Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ General Discussion Forum > What can i do for $500?

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: What can i do for $500? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
07-16-2013 09:11 PM
orange_sport_4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAICE View Post
Considering that your tires are new, I would not go with more than a 2" lift...Just a 1.75" or 2" bb will make a noticable difference from stock and will fit the tires. A pair of bumpers would be nice. I take it yor Jeep came with the Manik brush guard or you wouldn't be talking new bumpers (that probably won't fit the brush guard). For the same price as the Smittybilt Classic, I like the simple thick look of the Pavement Ends bumper:
I just got a new Extreme Terrain catalog and there are quite a few less expensive rock bumpers in it. I'll be doing some research.
07-16-2013 09:08 PM
orange_sport_4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillyjeeper View Post
500 bucks buys a lot of bacon...
rotfl haha
07-16-2013 09:08 PM
orange_sport_4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillbillyJeeper View Post
OK based on the conversation going on here my advice to the OP is......

You can get a decent Hooker for 45 min or so. Not sure why though, guess you can talk jeeps with her for 35 min or so.

Sorry, I started reading the thread whith good intentions, I got lost though.
Lol
07-16-2013 08:17 PM
SEAICE Considering that your tires are new, I would not go with more than a 2" lift...Just a 1.75" or 2" bb will make a noticable difference from stock and will fit the tires. A pair of bumpers would be nice. I take it yor Jeep came with the Manik brush guard or you wouldn't be talking new bumpers (that probably won't fit the brush guard). For the same price as the Smittybilt Classic, I like the simple thick look of the Pavement Ends bumper:

07-16-2013 08:13 PM
All Terrain TJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post

No. He's referring to "lift" in the definition of the vertical change between the t-case output and pinion yoke.
Correct, thanks Imped.
I also have a Currie/Savvy 4" suspension lift. That's why I had DS problems. With the stock trans mount I had almost 7" of total lift.
I'm starting to derail, back on topic.
For anyone installing a TT I would recommend budgeting a Novack tcase shifter cable. Once installed no matter what height the tcase is it will always shift smoothly. Also no more Z rail to fight with.
07-16-2013 07:21 PM
Imped
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
So you have a tuck AND a 1.75" suspension lift of some type? Your post is a bit confusing.
No. He's referring to "lift" in the definition of the vertical change between the t-case output and pinion yoke.
07-16-2013 07:09 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Terrain TJ View Post
I should also point out that the measurements I posted were from TJs equipped with 4.0s and 5 speeds.
Also with only 1 3/4" total lift (early TJ) you may not need to use a MML or BL. I run neither. I actually had my stock trans mount installed and still cleared the tub by 1/4". I have to use the Lowpro mount because of drive shaft constraints.
So you have a tuck AND a 1.75" suspension lift of some type? Your post is a bit confusing.
07-16-2013 05:37 PM
All Terrain TJ I should also point out that the measurements I posted were from TJs equipped with 4.0s and 5 speeds.
Also with only 1 3/4" total lift (early TJ) you may not need to use a MML or BL. I run neither. I actually had my stock trans mount installed and still cleared the tub by 1/4". I have to use the Lowpro mount because of drive shaft constraints.
07-16-2013 03:58 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post
i've never heard of a shovel thats only an inch deep. who knew they had a TT option from the factory?

until you have some proof, i'll let your numbers, comments, and theories speak for themselves. as I stated yesterday, things you type really make me question your logic
Which is fine, but Ive yet to find someone even with a SWB TJ have legitimate increase in driveline vibes due in part direct to a tuck that moves the rear output of the TC case up roughly 2", or a suspension lift that nets the same yield.

Pretty much every instance Ive seen where driveline vibes came into play has been due to a worn part(like specifically a DS u joint)where a lift or a tuck would magnify a problem that has already started.
07-16-2013 03:54 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillbillyJeeper View Post
OK based on the conversation going on here my advice to the OP is......

You can get a decent Hooker for 45 min or so. Not sure why though, guess you can talk jeeps with her for 35 min or so.

Sorry, I started reading the thread whith good intentions, I got lost though.
Its still on track IMO, we were just debating points pros/cons of an upgrade option for the OP.

On to the hooker comment though. $500 should get you a lot more than 45 minutes for a decent looking hooker. It should get you at least a few hours worth of Jeep talk.
07-16-2013 03:50 PM
MoonLacedBlood
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillbillyJeeper View Post
500 bucks buys a lot of Bacon...
This is probably your best bet right here
07-16-2013 03:34 PM
HillbillyJeeper 500 bucks buys a lot of Bacon...
07-16-2013 03:05 PM
Imped Early model TJ's used shallower skids than late models due to the introduction of the Rubicon in 2003. If you don't understand why they made that change and the t-case bolt pattern change, think a little harder.

