pondering the use of coil over shocks...

[oldschoolimport]

I've been thinking about the torsional stresses on the axle like you mentioned. with the axle rotated, the internal sway won't work. I will probably use the swing bearing with new mounting plates, and tubular arms. I have a jackson racing rear sway on my 86 Si, that I may replace, and it would be free to put on the tear.

I have the original panhard mount, that could be put back on the axle tube, after I widen it. that may be the easiest option.

this is a continual thought process to figure out the best way to do this. I appreciate all the input.

[brian_bp]

...with the axle rotated, the internal sway won't work...

I don't see why not, but it has been a long time since I looked at the details: the end of the bar is tied to a crank arm, which connects by another link to the hub carrier; the other end of the bar is anchored inside the tube. The bearing allows the tube and one hub carrier to rotate relative to the tube and other hub carrier, while the bar ties them together, in a springy way (<-- technical term ) None of that should change due to the rotation of the operating position.

...I have the original panhard mount, that could be put back on the axle tube, after I widen it. that may be the easiest option...

I agree that the panhard approach is likely easiest. If the axle is being widened, I can see how the internal sway bar may be lost in the process, due to its mounting (but I have never seen the internal end mount).

[oldschoolimport]

...with the axle rotated, the internal sway won't work...

I don't see why not, but it has been a long time since I looked at the details: the end of the bar is tied to a crank arm, which connects by another link to the hub carrier; the other end of the bar is anchored inside the tube. The bearing allows the tube and one hub carrier to rotate relative to the tube and other hub carrier, while the bar ties them together, in a springy way (<-- technical term ) None of that should change due to the rotation of the operating position.

with how I will have the axle rotated, I can't use the original trailing arms, hence I lose my link connection point. the axle tube is rotated almost 90 degrees. the arm to axle mounts are rectangular, so they can only be mounted forward or backward, not 90 degrees off, so they would be pointed up rather than forward. also, the torque arm will be pointed forward, rather than up or down, so the link would have little to no affect on it.

the lack of the sway bar shouldn't be detrimental. the base model civic/crx of that era didn't come with a rear sway of any kind. without one, it should have similar characteristics to a leaf set-up, as far as sway goes. if its uncomfortable, I can weld something up with one of my stock sway bars thats been upgraded thru the years.

[oldschoolimport]

after studying some pics I have, I could mount the sway link vertically, since the torque would be horizontal, but that would bring in lateral stresses to the trailing arm, which will likely be tube, rather than linear stress as the manufacturer intended.

like I said, its a continual thought process. it'll work out.

[starleen2]

With this much discussion about the set up and complexity of the matter - it is no wonder that many go with the traditional leaf spring set up. Torsion, sway, panhard bars, etc - Why not go with four link triangulated with coil overs? Are we driving this thing or are we towing? These suspensions were designed for loads and torque that a trailer will never see - so why try to design them in the same way they were found in the donor vehicle? I see the value in the discussion, but to me it looks way too complex for any serious benefit. I say take your axle - minus the coilovers - weld some leaf spring mounts to it and mount to the trailer frame - your done - and lot less calculations - unless you're really going for an exotic look.

[oldschoolimport]

I just wanted to see if I could do it with what I have laying around, and it still be functional. using the axle on leafs has been considered, but I'm the type to go 12 blocks out of the way to get across the street.

[brian_bp]

With this much discussion about the set up and complexity of the matter - it is no wonder that many go with the traditional leaf spring set up.

The complexity in this case comes from rotating the axle (to get more drop and/or lean the struts back); used in its normal position, it would be straightforward.

Torsion, sway, panhard bars, etc - Why not go with four link triangulated with coil overs? Are we driving this thing or are we towing? These suspensions were designed for loads and torque that a trailer will never see - so why try to design them in the same way they were found in the donor vehicle?

If the brakes were used, then in a trailer the suspension would be subject to the same loads as it would in the back of the front-wheel-drive donor vehicle. Without brakes, the trailer is a simpler situation (no brake torque, and still no drive torque) but the suspension design is still well-suited to the vehicle.

I see the value in the discussion, but to me it looks way too complex for any serious benefit. I say take your axle - minus the coilovers - weld some leaf spring mounts to it and mount to the trailer frame - your done - and lot less calculations - unless you're really going for an exotic look.

If the axle is to be mounted to leaf springs, then I think this Honda axle is a poor choice, due to the included bearing. It would make more sense to me to use a regular trailer drop axle, or the same general design built from scratch with Honda hub/bearing units bolted to the ends if wheel compatibility is desired. In another topic in this forum, someone mentioned Australian trailers using axles with Toyota hub/bearing units bolted on the ends, in order to use those readily available parts, and the same idea could be used here.