land Rover service, repair and modifying for on or off road.

 

Parallel 4 link with pan hard would give better pinion angles than castors at articulation, but would limit articulation as there is a lot more bind in the para 4 link. Plus your lower links would hang low, just like your shock mounts.


The custom castor design is retarded easy if you needed to go that route, you will still bind though, just less than a para 4 link and more than a 3 link. They do flex good though for what they are.


If you wanted to go through with the 3 link, custom make one. Don't try to mimic the SG one (3rd link under 3rd member). The SG 3-links are exactly what ZG said: Flex good (like any 3 link) but the numbers are bad and would make it unsafe. The problem with the 3-link it's just the time. Rerouting the exhaust and to get the highest potential articulation running the front shock similar how the rear is set up (unless running coil over), and doing the math.


4/3 link calculator for Excel: 4x4 Excel Spresheets

 

how's this for a front plan=
custom fab front arms stretched to 40+", ballistic at joint at frame mount, find the softest bushes for axle points and go ghetto with a drill bit if need be? or heim or rebuildable jj on axle mount?
is it even worth the time to customize longer arms? always rte option or whomever. not making a rock buggy here.

 

I would just use the existing mounts and beef them up. Just lengthen them a little to keep the wheel centered in the wheel well (to compensate for the lift). It will also keep your ride on the road stock.


At the Frame: Forged Chromoly 2.63" Ballistic Joint
At the Middle link: Ballistic Forged Poly Bushing 2.63"
At the Axle : Single Poly Bushing with DOM Sleeve
OR if you wanted the lower/middle bushings to be interchangeable
Ballistic Poly Bushing 2.63" w/ Weldable Housing


EDIT: The image attached, orbital meaning ballistic joint (derp on me)
EDIT #2: You could use a heim with misalignment spacers also, but people say it rides harsh. Probably better articulation with less bind.

 

so, not enough yield to warrant lengthening? that makes it easy if so. and cheap...and quick. I like all of that

 

Yeah it doesn't benefit you much because they are parallel. You would have to have them angled inwards to truly benefit. For your(our) application it should handle well on the road, and flex way better than stock radius arms. Plus its easy and cheaper than buying radius arms. You can use the existing mount for your main link mount and weld a tab on for the upper link on the axle.

 

no, I meant plan was to go long arm with the stock set up at axle, not do parallel. so non wristed radius arm coming from a new location further back.
sorry I'm confusing....this is, after all, a thread about my bent rear shock mount

 

I know whatcha meant. I meant that they are still a straight link. You would only add 10" to the link length to make it 40" also, you wouldn't gain enough to make it worth your while, and it would be only down travel.


Oh yeah. Did you decide what to do with your shock?