Anyone use a Jimenez Bros 2 link kit?

I know this is an old thread but that's okay because it's still relevant today. Its also the first thread that comes up when you google "Jimenez bros customs 2 link". I'm 90% sure they use a Curry Johnny Joint in the front of their 2 Link. If any of you are into Jeeps or off-roading, you'll know the Johnny Joint has ridiculous articulation with zero binding. They also last a super long time before needing a rebuild and when they do require one, the rebuild kits are really cheap and easy to install

 

That's not the point, and it may actually make things worse.

A Johnny Joint has almost no ability to deflect, only rotate.

Since their 2-ink bars cannot flex, and these joints don't deflect, you go straight into some degree of bind almost instantly, and it gets progressively worse as the suspension travels.

The only things that would improve rigid links are highly-compliant bushings that can handle extreme deflection, which is exactly the opposite of what they chose.

The arms need to flex, period:

If they do not, then the system is in bind. It is just that simple.

They are not called "The Friendly Suggestions of Physics".

 

Haha fair enough. Just another thought here...Metal Cloak makes rubber "bushings" that operate essentially the same as jonny joints, with impact absorbing and deflection abilities. They also fit exactly where Johnny joints fit so they can be swapped in.

 

I know this is an old post , but I really need to know what , if any updates or opinions have been decided on the JIMENEZ 2 LINK for a 1954 Chevy . I have a shop recommending it for my 1954 Sedan , the Builder is very reputable , but don't want to mention names . So I feel confident in his word , but just wanted to see if the debate about the JIMENEZ 2 LINK system was a positive or negative one . It's July 2021 , a ways off from the last post , maybe JIMENEZ has improved the set up , or maybe not , anyone know ?? Thanks & everyone have a great 4th , be safe Brother Hamber !!!

 

@54FISH

The only poster on this thread (until this one) that 'gets' the forces involved on the link arms is @gimpyshotrods . No matter how much articulation the forward connection has, the link bar STILL twists (or tries to) whenever the chassis and/or axle centerlines are no longer parallel to one another.

It is exactly the same forces that are induced in an early Ford when the wishbone is split. In that instance, however, the BIG difference is the I beam axle twists and accommodates the stresses applied.

In the case of the typical rear axle such as is under discussion here, the rear axle WILL NOT twist so the link arms must absorb the forces. On 'solid' front axles, whether tube or I beam, those forces can be negated in the axle by using the four bar system and then their movement accommodates the conflict.

Try this.....take two ice cream bar sticks and a dowel or pencil.....drill a hole in the end of each stick, slip them onto the pencil, affixed like the link bars, wide at the axle end and close at the front, and glue the sticks to the pencil/dowel in that position. Let the glue fully dry. Now, hold the front of the link bars in one hand and the pencil in the other. Then try to twist the 'axle' like chassis roll would do, while holding the front of the bars like they are anchored to the crossmember......you will quickly see what happens. Soft front bushings may help a little, but not enough. The link bars must twist in that application of forces.

This subject was well 'litigated' several years ago here on the HAMB. Do a search for 'Nascar Arms' or 'Truck Arms'......and you can see for yourself.

One more thing. I believe this system is NOT a 'two link'. It is clearly a 'three link' as it requires the Panhard Bar to accomplish the necessary axle location control.

Ray

 

I tried but I can’t see how that set up can allow any roll. They look super stiff to me. Maybe if the upper links had some give. Maybe some rubber biscuits.

 

Most of them (not all though) use joints in both ends of the lower arm and in the upper arm where it connects to the lower.

 

@StefanS

I am willing to bet the jeep bars rotate in the forward threaded ends in spite of the lock nuts. That is where the needed ‘twist’ occurs. I fail to see how joints in the short diagonal links add anything to articulation. Wishful thinking and/or beliefs do not trump physics and geometry.

Ray

 

I think if they rotated in the threads they wouldn't last for more than a few miles without tearing themselves apart. The upper arms are there to provide axle stabilization with joints on both ends, otherwise you'd need a solid mount like the JBC kit. You do need to run a track bar with this style arm though so exhaust routing would be an issue. Also I'm going to run bags but I'm not going to have any more then a load leveling type system, kind of like Cadillac. I'm not going to be going up-and-down 5 or 6" so my pinion angle will all but stay the same except for over a quick bump. I also have a triangulated 4 link kit I was going to install but I use my rear seat so I really dont want to have to compromise it's comfort by modifying it to work with the upper bars which is why I'm thinking of something like this or the JBC kit.