Running a flat skid vs the stock late model 4.5" deep skid doesn't automatically mean your tail housing raises 4.5". There are inefficiencies going on there that can be minimized or reduced in order to minimize the t-case vertical change.
07-16-2013 02:53 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post

i've never heard of a shovel thats only an inch deep. who knew they had a TT option from the factory?

until you have some proof, i'll let your numbers, comments, and theories speak for themselves. as I stated yesterday, things you type really make me question your logic
The shovel is not an inch deep.....its an inch shallower than mine. Its 3.5 vs 4.5" deep.
07-16-2013 02:52 PM
HillbillyJeeper OK based on the conversation going on here my advice to the OP is......

You can get a decent Hooker for 45 min or so. Not sure why though, guess you can talk jeeps with her for 35 min or so.

Sorry, I started reading the thread whith good intentions, I got lost though.
07-16-2013 02:50 PM
Ironhead Jed
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
Yep...no question.....there are different stock shovels......and yes talking about the trans mount......my bad.
i've never heard of a shovel thats only an inch deep. who knew they had a TT option from the factory?

until you have some proof, i'll let your numbers, comments, and theories speak for themselves. as I stated yesterday, things you type really make me question your logic
07-16-2013 02:28 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post

are you trying to claim that they used different oem shovels? seeing as the trans mount bolts to the skid, and i dont believe there was a great variance in trans mount height, how is any of that possible on your neighbors rig

I'm assuming you are talking about the trans mount as there is no mount on any TC i have seen.

to your last statement, I would agree that an LJ, with the longer wheelbase and ds length should be able to do this mod without any issues. I'll stick behind my original statement that TJ's may or may not require other things to make a vibe free ride.
Yep...no question.....there are different stock shovels......and yes talking about the trans mount......my bad.
07-16-2013 02:21 PM
Ironhead Jed
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
OK.......lets try and get the #'s straight......though its going to be hard to get an exact due to differences in stock TC case skids.

Mine original 05' skid off a 6 speed LJ is 4.5" below frame measured at lip. But at mount its actually 4".

So lip 4.5"
mount 4"

The original TC case mount I had is 2" tall, so the TC case(231) sits just under 2" the frame rails stock.

The new UCF ultra clearance skid at its lowest point sits about 1" under the frame(Based on standard aluminum thickness), which is how they get the 3.5" gain in clearance over stock. The LoPro mount sits a smidge under 1" lower than the original TC mount. Its 1" thick basically. My 231 measures with a straight edge when all is said and done sits basically level with the frame rails. So the rear tc sits up about 2" higher than stock. When you add the 1" BL/MML" which raises the front back up the bias is a 1" difference between front and rear mounts which is for all purposes negligible. Measured angle output is basically just over 1 degree difference from stock......negligible. I was off roughly a half inch, but its still negligible for all intensive purposes. Its basically no different than doing a modest 2" suspension lift which will not garner driveline vibes on a TJ.

Raising the front MM doesn't result in a pivot drop of 2", it just helps to keep the drivetrain angles in tact.

Now here is the kicker. My neighbor with his 00' automatic TJ......his stock TC skid is only 3.5" deep and his 231 is only 1" below the frame rails sitting stock. He just ordered up the UCF 3.5" skid in steel with the LoPro mount. Even though its advertised as 3.5" extra clearance skid, it will net him technically only 2.5" vs. what he has now and his TC case will only be raised up 1". He already has a 1" BL/MML so when he installs his new skid the drivetrain will be sitting front to back identical to stock in terms of angle. So for him it will be like doing a 1" suspension lift.

So obviously all these #'s being thrown around need to have a small +/- room for error thrown in. But in the end, any TJ or LJ can do a full tuck like this and not have to worry about driveline vibes.
are you trying to claim that they used different oem shovels? seeing as the trans mount bolts to the skid, and i dont believe there was a great variance in trans mount height, how is any of that possible on your neighbors rig

I'm assuming you are talking about the trans mount as there is no mount on any TC i have seen.

to your last statement, I would agree that an LJ, with the longer wheelbase and ds length should be able to do this mod without any issues. I'll stick behind my original statement that TJ's may or may not require other things to make a vibe free ride.
07-16-2013 01:41 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post
ok, let me see if i am understanding what you are trying to convey

so stock shovel sits roughly 4" below the frame. i think its more like 4.5", but that doesnt matter.
go to a uhc skid that raises the stock trans mount up 3.5"
swap the oem trans mount with a lopro which is roughly going from 1.5" to .5"
that would put the trans mount 1" lower at 2.5" above stock location

how does a 1" MML at the far end of the pivot result in almost 2" of drop at the tc output, which is on the short end of the pivot
OK.......lets try and get the #'s straight......though its going to be hard to get an exact due to differences in stock TC case skids.

Mine original 05' skid off a 6 speed LJ is 4.5" below frame measured at lip. But at mount its actually 4".

So lip 4.5"
mount 4"

The original TC case mount I had is 2" tall, so the TC case(231) sits just under 2" the frame rails stock.

The new UCF ultra clearance skid at its lowest point sits about 1" under the frame(Based on standard aluminum thickness), which is how they get the 3.5" gain in clearance over stock. The LoPro mount sits a smidge under 1" lower than the original TC mount. Its 1" thick basically. My 231 measures with a straight edge when all is said and done sits basically level with the frame rails. So the rear tc sits up about 2" higher than stock. When you add the 1" BL/MML" which raises the front back up the bias is a 1" difference between front and rear mounts which is for all purposes negligible. Measured angle output is basically just over 1 degree difference from stock......negligible. I was off roughly a half inch, but its still negligible for all intensive purposes. Its basically no different than doing a modest 2" suspension lift which will not garner driveline vibes on a TJ.

Raising the front MM doesn't result in a pivot drop of 2", it just helps to keep the drivetrain angles in tact.

Now here is the kicker. My neighbor with his 00' automatic TJ......his stock TC skid is only 3.5" deep and his 231 is only 1" below the frame rails sitting stock. He just ordered up the UCF 3.5" skid in steel with the LoPro mount. Even though its advertised as 3.5" extra clearance skid, it will net him technically only 2.5" vs. what he has now and his TC case will only be raised up 1". He already has a 1" BL/MML so when he installs his new skid the drivetrain will be sitting front to back identical to stock in terms of angle. So for him it will be like doing a 1" suspension lift.

So obviously all these #'s being thrown around need to have a small +/- room for error thrown in. But in the end, any TJ or LJ can do a full tuck like this and not have to worry about driveline vibes.
07-16-2013 09:01 AM
Ironhead Jed
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
The math is actually correct. With the MML and LoPro combined the rear TC output only sits up about 1-1.5" higher than stock.

Gotta realize even though the stock shovel hangs a little over 4" lower than the frame, the original TC OEM mount keeps the TC case about 1.5" off the bottom of the stock skid. SO even though your going to a nearly flat pan skid that is 3.5" shallower, when you use the new lopro mount the rear output only sits up about an inch and a half higher than stock. With a 1" MML up front the F/R bias between the MML and TC mount is well under an inch which is negligible.

This combo has already been done by a number of other forum members and no one has ever reported back with any vibes........nor will you because the rear output of the TC case and the yoke at the rear axle are still basically parallel to each other which is what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
^ As stated with a MML up front with the UHC skid/lopro mount out back the driveline angle shift front to back is well under an inch.........which is negligible and will not cause vibes.
ok, let me see if i am understanding what you are trying to convey

so stock shovel sits roughly 4" below the frame. i think its more like 4.5", but that doesnt matter.
go to a uhc skid that raises the stock trans mount up 3.5"
swap the oem trans mount with a lopro which is roughly going from 1.5" to .5"
that would put the trans mount 1" lower at 2.5" above stock location

how does a 1" MML at the far end of the pivot result in almost 2" of drop at the tc output, which is on the short end of the pivot
07-16-2013 08:47 AM
NJO ^ As stated with a MML up front with the UHC skid/lopro mount out back the driveline angle shift front to back is well under an inch.........which is negligible and will not cause vibes.
07-15-2013 08:30 PM
All Terrain TJ Here's some numbers for ya.
Stock early TJ.
Tcase skid plate 4" below frame.
Trans mount xmember 2 3/4" below frame.
Trans mount 1 3/4" thick.
Actual trans mount bracket height =1" below frame rails.
Measurements from my son's 2000 TJ.

Attachment 273284

Early TJ with UCF ultra high skid and Lowpro mount.
Tcase skid 1" below frame.
Trans mount xmember 1/4" from frame.
Lowpro trans mount 1".
Actual trans mount bracket height = 3/4" above frame rails.
Measurements taken from my '98 TJ.


Attachment 273291

Height difference from stock to UCF ultra high and lowpro = UCF equipped is 1 3/4" higher than stock at trans mount bracket.
I don't have a MML so I cannot account for that. I do know that a 1" MML will not net 1" drop at the output shaft of the tcase due to the pivot point at the trans mount. It will however help the angles a bit.
07-15-2013 08:06 PM
phrak You guys are killing me with this thread... I have about $650 in a savings account earmarked for something else, but now I'm trying to justify this...
07-15-2013 07:12 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post
i said probably, not definitely.

and your math is a bit off. yes the mml raises the engine an inch at the mounts, the trans mount would not be raised due to the mml. tc output will be lowered slightly, but not an inch as the tc output is much closer to the pivot point than the mml blocks. and if we are doing things the correct way, what i said is true. it is 100% true if the op wants to add any sort of spring lift in the future

i agree that it is a good idea and i have done it myself, but it is not a for sure thing that a mml will be enough to stop vibes when raising the TC 2.5"

for that reason, i had the rear control arms already installed and ordered a new DS as soon as i finished the skid install and got measurements
The math is actually correct. With the MML and LoPro combined the rear TC output only sits up about 1-1.5" higher than stock.

Gotta realize even though the stock shovel hangs a little over 4" lower than the frame, the original TC OEM mount keeps the TC case about 1.5" off the bottom of the stock skid. SO even though your going to a nearly flat pan skid that is 3.5" shallower, when you use the new lopro mount the rear output only sits up about an inch and a half higher than stock. With a 1" MML up front the F/R bias between the MML and TC mount is well under an inch which is negligible.

This combo has already been done by a number of other forum members and no one has ever reported back with any vibes........nor will you because the rear output of the TC case and the yoke at the rear axle are still basically parallel to each other which is what you want.
07-15-2013 06:48 PM
Ironhead Jed
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
No, it would not require it. The MML raises up the engine an inch, the Lopro mount drops the TC by about an inch.......the net rear output would only be up about 1.5" inches which will not cause vibes and not require a SYE/DS.
i said probably, not definitely.

and your math is a bit off. yes the mml raises the engine an inch at the mounts, the trans mount would not be raised due to the mml. tc output will be lowered slightly, but not an inch as the tc output is much closer to the pivot point than the mml blocks. and if we are doing things the correct way, what i said is true. it is 100% true if the op wants to add any sort of spring lift in the future

i agree that it is a good idea and i have done it myself, but it is not a for sure thing that a mml will be enough to stop vibes when raising the TC 2.5"

for that reason, i had the rear control arms already installed and ordered a new DS as soon as i finished the skid install and got measurements
07-15-2013 06:40 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhead Jed View Post
that would probably open a new can of worms requiring SYE/CV-DS, and adjustable control arms. that would raise it another $750 at a minimum
No, it would not require it. The MML raises up the engine an inch, the Lopro mount drops the TC by about an inch.......the net rear output would only be up about 1.5" inches which will not cause vibes and not require a SYE/DS........plus its already been done by a few ppl on JF and pirate and no one has had any issues or vibes.
07-15-2013 06:27 PM
Ironhead Jed
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
If the OP can stretch his budget a few hundred bucks(beneficial bonus), then his best bang for the buck would be to do the BL/MML AND tummy tuck all in one shot. But that is going to put him in the 6-700 buck range. BUt if he can stretch it, he can get a 3.5" tuck instead of a 2.5" tuck. That would be optimal. To do this he would need BL($125, steering riser bracket $50, MML $100, LoPro mount $125, 3.5" ultra high clearance skid $250).......so $650 in total. If the OP can stretch his budget to that, he would get a killer bang for the buck upgrade.
that would probably open a new can of worms requiring SYE/CV-DS, and adjustable control arms. that would raise it another $750 at a minimum
07-15-2013 06:24 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdock31 View Post
If I remember correctly, you stated in a few other threads that a BL and MML is a good start with 31s to give it a more aggressive look and to set up for the TT and everything else down the road. And it keeps it within the budget of the OP.
I know I have, but I think some of those threads also involved people potentially running 33's in the near future.

I get the impression here that the OP is sticking with 31's.

But yes you are correct on past statements of mine.

If the OP can stretch his budget a few hundred bucks(beneficial bonus), then his best bang for the buck would be to do the BL/MML AND tummy tuck all in one shot. But that is going to put him in the 6-700 buck range. BUt if he can stretch it, he can get a 3.5" tuck instead of a 2.5" tuck. That would be optimal. To do this he would need BL($125, steering riser bracket $50, MML $100, LoPro mount $125, 3.5" ultra high clearance skid $250).......so $650 in total. If the OP can stretch his budget to that, he would get a killer bang for the buck upgrade.
07-15-2013 05:45 PM
rdock31
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
There is no point doing a BL/MML on 31's. No point whatsoever.

If you want to really improve that Jeeps off roading potential. Think about a tummy tuck. The stock "shovel" skid on the TJ is terrible and hangs up on everything. You can do a 2.5" tummy tuck from UCF with a lopro TC mount in your budget. In reality a 2.5" tuck is equal to 2.5" suspension lift considering your breakover angle on your vehicle as it sits right now is the big constraining point on its off road worthiness.
If I remember correctly, you stated in a few other threads that a BL and MML is a good start with 31s to give it a more aggressive look and to set up for the TT and everything else down the road. And it keeps it within the budget of the OP.
07-15-2013 04:54 PM
Mom sold the Jeepster X2 on the lunchbox locker up front,
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC