[Kurt]

I'm putting a 4 link into a 59 Mercedes 190sl, along with a 5.0 L A.O.D., 4 wheel disks and a bunch of other stuff. Basically it will be an A.C. Cobra with a different body. On the rear suspension, it will work alot better for me if the upper control arms are mounted wider apart on the rearend than on the frame. I've only seen them the other way. Theres a little box behing the seat that acts as a compartment for the stereo, etc. I'd like to save this. If I mount the upper bars the normal way they would sit in the middle of this box. The horizontal angle is not a problem if I mount the bars closer together on the frame. Any thoughts?

 

[Max Keith]

4 bar

Moving your upper control arms outboard, especially if you use stock arms is going to wreak havoc with your rear end camber in the corners. This will force your tires to want to lean out at the top even more, which will cause you to decrease your tread patch on the pavement.

I am presuming this vehicle has independent rear suspension.

 

[Kurt]

It used to have independant, but somewhere along the line some one swapped a 289 into it along with a 9" rearend. The job was botched big time. I think the guys favorite tools were a cutting torch, hammer and flat screwdriver.{used for making holes to run things like wiring through.} I'm staying with the 9', but adding disks to it, and need to change the control arms. The last guy simply welded the stock lower arms to the rearend, so the only way for the rearend to articulate was to flex the arms.

 

[Max Keith]

4 link

Gotcha! So it has already been converted over. I would suggest
mounting your lower trailing arms as far out board as possible and run the parallel to the frame. The upper arms, I would triangulate to the top and center of the rear end with the leading ends mounted to the frame. Doing it this way could well negate the need for a panard bar or Watts link, as it would be very similar, on top, then to a wishbone as used on the Model T's, A's, etc. Spherical rod ends are the only way to go on that setup but you will have to fabricate mounts to do it. The alternative would be to mount the upper arms as far out as possible and parallel with the frame and the lowers like a wishbone. A good place to mount the front end of the lower links would be at the transmission mount. Another alternative would be to use tie rod ends on your links. Mounting the lower links in wishbone fashion is probably the more practical way of going. Be sure to set up your mounts so that at rest, your bolts in the spherical rod ends or the tie rod bolts are 90 degrees in relation to the link itself.

While I mentioned it may be possible to eliminate the panard bar or a watts link, I would probably be hesitant to do so.
When you mount a panard bar, the longer it is the better.

 

[Kurt]

The lower arms work out well. The only variance from a normal system would be that the upper "triangle" would be backwards. That is closer together on the body than on the rearend. This would allow all the normal angles as far as horizontal placement goes. My only concern is with articulation. In my head it should work fine, but I don't know for sure. I'm using parts from a 4 link kit, complete with heim joints.

 

[Max Keith]

4 link

The most common setup with a 4 link is to have the bars parallel on both sides and the same length, usually around 30 or so inches, and a Panard Bar. You might do well to shop in some of the Stock Car suspension company catalogues for what you are wanting.
Speedway Motors in Lincoln, Neb. , has suspension setups for just about everything imaginable, street to racing. The backward wishbone with the apex on the body will definately require the use of a panard bar.

speedwaymotors.com is the link.

Are you contemplating running the 289 or are you going to swap in a bigger engine?

 

[Kurt]

I'm running a fuel injected 5.0 and A.O.D. trans out of a 91 Mustang. I doubt I"ll do anything powerwise to the motor but you never know. Ill have to check the speedway site, no time right now.