 

The only point of contention here is that the JBC links are square tube and not flexible in twist like the GM pickup/NASCAR control arms. Otherwise their overall design seems adequate. The Jeep system shown is overkill for your stated purposes. Pick your poison.

 

I literally cannot believe that this thread is still going.

In the time since I last posted on it, I have been hired to do design work for an outfit just a little bit bigger than some random hot rod shop, or backyard builder. They seem so certain that my advice is indeed sound, they use my designs to build production vehicles. They seem to like me. I have been there for 3-1/2 years, have gotten a few raises, a promotion, and am on a first-name basis with the CEO.

It is hard for me to believe that I have gotten this far in life by guessing.

 

I just looked at their website. The design is as it has been. No changes.

 

I dig lowered cars........but "lay'n frame is lame"!!!

 

yes, it could be designed and executed better. it's a compromised design that is intended for, and works well enough for, low adjustable suspension cars. we're not building pro-touring cars. we're not building rock crawlers. some are building cars that sit low, drive well, and have room for passengers and luggage. the geometry is less than ideal but good enough for the intended purpose. tube may not twist much, but the assembled package allows enough deflection for it's intended use, especially when lowering blocks are involved. really, the front u-joint angle change caused by this design is a bigger problem than anything else.

 

Interesting. Mike Bello (Bello's Kustoms) is into laying frame builds and uses a 4 link. In fact he made disparaging comments about even the idea of using a 2 link.

 

I give up, and I doubt I will renew my Alliance membership.

People have become evangelical about stupid, even when avoiding it is simple, and they cannot be dissuaded.

 

There is an adage I read somewhere that may apply here…”It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled”

Ray

 

You are so right.

 

If only there was some way to get OEM-equivalent trailing arms, with the correct engineering, instead of the incorrect stuff, without having to make them. If only.


I guess we will never see that day....

If we did, I'd bet that nobody would sell them:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/clp-6072sta-k
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264968449628?hash=item3db159ae5c:g:oa8AAOSwx0hdGnpo

Dare to dream.

 

50 Olds arms are short truck arms. I used one under my Chevy II in 64.

 

Glad to see CCP finally adopted the correct cross section arms as they have been selling the tubular units for years.

Several years ago I bought reproduction GM truck arms from a Company called Stock Car Products. Nicely made. A couple years later I tried to buy another set but found they were no longer in business as I recall.

Ray

 

Andy, what did you do to keep the axle located laterally?

Ray

 

I have always used stock 59-64 big Chevy car locating bars.

 

Simple and effective.

 

No one is irreplaceable.......

 

Does it make you feel like a bigger man to say things like this?

Do you feel like you are making a positive contribution here?

 

Nope ,Yep

 

So NOT to kick the hornets nest or Stoke the fire this topic has been . But has anyone used this kit on the 1954 Chevy 2dr. sedan ? If so , what has the change in the rear seat area been like ? Looks like the Notch with Panhard ( the one I saw was in front of diff) would cause a lot of modification in rear seat area . Unlike Gambino design that needs slight rear seat mods . Well if it's no trouble & yaz have any thoughts . I'm just asking?! Be safe & be well Brother Hambers. Save the fighting for the imports

 

Since I know Alex Gambino, and have installed quite a few of his kits for customers, I would say go with that.

If you want a 2-link to be below the floor of a 1954 Chevy sedan, you will need to install lowering blocks, and then you are approaching having scrub line issues. Grinding a control arm/u-bolts into the pavement if you get a flat could have undesirable results.

Alex Gambino's kit is soundly engineered, and of quality construction. By design, irrespective of what you use for a spring, or spring substitute, it will allow the rear suspension to properly articulate to follow road irregularities, for a pleasant ride, which is something a tubular 2-link simply cannot do.

The only cars that ride poorly are the ones that are built wrong.

When you see the orange FU '54 at a show far from San Jose, California, it is because it was driven there. He's likely got over 100,000 miles on that thing, with that suspension.

 

I ABSOLUTELY would love to have Alex's kit in my 54' by far . Problem is , I Do not have a certification in welding ( and believe suspension mods warrant cert welding for safety) . (2) I'm on East Coast where No one seems to have experience installing the taildragger kit . Many shops are willing to try & will charge time/material ,but cannot give quote . Could get ridiculous !? Might be easier to go to weld school & get cert or move past a bagged car to a traditional . I'm shocked there's not a Bolt in notch / bag kit , but maybe it's not a safe thing to do with stresses. Aaaa well FUCK it ! Be safe brothers