2.5 inch kj lift

[tommudd]

Bumpstops.........if you don't know by now
THE ONLY set up where you do not have to run bumpstops is plain OME springs and OME shocks period ( according to ARB/OME! , and even then you may due to wheel/ tire size.
Seen plenty of flares torn off due to not having bumpstops
Also I do not care what OME says , spring stacking over time will in fact cause the springs to lose height faster, its a given.

 

[kj924]

Spring stacking??
Please inform me.

Coil binding....coils resting on top of each other....

 

[kj924]

Like fully compressed springs??

Yup.

 

[Dave08]

So you.. have any substantial proof that a bumpstop would have stopped that from happening? Not to do with the strut design right? Or just that "one" that has a problem. Or it could possibly be from the design of the A-arms and stock bumpstops IF the bend in the arm slightly changes of compression of which the bumpstop is normally hit.

Thats one of the things i just don't get about people. One person starts saying something based off experience. Then it spreads like a disease which all of a sudden engineering is "wrong"

Sorry, honestly still you've give no facts based off the products we use and logic. Sure old ideas on other platforms( which may be applicable on those platforms even). Give me some logic if you want people to spend money on something even the techs say is not needed.

And I'm in the city now so I have no place close to wheel to take my own pic, but I'd LOVE to see a picture of a stacked OME front coil w/o a strut plate or a franky using OEM bumpstops.

 

[Dave08]

Bumpstops.........if you don't know by now

Oh just because I reread your message and saw this... And because you are trying to make my ideas seem illogical, YOU have given NO proof for the "younger" generation to learn WHY they're needed. I'll know when it can be explained using ideas involving points of compression on equipment. Not "he said she said thats why this went wrong"

Not trying to be a jerk or whatever else it may be considered. But I, just like the OP brought up in his last large post believe there are many things being said, that may not be the most factual thoughts out there. If you didn't pick up on his wording.

 

[tommudd]

You know some will never get it regardless
I will say this OME, Skyjacker who ever that sells and makes springs puts information out there to protect their own a**. That way anything you can do they can have a comeback.
I have talked to them at ARB regarding this a few years back, all you get is a canned prepared statement. I did get one new spring from them for a customer since it had under 30,000 miles on it, did not have a clevis etc. and had not been 4 wheeled, took 2 months but finally got a spring
Can you stack a OME only, of course, I did it before I installed front bumpstops and before anything else was added back in 05.
If you really want pics next time I install an OME only I will get some pics for you but of course no one really does that
But KJs have a range of motion in which the front suspension travels going beyond that will
A. stack the springs
and/ or
B. tires will hit the flares etc.
Now I will say that if you only drive down very smooth interstates, never pull into a parking lot over a curb then no you'll never need bumpstops

I for one though can not see what the big deal is, 40 bucks or so for something that will save the above from happening is cheap insurance. With some of the crap LED tail lights and other stuff people hang on Jeeps this is one thing that really works.

Look at any lift kit out there and they install bumpstops

Ok enough

time for a discussion on what kind of peanut butter to use after you are done duct taping a chicken

 

[Jeepman56]

IMO parts of this thread should be in the lift sticky section. There is some really good stuff in here.

 

[2003renegade]

skippy

 

[Dave08]

First thanks for giving some thought to your position.

Tony: I have no explaination to the bump stop stock to stock differences. Didn't design it, but I'd like to see the reasoning for someone with that information. I'll reread later but I agree with most of what you said. Only thing that stands out for me is the rear suspension. You're bumpstoping to protect the coils from overcompressing not the shocks+ tire rub with the longer shocks+ keep those coils in place. (more later in library now)

My problems exist when people who are giving out information as authorities tell you two different things. As actually just happened.

(Overcompressing coils)
Rev Mudd: Says he did it with 100% OME kit
Tony: says it cannoy happen to be backs ARB's research.

And my next problem comes together when in other instances ( similiar thread on lost) Tom simply dismisses and insults the "younger generation" because their losts differ with his. Without offering any proof, only starting I'm right and i've been along long enough to watch handfuls of "young kids" come and go.


But I do agree parts of this should be stickied as they are largely spread simply because " I said so". And to be clear it's not an issue of 40 bucks. It's a issue of paying money for something that limits a design unnecessarly.

