I was looking at Toto's journal and he just did a great job installing a rear 4 bar.My question is,when he hooks up that extended front mount won't it bind? It resembles a 91 Firebird with the torque arm and they only have 2 lower mounts.

I just looked at Toto's journal and I like what he's doing. I couldn't find a picture of the 4bar installed. The first picture shows the components laid out on the shop floor.

Since this is a 4BAR (upper and lower link always parallel) and not a 4LINK, there's no problem with binding, so it's an ideal setup for a street car. (The same could be said for a 3link, of course.)

My only concern is that he does not install the bars horizontal at ride height as this would cause excessive squat on forward acceleration. If the bars are angled up with a slope equal to the center of gravity height divided by the wheelbase, there would be no squat or rise on acceleration. Something a bit less than this would be fine for a street rod.

I intend to PM Toto and call his attention to this thread.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope

Thanks Billy but you missed my point. I think because you did not see it installed or a pic of the rear axle.I know about 4 bar and 4 link and by themselves work great. But if you can see the long snout on the rear axle and the way it mounts i believe you would see what I mean. If you can see it and I am wrong please correct me,but it looks like it will add a fifth bar and bind the setup.JMO.I just went back to his journal and the pic of 4 bar installed is there.

You're right, of course. That'll never work. Don't know how I missed it. I thought you were talking about binding in the 4bar and I totally missed that housing in the middle. If he's determined to use that axle housing, I suppose he could toss the crossmember and just let that snout wave in the breeze.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope

Glad it is not just me. He did a great job,but if he mounts the snout it will bind. What if he just removed the 2 top bars? Then wouldn't it work like the Firebird and Camaros with the torque arm?I don't mean to cut anybody down,I would just hate to see him finish it before he realizes he has a problem.

That 4 bar will not work right,If that torque arm is hooked to the frame. But who know's we may learn something here!!!

It would be far better if he simply didn't install the crossmember and installed the 4bar linkage at an appropriate angle.

And, yes, I hope he's watching this thread. I sent him a PM.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope

Thanks Billy.I hope he understands that I just want to help and not cut him down. I understand what you are saying but I wonder about that snout sticking out unsupported.If there is any drive shaft vibration,wouldn't that just amplify it?I am not a drive line expert so correct me if I am wrong.Just trying to get him the right info so he can have the best possible results.Thanks for sending him a PM,I don't want him to think we are talking behind his back.I just needed someone to confirm what I thought.

I had to hunt for the journal you were talking about. Below is a picture of Toto's current setup for ease of viewing. Left click on it for a larger view.

Here is what Toto says the rear is:

"Bought a rear-end yesterday.
It's originaly found under an Opel Manta B (Don't know if these cars are known in the US) .
The nice thing on these type of axles is that the drive-shaft is placed in an aluminium case,wich I plan to run right true the interior of the car,without any cover."

Attached Thumbnails

 

Hi Frisco,nice to here from you.What is your opinion on what it looks like he is doing?

I am not familiar with the rear end combo that he is using, but it looks very similar to any torque tube setup (think early Ford, Chevy and Buick).

It appears that if the original cross member that is shown in the photos in his journal is solid mounted to the side rails of the frame; the rear end will not be able to move up and down. Makes me wonder how it worked originally? Is there a u-joint hidden from view inside the crossmember? If there is it will work just fine with the crossmember rigid mounted to the siderails of the frame. If not, then what I post below could be a possible solution.

If my understanding of the rear end assembly is correct as viewed in the photos, if he eliminated the present cross member and located the center of the front universal joint in line with the mounting points of the front of the 4 bars; the rear would be able to move whatever limits he set in the rear suspension. He would also have to install a cross member just forward of the front universal of the drive shaft to support the drive shaft.
Overall, the setup has many possibilities. I am curious as to the overall strength of the rear gearing and axles. That would limit engine choices.

ADDED INFO: He stated that he wanted to install the rear on the inside of his vehicle without any cover (Because of the closed driveline). That's interesting because unless he runs a full body pan it would get pretty messy inside from road grime, etc.

I don't think there is a u joint hidden ,I think the u joint goes in front of the flange pretty much like the old torque tubes.The mount seems to be like a hanger bearing without the bearing which would allow the rear to pivot up and down and move front to back slightly.If he were to remove the 2 upper bars it would work well,like the 91 Firebird torque arm set up.I wish he would weigh in on what we are discussing and correct us if he knows something we don't.

Okay, my flippant reply about letting that snout wave in the breeze is certainly not an answer. But, it certainly can't be attached to a crossmember. Remember, the instant center, with the 4bar, is at infinity, meaning the vertical travel of the front of the snout will pretty much imitate that of the axle.

The initiator of this thread suggested that the top 2 bars be removed, but this could cause problems with the front of the snout wanting to go either forward or backward while cornering. Aw, why beat a crippled horse? The neatest solution is to simply abandon the idea of a driveline exposed in the car.

Having owned an Opel (with an open driveshaft) which lost the rear gears and having discovered the high replacement cost, I can't see why he wants it, anyway. (Incidentally, I just cleaned it out and reassembled it. Car ran fine and quietly with one ring gear tooth missing.)

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope

Got to remember that the guy is in Europe, Opel stuff is easy to find over there.

Missed that. Thanks.

Opel has some great cars today. Much better than those that were sold through the Buick dealers. Same with Vauxhall and those that were sold through the Pontiac dealers.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope