Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Tech Forum > Front track bar '06 rubicon

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Front track bar '06 rubicon 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)
09-26-2013 11:08 PM
PStov98TJ Loving this thread. I was just debating buying an MC trackbar and this has answered all my questions (about the front one at least). Thanks for the discussion guys. Keep it going if y'all have anymore to say!
09-26-2013 10:42 PM
freeskier As Unlimited alluded to I have the MC front TB. Not going to go into how I came about running it, but I am. I have zero issue with it and it works. It is a tad long, but for now I'm not going to modify it because I've got plans next summer for reworking my lift height and shocks.

Time will tell with the rod end. Don't want to give anything away but my prediction is by the time the rod end wears out Metalcloak will have other options available.

Just trying to be realistic. For low lift it's an unnecessary expense, the stock track bar works very well.
09-26-2013 09:48 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by MosesTJ View Post
Seems like every thread is a pissing match....
There is a difference between a pissing match(that's where personal jabs etc. start to come into play)and a lively and knowledgeable debate and discussion on points of views and experiences. Good way for all to gain knowledge.
09-26-2013 09:46 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post
At 4" of lift, the JKS, Currie and MC are all in the same wheelhouse as far as future mods go. If anything Currie's the better bar because it's stronger than the JKS, has the bigger 1/2" bolt on the axle side, plus you get the benefit of the tried and true Johnny Joint instead of a heim. Diff clearance at 4" of lift is more forgiving because you need enough bumpstop extension for 15.5"-16" compressed length shocks anyway (2-2.5" bumpstop extension) - which also happens to align well with 33s w/ no BL and 35s w/ 1.25" BL.


but at stock full bump the track bar is damn close to the tie-rod - you can't push it out any further, while this is easily solved by a V8 ZJ tie-rod, it leaves the Currie steering w/ TRE flip crowd SOL without more bumpstop extension. Again, that's only a problem at low lifts - where the track bar can't center the axle anyway - it's not an issue in the 4" neighborhood. Now, for the 12-14" travel crowd trying to run the TRE flip looking for zero bumpstop over stock, highline fenders & ~3-4" of lift, things are still really challenging...but that crowd usually modifies a Currie bar or builds a double shear.


the stuff I've seen is quite a difference. it's off, and it's noticeable to nit-picky folks like me. it's off to the passenger side like the stock bar is off to the drivers side on 3" lift.


again, while it clears, it doesn't center the axle. your junk is some sort of anomaly if it in fact is centered, which I highly doubt it is.

besides, why buy an adjustable track bar at no/very low lift that CREATES a new problem?


on the rig i saw, we added up ~3.5-4" rear bumpstop extensions just to avoid coil bind. it basically looked like a 2" coil with a 3" spacer on top. the engineered coil bind section at the top is great for droop, but i think it's sacrificing some uptravel. the front does seem a little more forgiving, but the stock-ish rear mount setup doesn't have a whole lot of room for an uber long spring.


this is something most people don't realize. shorter travel shocks = less tire intrusion into the fenderwell on the bump side under flex.



I agree, it would be nice to see a shorter spring from them that would stack together with a little less bumpstop. That would be something I would be interested in for the rear, if the rate & lengths worked out for what I do.

I'd also rather see their front track bar with an axle side adjustment. basically like what Currie and JKS use, so when you lengthen the track bar you're only changing one dimension - and you get more length possibility. I think non-suspension savvy people would get confused with two adjustable ends, and you would have big potential for "clocking" problems and bad clearance issues around that.
A. Currie bar may very well be stronger than the JKS bar. But the MC bar? Probably roughly the same there. Honestly I don't think strength between any of the 3 is an issue. The MC also uses a half inch bolt on the axle side. The tried and true JJ.......yes I know in this app wear and tear isn't an issue. The question is how long will the MC heim hold up? Probably isn't an issue either. Even if it doesn't last as long..........the price difference.......Currie bar is double the price roughly......that's quite a few heim joints on standby if the original doesn't last as long as a JJ. As for needing bumpstop extensions at higher lifts.........that depends on the builder and mods. In my case, if I did go up in lift, I won't be adding any bump stopping. Part due to the fenders I run, part due to the fact that I may be modding my upper shock towers anyway...........this is where "future" potential mods can come into play that would favor the MC bar.....for those who will make other mods to retain all their uptravel. Me being one of those types of individuals.

B. Yep I happen to be one of those running the ZJ tie rod. As for the clearance with the Currie steering upgrade..........no idea. Your right, might be SOL. I will be in that 12-14" travel crowd though within a few months, another big reason why I wanted this specific bar.

C. Nit picky folks......yep I'm one of them, I actually consider myself beyond you in that regards.........way beyond. On my lift though its dead nuts 100% centered. Again I'm at 2.25" in front. (5.75" total uptravel with jounce removed). I will gladly post some pics in morning if needed. Now I do think there might be some variances between the lengths of bars sent out. When I ordered my MC ca's originally my front uppers were not cut uniformly. One arm could be adjusted to about 15.5" eye to eye, the other could be adjusted to about 15". When I originally ordered I was told the arms would adjust to just under 15". Obviously wasn't the case, so they sent me out a new pair that can be shortened to about 14.5", both this time were in spec. When I ordered my TB, I asked if there were any variables in the lengths of the bar, if so to please send me the shortest they had in the batch, but Will told me they were all identical...........makes me wonder if there are in fact variables in the lengths of the bars they sell..........more so than they let on.

D. At no lift, not stating to swap, but for those doing their build part by part, no reason not to run it. It won't create any functional issues, no or low lift.

E. Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on their springs.......no debate there.

F. Agreed.

G. Yeah, I've thought about this one too........but I think having the adjuster end on the axle side allows for a potential of dialing in the front to rear clearance between the tie rod and the diff cover, this can be used to a builder's advantage on some builds at least, especially considering how tight the clearance is between the tie rod and diff cover. Of course this also has the potential to be a situation where it becomes more of an intermediate level mod where some basic fab skills and tools can be required.
09-26-2013 08:16 PM
JSY
Quote:
Originally Posted by MosesTJ View Post
Seems like every thread is a pissing match....
I'm honestly jealous. I wish I had that much time to waste on the Internet! I don't frequently worry about how others think my rig works, as long as I know it works how I want.

/offtopic
09-26-2013 07:44 PM
MosesTJ Seems like every thread is a pissing match....
09-26-2013 07:44 PM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
It may r may not, depends how much or how little he has for bumpstopping, the diff cover used, length of CA's etc etc. Even IF the Currie or JKS does fit, the MC TB still has numerous advantages, now and potentially for FUTURE mods etc.
At 4" of lift, the JKS, Currie and MC are all in the same wheelhouse as far as future mods go. If anything Currie's the better bar because it's stronger than the JKS, has the bigger 1/2" bolt on the axle side, plus you get the benefit of the tried and true Johnny Joint instead of a heim. Diff clearance at 4" of lift is more forgiving because you need enough bumpstop extension for 15.5"-16" compressed length shocks anyway (2-2.5" bumpstop extension) - which also happens to align well with 33s w/ no BL and 35s w/ 1.25" BL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
Yes the MC bar when adjusted does bring the TB out forward a bit(which is IMO a good thing). But just to move it forward by about an eight of an inch you need to lengthen the threads by over .75". Which is highly doubtfull will ever be done unless that lift is well in excess of 4-5".
but at stock full bump the track bar is damn close to the tie-rod - you can't push it out any further, while this is easily solved by a V8 ZJ tie-rod, it leaves the Currie steering w/ TRE flip crowd SOL without more bumpstop extension. Again, that's only a problem at low lifts - where the track bar can't center the axle anyway - it's not an issue in the 4" neighborhood. Now, for the 12-14" travel crowd trying to run the TRE flip looking for zero bumpstop over stock, highline fenders & ~3-4" of lift, things are still really challenging...but that crowd usually modifies a Currie bar or builds a double shear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
Also, concerning the lower lifts. At 2-2.5" of lift, I find that the MC TB actually perfectly centers the axle. Some people claim its shifted over towards the passenger side by a fraction of an inch. But on my rig at 2.25" of lift roughly the axle is perfectly centered with the heim end threaded all the way in. The jounce bumpers perfectly line up vertically on top of the jounce pads. I know with no lift the TB shifts the axle over to the passenger side a little over half an inch, but the offset is still less than using the stock TB which offsets the axle to the drivers side even more.
the stuff I've seen is quite a difference. it's off, and it's noticeable to nit-picky folks like me. it's off to the passenger side like the stock bar is off to the drivers side on 3" lift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
So I feel that the MC TB is just fine for no or very low lift vehicles.
again, while it clears, it doesn't center the axle. your junk is some sort of anomaly if it in fact is centered, which I highly doubt it is.

