IBallEngineer
New member
Oh, I should say though, The Watts linkage should only be compared to the Panhard, or Track bar. Both of which are fixes for a symptom not present in a triangulated 4 link.
Anyone here have watts linkage in the back?
- Thread starter 1985taylor1925
- Start date
1985taylor1925
Senior Member
Like IBall mentioned below, articulation being more limited. I guess I think a little differently about these things. I think if a more complicated system functions better, it may very well be worth the cost. To me its all about functionality. I tend to think that way about all auto mechanical parts. The big auto companies design so many mechanical parts to just do the job sufficiently. But they don't incorporate the best possible mechanical designs for many applications. Like front end linkage systems with ball joints. There's a much better way to do IFS using bearings. But it would be more expensive, and would last longer. Things that auto makers don't want. Anyways, with the watts linkage the axle just has so much freedom to articulate while maintaining perfect center at all times. And as long as you use quality parts it will be very rigid horizontally and last forever.
Watts link animation by DickH - Car Videos on StreetFire
Nothing in watts linkage limits articulation of the axle in any way other than horizontally. Only limitation comes from the control arms.
Yeah, I don't have any personal experience with the 4 bar. But when I look at the designs and can see the limitations in articulation. Especially in the ability of the axel to really flex. I also wonder about the rigidity. It seems like it would be less rigid at stabilizing the axle horizontally. I cant speak from experience though.
1985taylor1925
Senior Member
Yeah different systems altogether. But in the end the purpose is the same, allow the axel to move freely vertical while eliminating horizontal motion. I tell ya every time I look at the triangulated 4 bar setup I feel like it would allow too much flex horizontally. And it puts a ton of stress on 4 pivot points on the two angles control arms. I mean, this would apply more at high speeds, like curving or hitting bumps on the highway, and wouldn't really affect off road performance. But again, I want something will perform well on and off road.
snivilous
Senior Member
As long as it's designed correctly there shouldn't be any issues with any setup, hell a lot of trophy trucks/prerunners run a triangulated rear and see lots of high force loadings in turns. That aside, I still see no reason why a triangulated setup is more limiting. As you said, the Watts is limited in flex from the links which is the same way a triangulated 4 link would bind, in either case that can be alleviated or reduced with joints that rotate (heims, or have one end with a threaded bushing that is free to rotate since the joint doesn't need to be rotationally located anyways). I'm not married to a 4 link, but from just looking at it I see few designs that offer the same simplicity and performance while also offering full redundancy.
IBallEngineer
New member
Everything is limited in SOME capacity. I actually believe that space is the biggest constraint for a correctly triangulated 4 link using big tube and ends. At least on our trucks.
MStudt
official vendor
The biggest constraint is not being able to properly set one up. I've seen a couple friends try to set up a triangulated 4 link on their own. After the first run I was at the shop cutting everything off and starting from scratch. People think you can weld on brackets and call it good. There's actually quite a bit of calculating to get it right. When it's right it's amazing, but when it's wrong it sucks. Like you said though, we lack a lot of room that other vehicles have. The 4 link calculator is a great tool, and should be used for planning.
nevada
Senior Member
im not sure what year it was, but jeep used a watts linkage on the grand Cherokee..
I only know this, because I had to replace the BJ that was worn out and clunking....
jeep parts.....
1985taylor1925
Senior Member
Cool. I had no idea jeep did this. They probably stopped because its more expensive and more time consuming than just using a panhard. Or maybe the grand Cherokee switched to rear independent suspension?
Ok, so my conclusion . . . if I ever do this . . . stay with the factory a arm geometry, but replace all 4 pivot joints with heim joints if you really want to eliminate any articulation restriction. Then do a crc/watts linkage. Im thinking next summer for this. Now I just need to buy a welder and learn how to weld!