This weekend I'll drop ARB a message discussing clevis lifting, I agree it voids the warrenty but I bet it is because of the increased pressure on the mounting point to clevis ( leverage) rather than the incease in height. Because a clevis lift'ed kj still will be compressed at the same point and the spring has no more pressure on it. The clevis lift'ed kj will just not stuff a tire as far into the fender as a no- clevis lifed kj.


Nothing against you on most stuff Tom, but we're clearly butting heads on this topic. I agree with you on any other topic of KJ, except the design of the IFS and lifting requirement. But on my jeep, I can flex the front and rear to the bumpstops without stacking or rubbing.

 

[Dave08]

But I, believe there are many things being said, that may not be the most factual thoughts out there.

I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post. So was Tom. Perhaps you didn't read that?

What post are you refering to Tony. Running 32s? or a picture of a failed strut? Or another more informational post not in response to me?

 

[osufans]

wow...i figured i'd get a few replies...but this really garnered some attention!

thanks for the clarification on the front strut length. i haven't had mine out yet to look over the mechanics and design, so that is probably why i have so many questions.

so while i'm on the front, i did want to clarify...i figured the front coil spacers may have led to pre-load....but how do the top plates compare? also, another thought that just popped to mind...are we pretty much all saying that a front coil lift isn't a lift at all, but rather just supports the weight better so that the front end doesn't sag as much?

back to the rear....when i was talking about stacking the upper isolators, i was comparing that to doing a rear spacer lift, not comparing that with using new coils. but did i understand that correctly that the rear coil spacer lift does not cause pre-load when used with correct shocks?

so tony, with the spacer lift...did you notice much of an issue with the rear? the only reason i ask is, i don't see the need to spend $$ on coils for the rear if i can get the 2" of lift just by giving it a boost. i am sure that new coils will ride better, but that would most likely have been the case even when the factory coils were brand new.

i guess that's it for now...nothing else was really contradictory to the way i understood it to be...thanks for sharing! i'm waiting for it to warm up here so i can take a look at the suspension and see how it all works....then i'm sure i'll have even more questions....lol

 

[ThunderbirdJunkie]

Dave, with a clevis lift or a over the top spacer (such as anything, from RRO's OTT 2.5" Spacer to boiler's 1/4" steel spacers) that changes where, in relation to the wheel's travel, the coil is fully compressed. Depending on how much clevis lift or OTT spacing you have, if you don't add bumpstops, then you will bottom out and damage the shock or you will stack the coils on full compression - most likely stacking the coils.

This is why ThunderbirdJunkie does not sit as high as other gassers in the front with 927s. He added a ton of clevis lift and neglected to add bumpstops. Over the past 40k miles, the coils have stacked and begun to sag because of it.

So, do whatever you like

 

[ThunderbirdJunkie]

Wow, didn't realize this had gone to page 5 when ThunderbirdJunkie posted looking at page 4 (rotflmao)

 

[Atrus]

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. A lot of things make more sense now, and I had read the other sticky left threads a couple of times over the past few years.

 

[Selwyn]

Prototype Coil spring compresser

Please ignore the current bolts.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Selwyn]

Top plate with 55mm studs

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[autoboy454]

So if this is the 2.5" lift thread, maybe someone can answer a question I've been having. What should the rear shock extended length measurement be? I'm thinking the shocks I have in back now are too short for my 947 springs...

 

[tommudd]

What do you have now? I know Monroes but for a 99-04 Dakota 4WD,? (which is the correct length)
Rancho RSX 17004's
and
OME 132Ls
are about 24 3/4 inches long center of bolt to center of bolt extended.

OME 132's are about the same length as stock ( not good for lifted)

 

[autoboy454]

That's the thing, Bought the kit used from a tech at a Chrysler dealer, so really not sure what the Rear Monroes are out of... That 99-04 Dakota info is exactly what I was looking for. May take a trip down to Napa and do a quick shock swap later this week. Seems my shocks are going full droop hitting large whoops in these VT "roads". Makes one heck of a loud CLUNK!

Thanks Tommudd!

 

[CRD Joe]

Im going Frankie CRD Premium.