What's new
By:
Ram Heavy Duty Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Articulink? Technical discussion

I think we’re saying the same thing differently. Sorta. Partially arguing semantics since we both agree that the axle moves rotationally with bushing deflection. I just don’t call that axle wrap since that movement is operating within the design parameters of the suspension. You can axle wrap a leaf spring bad enough to break a U-joint or permanently bend the springs which I’ve done both. You need lots of torque and lots of traction to accomplish that.

Independent rear end with wheel hop shown below which proves that wheel hop and axle wrap are/can be independent of each other.

 
jetrinka said:
So I have always been curious about this one. Not trying to be an ass, just honestly curious as to what you have accomplished doing this? It seems to me a very front heavy Cummins truck would benefit from a front swaybar especially under loaded/towing conditions? Keeping the truck planted in corners?
Click to expand...
The sway bar really only eliminates body roll on the road but with the stiff nature of the springs there is not much body roll so the sway bar does not do much for these trucks
 
H3LZSN1P3R said:
The sway bar really only eliminates body roll on the road but with the stiff nature of the springs there is not much body roll so the sway bar does not do much for these trucks
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 
Ok so now that we or have not solved wtf causes trucks to hop like a bunny on meth.
The axle housings are different on the 2500's whether you have a 2wd, 4wd, or power wagon. I'm guessing that is the cause of the rear control arms having different part numbers.
Back to the original topic which my search led to to this thread. I have been dying to swap to power wagon radius arms, even way back with my 2500. I have big boulders in my front yard that I use to test articulation/flex. I've done every truck I've owned and my wife's grand cherokee (much to her horror...) but my 3500 is the only one I've been able to test while doing upgrades. I have climbed the Boulder stock, and after all of my mods and there hasn't been any difference really. So hopefully adding a set of power wagon radius arms would help.
 
I answered why the trucks hop earlier in this thread.

Your 3500 would gain a lot of potential between softer springs, lower rate swaybars, and more flexible radius arms (the Articulink arm). The rear leaf arrangement of the current 3500 doesn't quite allow the playfulness of the earlier leaf sprung 2500's but you can still improve them a lot.
 
MDethloff said:
I answered why the trucks hop earlier in this thread.

Your 3500 would gain a lot of potential between softer springs, lower rate swaybars, and more flexible radius arms (the Articulink arm). The rear leaf arrangement of the current 3500 doesn't quite allow the playfulness of the earlier leaf sprung 2500's but you can still improve them a lot.
Click to expand...
I already have thuren 2.25" (2.75" actual lift) and a thuren sway bar. Those did help but not much.
 
loveracing1988 said:
Factory rear leafs with 1" spacer. My truck never had a rear sway bar.
Click to expand...
Copy - those factory leaves are gonna be a big part of it, VERY stiff construction. That main leaf is crazy thick. That and the factory front radius arms make a big difference in articulation.
 
ok so I'm having this discussion with another forum member trying to wrap my head around this suspension............does the power wagon articulink suspension have anything to do with payload?
 
thkbaron said:
ok so I'm having this discussion with another forum member trying to wrap my head around this suspension............does the power wagon articulink suspension have anything to do with payload?
Click to expand...
No, the light weight linear springs are the cause of the low payload.
 
thkbaron said:
ok so I'm having this discussion with another forum member trying to wrap my head around this suspension............does the power wagon articulink suspension have anything to do with payload?
Click to expand...

I would imagine it would have something to do with it due to the upper mount to the axle being a flexible unit. The radius arm is also a smaller piece than the regular ones.
 
I’m sure it probably doesn’t help but I just assumed it was the springs that were the biggest part of payload.
 
It’s really a compilation of everything put together.
 
Last edited:
jetrinka said:
It’s really a compilation of everything out together.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

As I said in the other thread, it’s a system.
Springs are all that seems to matter when you’re just looking at the truck parked on level ground (and don’t get me wrong, springs do play a big role)… But you’re short changing things if you don’t consider the forces on all components of the suspension system when the vehicle is in dynamic motion
 
It's what kind of confused me on the 3500 people tossing the power wagon arms on. If they wanted the ride just get the power wagon. Now they're potentially losing part of the payload capacity of their 3500.
 
thkbaron said:
It's what kind of confused me on the 3500 people tossing the power wagon arms on. If they wanted the ride just get the power wagon. Now they're potentially losing part of the payload capacity of their 3500.
Click to expand...
Really unless you have a plow hanging of the front the front payload is not an issue
 
I can't for the life of my imagine why the articulink radius arms would lower the capacity of the vehicle to tow and haul. It just adds a 2nd bushing to the upper axle attachment points.
 
sedonaexpeditionvehicles said:
I can't for the life of my imagine why the articulink radius arms would lower the capacity of the vehicle to tow and haul. It just adds a 2nd bushing to the upper axle attachment points.
Click to expand...
Extra bushing = extra flex/extra allowable side-to-side movement
extra movement = more body roll = diminished vehicle control

Just because something doesn’t physically fail, doesn’t mean the engineers didn’t decide/determine the handling characteristics were outside of acceptable/allowable limits when loaded to same capacity of standard 2500
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top