I would also ask the question, are you going to keep this jeep for a long time or are you a person that likes to trade often. This type of mod is specific and typically results in a vehicle that may be hard to sell and if sold it would be at a steep loss. Doing something like the genright is sweet but really does not make much sense unless money is no object or you are going to keep it forever.
Building or buying a buggy might be a better option in the scheme of things. I kinda wish I would have gone that route and left my JK on 35's with flat fenders.

 

Depends on your budget.

I'd build it like Rex. http://www.jkowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53253

Or, I'd do the RK Pro kit, less the springs.
http://www.rockkrawler.com/ProductDe...Code=RKJK35ORP

However, I like the rear 3 link design and keeping to stock fuel tank.

If you are climbing steep, you don't want to use stock upper and lower rear axle brackets. You want either a 3 link or 4 link with a truss.

I agree with TheDirtman though. It makes absolutely no economic sense to build these things crazy. It makes way more sense to stop with 35s on a short arm, with 12" travel shocks, and allocate funds towards a buggy.

I have a built 2 dr with 60s, 40s, slightly stretched, RIPP, weld-in sport cage, long arm, nice Fox shocks, completely armored up, hydro assist, etc., etc, and I am probably going to take my $8500 Zuki buggy to EJS next week instead of my JK because I want to do crazier stuff.

 

We agree on the definition of bolt-on. Cutting off the mounts doesn't qualify IMHO, but that's how the mfg's pitch it. It has me reconsidering the bolt-on coilovers; if I'm going to be cutting the control arm mounts, no sense in keeping the OEM spring and shock mounts.

I'm a buy and hold guy. I've had my Dodge RAM for 14 years and I plan to keep my JK at least that long.

Rex is sweeting looking build, thanks for the link. And sweeting looking buggy you've got there!

Crazy to me is 6" on 40s, pro-rocks, etc., and that's not what I'm shooting for. Building it for getting to the trail and back is highest priority, being able to run 98% of what's out there is second. Running 35s would probably work, but based on what I've seen and read, 37s make a lot more terrain available to wheel.

 

Thanks.

35s are really the breakpoint for more expensive upgrades on a JK.

Over 35s, and you want or prefer chromoly axle shafts, hydro assist, upgraded drag link and tie rod, dual cardan driveshafts, sleeved or trussed and gusseted Cs for the front axle, much lower gears, etc., etc.

With 37s, to experience a challenge while offloading, you need to drive more challenging lines, obstacles and trails. You risk body damage and catastrophic failures of parts.

With 35s, you can run them with flat flares and no lift if you are willing to cut a good amount of the rear fender well pinch seam. With 35s, stock axle and driveshafts are fine.

With as little as a 2.5" lift with flat flares and some rear fender well cutting, you can run 11.5" travel shocks with stock length arms and extended brakelines, 1" front and rear extended bumpstops, and run an RTI score that exceeds most all long arm systems on the market.

Few off the shelf long arm systems run longer than 10" rear and 12" front travel shocks. They are often bumpstopped enough to run 35s or 37s with stock flares. As a result, these systems don't allow full shock suspension travel.

My opinion, if you want superior off road performance, with usable suspension articulation, I'd skip the long arm unless it is similar to a TnT or Rock Krawler 3 link rear with a truss or a triangulated 4 link rear with a truss where you can lose the rear trackbar. The reason is to improve the anti-squat characteristics for better traction when climbing.

Otherwise, a 2.5"-3.5" lift with 11-12" travel shocks, with stock length arms, set up with correct length bumpstops, will perform as good or better as most long arm systems out there.

That being said, for a rig that does expedition type wheeling, skips the big steep climbs, and is lifted more than 3.5", and is limited by bumpstops and/or straps to about actual 10" travel, here is nothing inherently bad about a Teraflex or other long arm setup that out of convenience for the installer, makes things less complex. I just don't know that they are worth the money.

I haven't been in an EVO or Synergy based long arm with their rear arm geometry setup. Maybe I'd change my mind about the loss of ground clearance.

However, I have personally experienced the difference from running a Rock Krawler rear long arm styled system on my 2 dr. The improved anti-squat characteristics and reduced rear suspension bind dramatically increased the offroad performance of my 2 dr compared to running a 3" short arm lift.

 

planman - with that being said, on a 2 door, do you think the the long arm kit such as Rock Krawler gives a better on road ride compared to the short arms to justify the added cost of the long arm?

 

I could corner harder, and it was most stable when I was on a 2.5" lift with stock arms. I had stiffer front springs from a 4 dr Rubi (don't recall the number), under a 2.5" Teraflex BB.

Once I added the weight of a cage, Currie RockJock 60s, 40x13.50R17 tires on headlocks with no balance beads, hydro assist steering, a 4.5" long arm with 3 link rear, etc., the sportiness of my on road handling deteriorated. Now, if I lowered it to 3.5", ran a stiffer rear swaybar, dropped to 37" tires, etc., it would improve the sportiness of on-road handling.

If you want a street queen with a sportier (stiffer) suspension that will brake hard without diving and run a slalom course faster than stock, you want an AEV lift with front geometry correction brackets.

 

I’m aware it’s expensive going to 37s. The drag flip, driveshafts, gussets, gears, procal, etc. are all on the upgrade list. It’s only money, right?

I’ve read your threads and all the stickied threads more than a few times. Good stuff. But every time I see 35s on a stock or small-lift JKU with cut fenders I just shake my head. It lacks clearance for bigger obstacles and wheel travel, and it just doesn’t look good; I don’t get it. 37s on ~3.5” with flat fenders, yeah, that’s the sweet spot IMHO.

Interesting reasoning on why to stick with short arms and when to consider long arms. I don’t foresee big steep climbs in my future, and it's less likely I'll ever have D60s, 40s, and a lot of extra weight. If I can get the full range of the EVO coilovers with short arms and still get exceptional articulation, then it really boils down to how well this combo will ride on the highway and while running trails faster than I should.

I can’t imagine any of long-arm kits wouldn’t meet my needs, which is why after dissecting all the info, I sort of feel like I can pick the one that’s easiest to install. It would be nice if someone who has run more than one of these kits can chime in.

 

Without going into the debate on radius arms. Anybody have experience with Clayton's rear setup ? The arms have some really strange bends.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand, a long arms suspension provides a better suspension geometry by the decreased radius of operation and by also providing more stability. More stability means less squat or dive and better weight distribution on all 4 wheels especially on uneven terrain while flexing.

Looks like also some long arms systems provides better ground clearance by relocating the mounting points compared to a stock setup.

But it is a huge investment to do it right, how much is the performance gain ?

also some pointed that it might be hard to resell your JK or you might loose a lot if you sell it but I believe that if the performance gain is so huge compared to a standard JK with a good short arms systems, Your vastly improved modded JK should worth much more and you shouldn't loose that much.

 

A long arm keeps the arms flatter thru travel, meaning your fired wont be pulled towards the center if the jeep as much when drooping. This offroad allows to push thru ledges for say when climbing and the front us drooped as the arms are flatter. On road it will allow bumps and such to be transferred to the frame better. Theres a great picture around showing the arcs with different lengths but its not on my phone. The mounts being relocated are helping them get there anti squat numbers and such back from lengthening there arms. Arm lengths and mounting points all play a big part in anti squat and instant center, and such. Im no expert so hopefully this is an ok description. Pirate has many good thread on suspension geometry and also playing with a 4link calculator you can see where it l ends up. Hell toss your current numbers in and see how much small changes can make.