If you were looking for a TJ or XJ long arm kit, would you rather have a t-case skidplate the same height as stock with good suspension geometry, or a high clearance skid plate with compromised suspension geometry?

Good geometry...use bigger tires for more clearance.

CJ

Why can't you have both? I don't think you need to sacrafice one to get the other.

You can have both so thats what you should aim for.

you cant have both, the more you raise your skid plate, the higher you have to mount you LCA's, assuming they are mounted to the skid plate, this gives you a longer SVSA, and as a result more anti-squat. The more you raise the skid plate, the more the geometry suffers, so there is a compromise.

Originally posted by onsafari
Why can't you have both? I don't think you need to sacrafice one to get the other.

Suspension design is a compromise.

I would guess a lot of mall TJs don't give a shit, but I would want proper geometry if I was looking for a long arm kit, and I happened to own a TJ.

Good geometery comes first. You can only raise the skid plate so much to accomodate your lower control arms. Just run bigger tires for more clearance.

Originally posted by GOAT1
assuming they are mounted to the skid plate

Well quit assuming that and you can have both.

Originally posted by Green Lantern
Good geometery comes first. You can only raise the skid plate so much to accomodate your lower control arms. Just run bigger tires for more clearance.

Why do the control arms have to mount to the skid plate? If the mount to the frame what does the skid plate have to do with it and the original question never said anything about them having to mount to the skid plate.

I like this guys design

Originally posted by bigdude
Well quit assuming that and you can have both.

My guess is that he's thinking along the lines of a completely bolt-on kit and not something custom.

cmk

Originally posted by cmk


My guess is that he's thinking along the lines of a completely bolt-on kit and not something custom.

cmk

Well if thats the case then he needs to enlighten us on that fact. If he is looking for bolt on than there is no need to look any farther than the RE LA kit.

He mentioned kit so I assumed bolt on.

onsafari, do you have any more pics of that yellow TJ? I'd love to see 'em. thanks

Originally posted by Green Lantern
He mentioned kit so I assumed bolt on.

Why yes, yes he did. My bad :flipoff2:

Yes I would be talking about a bolt on kit, I am making a suspension for a buddy's TJ, he doesnt want to do much welding on the frame, plus I don't want his heep apart on my shop floor for a couple of weeks while I crawl under it making and welding mounts on it, I would much rather take some measurements, and make a bolt-on skid plate with all the mounting points on the welding table, and bolt it on in a day, sort of like a RE, but with better geometry, and without those retro 70's radius arms.

Originally posted by Jon B
onsafari, do you have any more pics of that yellow TJ? I'd love to see 'em. thanks

Yes I do but I can't share them with you :flipoff2:




















Go to www.wickedworksoffroad.com for the rest

i think better geometry would be my prefrence, along with the flatter skid comes vibs to work out, but you can run with less overall height and the same clearance as a jeep lifted heigher to get the clearance under the skid. so it seems there are definatly downfalls or comprimises for both. still i think i would like the better geometry and the lower skid. mabie you could make the skid to where it doenst have many things to snag on and just hope you dont high center on too many thing..,.. man this is a really hard choice. good luck

You can't make a bolt on kit right....

Too many other thngs are fucked up:

Shock mounts become wrong.
Spring perches become wrong.
Axle LCA mounts are 150 different kinds of wrong already.
Few want to stay 5 link if they know the difference and what is out there.


Actually maybe this is the wrong forum, few of us want a bolt on kit. :flipoff2:

thanks onsafari!

Originally posted by JEEP_TJ_FREAK
You can't make a bolt on kit right....

Too many other thngs are fucked up:

Shock mounts become wrong.
Spring perches become wrong.
Axle LCA mounts are 150 different kinds of wrong already.
Few want to stay 5 link if they know the difference and what is out there.


Actually maybe this is the wrong forum, few of us want a bolt on kit. :flipoff2:


Well I didnt ask if I can make a bolt on kit, I just asked which was more important, ground clearance or good geometry, anyway axle LCA mounts aren't too bad, but who says I am using the stock rear end anyway, and who said it will be 5 link, 5 link sucks

Why is this the wrong forum for this, I bet a good portion of the TJ owners on this board have some sort of bolt-on suspension.

I say go with a flat skid and then make the geometry work. There is no reason why doing a frame mounted suspension should take a long time, just make good measurements and make the mounts ahead of time. If you want a good suspension you'll have to spend time fabbing and measuring, if not just get the RE kit, it has most of the kinks worked out and sounds like what your trying to do.

Originally posted by bigdude


Well quit assuming that and you can have both.

Exactly, do it right or don't bother.

Originally posted by Beast40
I say go with a flat skid and then make the geometry work. There is no reason why doing a frame mounted suspension should take a long time, just make good measurements and make the mounts ahead of time. If you want a good suspension you'll have to spend time fabbing and measuring, if not just get the RE kit, it has most of the kinks worked out and sounds like what your trying to do.

I am not trying to make an RE kit, it sucks, I am making something much better, the only thing similar to the RE kit will be that the arms mount to the skid plate.

there is no resone that you cannot do everything on your list.
good clearance
good geomatry
bolt on
good flex I am assuming here

I bolted mine to the out-side of the frame
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/cd7ecceb/bc/jeep/2000+tj.jpg?bco1q39AU6LgZlHW

this was all bolted up then welded to the frame it took one afternoon to weld mostly becouse it was 110 out and the welder kept getting hot and blowing the breaker.

Sorry I do not have a better picture right now

Originally posted by GOAT1
I am not trying to make an RE kit, it sucks...

Care to explain that? Just curious as to why you think the RE long arms suck.;)

Originally posted by JS-Economos


Care to explain that? Just curious as to why you think the RE long arms suck.;)

Don't get me wrong the RE kit works well, and it a good kit, but if I were making my own, I would not use radius arms and would not use panhard bars.

I would comprimise and meet in the middle. Slightly better clearnace, but still good geometry. I like crawling more then rock racing and find belly clearance to be a big issue, and I think anyone with 37's or smaller will agree.

what size tires is he looking to run? i will assume that since he doesn't want a lot of welding, he also doesn't want to cut up his fenders; which means that if he wants to run bigger meats he will have to go with more lift and therefore go with not as good geometry. again, this is under the assumption that you are hanging the arms off the skid plate the skid plate 4" below the frame..

Originally posted by hardcore4wd.com
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/cd7ecceb/bc/jeep/2000+tj.jpg?bco1q39AU6LgZlHW


Sorry I do not have a better picture right now

Hey man soneone stole your fullsize spare:flipoff2:

Originally posted by JohnnyJ
what size tires is he looking to run? i will assume that since he doesn't want a lot of welding, he also doesn't want to cut up his fenders; which means that if he wants to run bigger meats he will have to go with more lift and therefore go with not as good geometry. again, this is under the assumption that you are hanging the arms off the skid plate the skid plate 4" below the frame..

More lift doesn't=bad geometry. The bad geometry comes from TJ guys using a kit designed for 4.5" lift and adding 5-6" coils and spacers.

Sounds to me GOAT is looking to make a better bolt on kit for guys that want to wheel, i.e. he seems to be pointing to triangulation of the control arms.

Come on, give him some good info guys. TJ owners love bolt on shit, maybe thats because there is so much out there, but just because it comes from RE doesn't mean it is the end all of suspension. If someone wanted to offer a triangulated 4-link bolt-on kit for my Willys I would love it! Lot easier than calculating, placing, and determining the proper (see: compromise) suspension design.

Just my 0.02

I have 1st hand info of this NOT working. I got the Tera front half LA kit and it rode and drove great with RE4.5" coils. I knew the geometry would be fwaked if I went higher but wanted to test it. As figured I lost a huge amount of downtravel since the arms were no where near to moving on the same plane(RE Short uppers). With the 5.5" RE coils it was a joke. The pinion angle would go way out of whack during suspension cycle as well.
I solved it buy tying my uppers into the lowers. Works well.
So if you want semi-bolt on go RE. Or get the Tera and modify the uppers.
Good luck,
Cord

That is just your eyes deceiving you man that is a 38 it is the rest of my tires that are small :D

The front and rear bumpers/tire carrier are waiting on me to finish fabbing them.

Originally posted by LAME


More lift doesn't=bad geometry. The bad geometry comes from TJ guys using a kit designed for 4.5" lift and adding 5-6" coils and spacers.

Sounds to me GOAT is looking to make a better bolt on kit for guys that want to wheel, i.e. he seems to be pointing to triangulation of the control arms.

Come on, give him some good info guys. TJ owners love bolt on shit, maybe thats because there is so much out there, but just because it comes from RE doesn't mean it is the end all of suspension. If someone wanted to offer a triangulated 4-link bolt-on kit for my Willys I would love it! Lot easier than calculating, placing, and determining the proper (see: compromise) suspension design.

Just my 0.02

thank you Lame
The bad geometry also comes from the short arms on a TJ and when you lift them, they run at steeper angles, f'n up the stock geometry (as we all know), a long arm kit help this problem out, but if you put the LCA frame pivots very high, like beside the frame as one guy has, you gain longer arms which helps the pinion and caster curves, and the axle steer when articulating, but you don't gain much as far as anti-squat or anti-dive. In order to retain the stock geometry you would need to put the LCA mounts somewhere like 8" below the frame which we all know would suck, so as a compromise, you need to put the LCA mounts as low as possibe to get the best geometry. Now you could weld on LCA mounts beneath the frame that hang down 3" and make a flate skid, but you could get hung up on the LCA mounts while clearing the skid (the flat skid doesnt help out driveline angles much either). Or you could make a smooth skid that hangs down the same as stock and mounts the LCA's up inside so there is nothing hanging down and you have a smooth bottom to slide off anything.

Originally posted by GOAT1


thank you Lame
The bad geometry also comes from the short arms on a TJ and when you lift them, they run at steeper angles, f'n up the stock geometry (as we all know), a long arm kit help this problem out, but if you put the LCA frame pivots very high, like beside the frame as one guy has, you gain longer arms which helps the pinion and caster curves, and the axle steer when articulating, but you don't gain much as far as anti-squat or anti-dive. In order to retain the stock geometry you would need to put the LCA mounts somewhere like 8" below the frame which we all know would suck, so as a compromise, you need to put the LCA mounts as low as possibe to get the best geometry. Now you could weld on LCA mounts beneath the frame that hang down 3" and make a flate skid, but you could get hung up on the LCA mounts while clearing the skid (the flat skid doesnt help out driveline angles much either). Or you could make a smooth skid that hangs down the same as stock and mounts the LCA's up inside so there is nothing hanging down and you have a smooth bottom to slide off anything.

Um, I would not worry about the control arm mounts hangng below the frame. You are more than likely never to hit them because your arm will more than likely protect them. Usually when I am dragging my flat skid over a rock it allmost never comes close to my control arm mounts.

Originally posted by LAME


More lift doesn't=bad geometry. The bad geometry comes from TJ guys using a kit designed for 4.5" lift and adding 5-6" coils and spacers.



Not to pick nits, but I wasn't trying make that equation. But I do agree with what you are saying in the second sentence.

What I was trying to get at was that if a person is looking to run larger tires and doesn't want to open the fenders to make room for them, then you'll have to add more spring to make room for them and add some bumpstop to keep them out of the sheet metal. as you add more lift, the geometry of arms hanging from a flat or near flat skid becomes less disireable, and like you said if you stick with stock arms it becomes downright bad. i think that unless you want to run a big drop skid, which causes a loss of breakover angle, then a long arm will have to live with some angles on the arms. i'm not saying it's bad, but trying to point out that a "perfect" suspension setup would likely have bad ground clearance. it's all about compromise.

one of the big issues for the rear was hit by Beast40. I think you'd have to move the upper rear spring mount if you went with a good 3 or 4-link that minimizes rear steer. right now the upper is a little forward of the axle and this would probably cause some issues. of course, any decent kit would modify the rear shock mounts, too.

as for the front, what is the plan? it seems that the front causes a lot more rip-up, probably the reason why RE went with the easier to implement radius arms. it does seem to work better than skyjacker or tera's solution to use long lowers and stock uppers.

i think the reason that many go with the RE is because it is something that they know works. it isn't the ultimate design, but it is good; in my opinion better than the other off-the-shelf offerings that I have seen. and like goat said, he doesn' want a Tj sitting in his shop for weeks -- i think that is how many TJ owners feel (especially the ones that use them for DDs).

Originally posted by JohnnyJ


Not to pick nits, but I wasn't trying make that equation. But I do agree with what you are saying in the second sentence.

What I was trying to get at was that if a person is looking to run larger tires and doesn't want to open the fenders to make room for them, then you'll have to add more spring to make room for them and add some bumpstop to keep them out of the sheet metal. as you add more lift, the geometry of arms hanging from a flat or near flat skid becomes less disireable, and like you said if you stick with stock arms it becomes downrig

ht bad. i think that unless you want to run a big drop skid, which causes a loss of breakover angle, then a long arm will have to live with some angles on the arms. i'm not saying it's bad, but trying to point out that a "perfect" suspension setup would likely have bad ground clearance. it's all about compromise.

one of the big issues for the rear was hit by Beast40. I think you'd have to move the upper rear spring mount if you went with a good 3 or 4-link that minimizes rear steer. right now the upper is a little forward of the axle and this would probably cause some issues. of course, any decent kit would modify the rear shock mounts, too.

as for the front, what is the plan? it seems that the front causes a lot more rip-up, probably the reason why RE went with the easier to implement radius arms. it does seem to work better than skyjacker or tera's solution to use long lowers and stock uppers.

i think the reason that many go with the RE is because it is something that they know works. it isn't the ultimate design, but it is good; in my opinion better than the other off-the-shelf offerings that I have seen. and like goat said, he doesn' want a Tj sitting in his shop for weeks -- i think that is how many TJ owners feel (especially the ones that use them for DDs).

You seem to have a good idea of whats going on, thanks for the input, I think you are on the same page as me.
My plan was to have the skid be the same hight as OEM, my point to this thread was to know if the stock skid height is acceptable or if a high clearance skid is a must have.

Originally posted by onsafari


Um, I would not worry about the control arm mounts hangng below the frame. You are more than likely never to hit them because your arm will more than likely protect them. Usually when I am dragging my flat skid over a rock it allmost never comes close to my control arm mounts.

I am not worried about hitting the mounts because of damage, just worried about getting hung up in them, do you often get hung up on your LCA mounts underneath your frame?

My 0.02 here.
First let me say that I have had a Tera 3" kit.
Tera upper flex arms in the front.
Tera BellyUP kit.
One inch body lift. (mandatory for the bellyup)
and now a Tera long arm kit/ with the bellyup.
I have had the RE 5" springs, with a 1 inch spacer.
And it worked in the front but not in the back.
THE REAR WOULD NOT FLEX CORRECTLY.

So I cut the springs in the front, removed the spacer in the front Bought Skycrapper 4 1/2 springs for the rear and put the spacer in the rear. NOW

It works better than ever. I also must add this important fact.
If your designin a kit to sell, (which I think you are) REAR driveshaft vibs are the biggest problem.
I solved mine with a REV Cut diff.

But if your trying to avoid that expensive addition, design the suspension to cycle completely with the lower skid plate. If your belly is low, strong, and smooth, you dont have to worry about high centering. But the suspension should move freely.

I just noticed yesterday, While I was greasing DS U Joints, Flexed in my front yard...... That my lower Control arms HIT THE FRAME.
Teraflex long arm kit, mounts beside the frame but inside the jeep. They have a bend in them to the side, But this bend isn't enough. So if your building a "bolt or weldon kit" incorperate a crossmember for the lowers.

Mine moves great, even with frame contact. In fact, the fact that the lower control arm hits the frame, it acts like a bumpstop. And prevents the tire from rubbing the STILL STOCK fender area.

I say use the lower control arm and the frame on PURPOSE to act as a bump stop. Maybee weld some sort of frame piece on to "catch" the lower control arm. If it was designed, then maybee you could prevent accidental bending of the lower.

As for the upper control arms,,,, They just need to be longer to counteract the funny handeling, and weird flex. With the TERA arms you can unscrew them to lengthen them. Just FAB longer ones and that problem is solved.

I know I put out lots of ideas here, But that is what I found. AND I believe my Bolt on Kit works quite nicely. Now that it has parts from all kinds of kits..... But It's basicly a Teraflex kit.

Originally posted by GOAT1


I am not worried about hitting the mounts because of damage, just worried about getting hung up in them, do you often get hung up on your LCA mounts underneath your frame?

Nope, never hit them or got hung up on them. You would likely hang up on the arms first.

I agree, my lower arms are scratched up big time. But the mounts are fine.

Also, reinforce the upper lower control arm mounts in the rear... the welds are weak from the factory.

Originally posted by JohnnyJ

Lots of stuff

I hear ya!

IMO stock drop skid plate. No matter how much you tuck all the shit up, if you crawl big rocks everything can and will hang up and make contact. So make the legs work better.

Keep this up top! It has legit TECH!:D :flipoff2:

The answer to this is simple: If your buddy drives it on the street then you better get the geometry right. If it's a trail rig only then go ahead and raise the skid plate. I don't agree that it is easier to make a "bolt on" lift kit. It's much easier and faster to weld.

i was just thinking and ive seen alot of lower long arms mounted on the bottom of the frame right in front of the skid and wondering the disadvatage of this or if its a good thing

Originally posted by subs1000w
i was just thinking and ive seen alot of lower long arms mounted on the bottom of the frame right in front of the skid and wondering the disadvatage of this or if its a good thing

Less antisquat & less triangulation. It goes both ways.

Pig,

Could you describe what Antisquat is? I havn't heard that term before, and I dont really think it's that big a deal. If anitsquat is the ability to do left turn wheelies... We need to keep it. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by Bert
Pig,

Could you describe what Antisquat is? I havn't heard that term before, and I dont really think it's that big a deal. If anitsquat is the ability to do left turn wheelies... We need to keep it. :flipoff2:

This thread is ridiculous. :rolleyes: I'm tired of trying to state the obvious to you clowns.

But, lets look deeper into this thread, I mean, it goes past a discussion on suspension. Its seems to be that if an obvious statement is placed out for us to read (ANY obvious statement), we get a flurry of neanderthals trying to argue with it.

Let me test my theory.

...Let me throw out an obvious statement:
Problem:I am hungry
Solution:A guy like GOAT will say "why yes Lame, you should go get something to eat if you are hungry"

But the rest of you assclowns will say " if RE says I'm hungry, then I will eat (only if RE sells something to eat).

Disclaimer: Yo Mammy Boy was actually the nutsack that posted before this:D

Either way, he is a IE with a MBA and a racing background. He agrees with GOAT and PIG, the goofy fucking farm animals:flipoff2: FWIW

To me, if the lift is to be over 4.5in I would not raise the skid more than an inch. TJs have shortass, steep angled rear drivelines to start with, and there is no reason to make it worse if you can avoid it. I would rather have a nice smooth skid that makes a clean transition to the lower control arms so you can just slide on them.

Originally posted by LAME


This thread is ridiculous. :rolleyes: I'm tired of trying to state the obvious to you clowns.

But, lets look deeper into this thread, I mean, it goes past a discussion on suspension. Its seems to be that if an obvious statement is placed out for us to read (ANY obvious statement), we get a flurry of neanderthals trying to argue with it.

Let me test my theory.

...Let me throw out an obvious statement:
Problem:I am hungry
Solution:A guy like GOAT will say "why yes Lame, you should go get something to eat if you are hungry"

But the rest of you assclowns will say " if RE says I'm hungry, then I will eat (only if RE sells something to eat).

Lame, WTF? Are, You.... going off..... on Me?
I asked a real question.. I never heard the term antisquat before. Some of us work you know, And dont surf the net all fucking day.

Just tell me what anitsquat is. I know its at least, ANTI== Not.
Squat=== ?

Squat what? the front? The rear? are you talking about axle rap? What?

So dont be one of the :clown: 's you refer to and not answer my question in a quote.. Be a man and answer the fawking question after you quote it, And then you can be a :jester: if you want. But at least answer the fawking question.:mad3:

You bout you search for antisquat:flipoff2: I guarantee you are only a few clicks away from all the info you'll ever want on anti-squat.
Cord

I dont want to turn this into an anti-squat discussion but to answer your question. There is anti-squat typically for the rear and anti-dive for the front. The "anti" effect in suspension is a term that describes the longitudinal to vertical force coupling between the sprung and unsprungs masses. It results purely from the angle or slope of the side view swing arm. Basically when a car is accelerating or decelerating (braking) there is a longitudinal weight transfer, typically the front end will dive during braking and the rearend will squat when accelerating. This weight transfer is counter acted by the suspension springs and the suspension links. To simplify it, the angle of the suspension links in the s ide view determines how much the suspension links counter act the weight transfer or how much anti-squat or anti-dive the suspension has. The more the suspension links point up, the more anti , and the more level they are the less anti.

For our case, a stock TJ has pretty level suspension links=low anti-squat. When you lift it and keep the short arms, the arm angle increases, and you get more anti-squat. You will notice this by the rear end tends to lift more when accelerating. The problem with this is say when climbing an obsticle with the front tires, the rear will start to lift, you are not accelerating so you have no weight transfer, so as the rear is lifting, you are unloading the springs= unloading the tires= loosing traction. If you keep on it the rear end will start to hop. This can happen in the front also during braking, where the front will start to hop. This is the cause of the famous left turns in a TJ, as you turn left the chassis rolls to the right, the chassis rolls more during left turns than right turns because of the direction and angle of the panhard bar. The anti-squat on the left shoot up, and the anti-squat on right shoots down, causing the left rear to lift and right rear to squat, and sometimes lifting the left front tire. OK now I have to get back to work.

Right on Lame.

Thanks Goat.

I'm sorry for being an asshole, Lame.

Search is a pain in the ass cause of all the excess reading involved to get to the simple answer. Goat took care of that real quick for me.
:blender: :bounce:

Holy FAWK,,, I just did a search on anti squat and found so much shit.. I couldn't believe I missed all that.

Where have I been? Must have been working. Sorry again, Lame.

Another thing, you may want to spend some serious time thinking about with your linked suspension is rear-steer. I'll define it incase you don't already know and LAME rips you a new one. This is where under compression and droop one side of the axle moves forward while the other side either stays the same distance from the centerline of the vehicle or moves backward. It is impossible in a 4 linked system to completely remove rear-steer. You can minimize it however, by lengthening your links and, keeping the upper and lower links the same length.
3 and 4 linked systems with only triagulated upper links suffer badly from rear steer generally. Search dust puppy's recent attempt at a link system to see bad rear steer.

There are ways to minimize the issues by keeping the upper and lower links the same length, parallel (when viewed from the side), close to plane with the ground, and triangulate both upper and lower links. Search for ideas.

Ben

Lame: You are breakin my balls over here. Very funny.
Jeepboy: Do a search on rear-steer to really see how to eliminate it.

Bert -

The Tera long arms are not supposed to hit the frame (Mine do also). Tera is aware of this problem (which was caused due to manufacturing tolerances of the frame on TJs, or so they say) and I belive will send you new arms if you contact them. I don't really think it is a big enough deal to fawk with.

Thanks, I will contact them. Mine hit hard.

yeah tera said that i got my new arms on the way, havent seen them and its been about 2-3 months.. aanyhow mine hit the frame just driving on the street..so i kinda think i had to "fawk with it"! i dont know how long they expect me to wait but this is getting very irriating, not being able to wheel! good luck. oh yeah ask for Sam Falkner when you call up TERA

Jesus, its another God of Suspension thread! If your lifting the jeep aren't you gaining more clearance under the skid to begin with? Not that I have a TJ, but I wish I did, that a stock skidplate height combined with whatever amount of lift your getting and bigger tires should be great. How many lift kits out there today have t-case drop down brackets? Go for good geometry. Knowing you I'm almost shocked you asked this question Goat1.

Kevo

BTW Those that think geometry doesn't matter off road better think again. I can attest to the fact that it does.

i got the RE 5.5 la i run a d30 in the front and a ford 8.8 in the rear put front 1.5 in col spacers 1 inch motor and body lift total lift 8 inch i got 36x12.50 tsl/sx's and my frame to ground is 28 inches as far as long arms mounting to the skid plate, 10 bolts holding the plate to the frame is enough beef for me i drilled the holes and welded thet sleeves. as for geometry its way better then stock. i had the re 4.5 kit and it was stiff as a board the steeper the angle of the arms the worse ride ur gonna get by get in more length on the arm it moves its fulcrum more to the stock ride angle. my arms at at a 13 degree angle vx the 4 degree angle they are stock vs the 28 degree anlge they were with the 4.5 kit.

think of it this way it makes ur suspension cycle vertical again vs with the steep angle making ur cycle go between a 30 and 45 degree angle. i did my homework on long arm kits for tjs and its defitily the way to go. i wish i woulda waited cuz skyjacker has the 10 inch king coil kits and rockcrawler suspension has there 7 inch and got a 9 inch in the making oooo baby. happy crawling

Topped for good info, adding this to UTJ thread :smokin:

Seems like everyone keeps comparing what Goat wants to RE. RE has been out of my list of mods for quite sometime now. Along with a desired rear stretch for my TJ, I wanted something right in the middle from a bolt on kit to a custom Polyperformance 3link/4link suspension.

I am now looking more towards Rock Krawler. They are designing a 5 inch stretch, which is perfect for what I am doing. This kit is mostly bolt on except for rear truss. IMHO this is the best "kit" you can get right now without spending a buttload on custom fab work. This kit also has the desired crossmember in which you bolt your control arms too. This kit also has a 3link front and 4 link rear.

take a look:
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/rock-krawler-x-factor-la-upgrade-installed-14-pictures-888763/
same kit with 10 inch stretch, used and abused out in Arizona:
http://www.azvirtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=1169

mike

*edit didn't realize when this thread started

i got the RE 5.5 la i run a d30 in the front and a ford 8.8 in the rear put front 1.5 in col spacers 1 inch motor and body lift total lift 8 inch

The motor mount lift does not add to your suspension lift. :)

BTW, I'm surprised nobody bagged on that yellow Jeep on the first page of this thread. Those arms look pretty steeply angled to me.

The motor mount lift does not add to your suspension lift. :)

BTW, I'm surprised nobody bagged on that yellow Jeep on the first page of this thread. Those arms look pretty steeply angled to me.

Not suspension lift but lift indeed:homer:

You can do both...

Design your crossmember so that it's flat belly, but one
thing to take into consideration, when you put a high clearance
crossmember in, often times you'll push the transfer case UP
a little, which especially in short wheelbase vehicles will make
your rear driveshaft angle at the rear case yoke pretty steep.
Keep that in mind.

Design your crossmember so it's high clearance, you definately
dobt want anything hanging down 4" below the frame rails.
Figure out where your links will mount on the crossmember,
then take it from there.

Are you talking Radius arms, a Y Link long arm?
Or you talking a 3 link?

The Y Link is easier to build because you only need 2 brackets
at the crossmember. With a 3 link, sometimes it's a little trickier to
find the perfect place to put the upper link mount, there may be clearance issues or it may be in the way of your driveshaft, trans linkage or exhaust
depending on what side your upper link is on.

You say "geometry", but the geometry of linked suspensions
can vary yet still be proper. The main things to consider is the angles
of the links in relationship to each other. You will want to keep your
upper link flat and level with the ground. The angle of the lower links
isn't really an issue. Most guys go with 10-11" of seperation at the axle, and
around 6-7" of seperation at the crossmember or frame. The upper link should be 80-85% the length of the lowers.

If you do this, your geometry will be fine. People make it more complicated
than it needs to be.

You can achieve high clearance AND proper geometry if you do a good job of
planning & design. Also, bent lower links are always an option for high clearance links.

Here's something I've been wondering but haven't found an answer to:

On a 3 link front, does it matter which side the link goes to? From what I can collect, I'd say the pumpkin side is the best side to have it on because of the weight. Having it on the other side might cause the heavy side to behave wildly and be unpredictable. Also, has anyone converted their Rubicon Express radius arm front to 3 link? I would think it would be as easy as making a mount on the crossmember and a 3rd link. It might make things a little difficult to keep the belly pan separate from the mounts, but it might be possible. Here's a pic of a RELA pan I had on my white TJ:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/gtxracer/Jeep/063007_13263.jpg

BTW, I'm surprised nobody bagged on that yellow Jeep on the first page of this thread. Those arms look pretty steeply angled to me.

what do you mean? that was HAWT shit back in '02 :smokin:

:homer:

Seems like everyone keeps comparing what Goat wants to RE. RE has been out of my list of mods for quite sometime now. Along with a desired rear stretch for my TJ, I wanted something right in the middle from a bolt on kit to a custom Polyperformance 3link/4link suspension.

I am now looking more towards Rock Krawler. They are designing a 5 inch stretch, which is perfect for what I am doing. This kit is mostly bolt on except for rear truss. IMHO this is the best "kit" you can get right now without spending a buttload on custom fab work. This kit also has the desired crossmember in which you bolt your control arms too. This kit also has a 3link front and 4 link rear.

take a look:
http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f9/rock-krawler-x-factor-la-upgrade-installed-14-pictures-888763/
same kit with 10 inch stretch, used and abused out in Arizona:
http://www.azvirtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=1169

mike

*edit didn't realize when this thread started



funnay, i know people that have considered cashing in thier college money for Polys' stuff....:flipoff2:

GTXracer, I believe RK uses there 3 link front upper mount on the pumpkin, because that mount is SOLID. On the passenger side I have seen that mount get damaged without properly re-enforcing it. Also might worry about twisting the axle tubes. Although saying this, it seems easier to fit the upper CA on the passenger side due to lack of drive shaft.

The belly pan from RE is quite similar for CA mounts compared to RK. I am sure you can make it into a 3 link. Just need to weld another mount on.

funnay, i know people that have considered cashing in thier college money for Polys' stuff....:flipoff2:

who would do such a thing :flipoff2:

funds have been accumulated... RK is in my future :smokin:

Not suspension lift but lift indeed:homer:

I have a 1" engine lift on my Jeep, it did NOTHING for clearance (yet).

what do you mean? that was HAWT shit back in '02 :smokin:

:homer:

No doubt. Nice of some of these folks to pop in 8 years later and regurgitate info they've learned from folks in this thread. Oh, also funny to see rockrawler (http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225659) suspensions getting talked about without someone making fun of them like what would have happened in 2002.

Funny thing about this thread is that I memory serves correctly, GOAT1 either designed or helped design one of the bolt-on kits, and is also a part of Poly who has a damn nice weld on setup.

Also, has anyone converted their Rubicon Express radius arm front to 3 link?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/gtxracer/Jeep/063007_13263.jpg


I did on mine. Used a polyperformance universal frame mount for the third link.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/rkik/1%20ton%20build/IMG_5766.jpg

Giggity. Looks like you had to reroute some of those fuel and brake lines. Was that necessary did you just choose to have them routed up the link instead of the usual axle to frame? Also, did you just bend up the other lines or were they fine in stock form? Length of the link? Stock RE lowers or did you fab your own? There's a RE skid on craigslist here, been tossing around the idea of buying it and making my own links.

why don't you read his thread and find out what he did. Its a good read

:laughing: You're a genius. Thanks.

bottom line is no two built jeeps are the same and you'll never reach perfection in this lifetime with just the placement of the LCA mounts. There is a seemingly endless list of variables which add up to the sum we call vehicle dynamics. What about the corner frequencey, chassis moments of inertia, roll centers, sway bar rates, tire slip angle data, sprung and unsprung mass, bump steer, COG location, pneumatic trail, etc etc etc.

I spent about a year wheeling a TJ on short arms and it was lots better than I expected. 44F/HP60R w/ARBs, 4.5" lift, 35s, short arms, Atlas 4 speed. I drove it on the street and I wheeled it untill the LCA mounts were coming off the frame. Sure, you needed to be careful about the excessive front tire lifting under very specific conditions but it didn't prevent the truck from going down trails like sledge hammer, fordyce, moab, and the rubicon. It also went down the highway without incident.

One of my biggest complaints is the "shovel" stock skid. Even after plating the bottom with UHMW to cover up the stock ribs. The front lip takes a real beating. I've since changed to a middle of the road spot between the stock skid and flat with the frame rails. If you own a streetable TJ you're not interested in cutting out the floor to stuff the t-case high enough allowing for a flat skid with the frame.

If you own a streetable TJ you're not interested in cutting out the floor to stuff the t-case high enough allowing for a flat skid with the frame.

I wouldn't speak so soon. I have no doubt that some new company's will be coming out with such a product that will fit our needs. Maybe MrBlaine can comment on this