besides, why buy an adjustable track bar at no/very low lift that CREATES a new problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
I agree on the MC springs(well specifically the rear, I THINK the front springs might just be under the maximum total compressed length the front will allow using stock bumpstopping)though being a bit odd. BUt I think that only applies to those of us who like to mix n match parts.

For those doing the entire MC kit though, then the way they were setup makes sense. For example, assuming 35" tires using MC's fenders and suspension kit combined the rear will need about 2" of bumpstopping regardless if using the springs due to the 6pak shocks used in combination with stuffing one tire up fully while the other tire is fully dropped. The dropped tire drops down so low due to the long 12" travel that it shoves the opposite tire up significantly into the fender well where a couple inches of bumpstopping is needed to keep the tire from hitting the top of the tubs well.

So as a whole the kit makes perfect sense.
on the rig i saw, we added up ~3.5-4" rear bumpstop extensions just to avoid coil bind. it basically looked like a 2" coil with a 3" spacer on top. the engineered coil bind section at the top is great for droop, but i think it's sacrificing some uptravel. the front does seem a little more forgiving, but the stock-ish rear mount setup doesn't have a whole lot of room for an uber long spring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
But for folks like me and you who mix n match, those springs can potentially make no sense. With my 2942 OME rear springs and the 20mm bumpstop extensions using a shorter 10" travel shock, I just barely clear the top of the tub at full stuff with my 35" SSR's. Now if I had an extra 2" of down travel on the opposite side, my stuffed 35" would probably be kissing the top of the tub.
this is something most people don't realize. shorter travel shocks = less tire intrusion into the fenderwell on the bump side under flex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
What would be nice, would be see MC to make a 2-2.5" version of their springs using less of the 2nd rate compressed coils that take up so much space at bind. If they made a set of those, I would be looking at a set no question, just so I have rear springs that can fully support 12" of travel since my rear 2942's only support about 10.5" of travel when all the components are perfectly matched since my next upgrade for my rig is going from 10" to 12" travel shocks using a low SA lift of under 3".
I agree, it would be nice to see a shorter spring from them that would stack together with a little less bumpstop. That would be something I would be interested in for the rear, if the rate & lengths worked out for what I do.

I'd also rather see their front track bar with an axle side adjustment. basically like what Currie and JKS use, so when you lengthen the track bar you're only changing one dimension - and you get more length possibility. I think non-suspension savvy people would get confused with two adjustable ends, and you would have big potential for "clocking" problems and bad clearance issues around that.
09-26-2013 07:40 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post
I've played with the MC track bar at 0" to 4" of lift, cycled it to full bump, and I've seen it at 2" of lift on freeskier's rig.

The axle can't be centered at less than ~3" of lift unless you drill a new hole or cut the threaded end. The bar is simply too long. It's too bad because the clearance rocks at full bump.

The JKS & Currie adjustable section is on the axle side, so they can adjust plenty short for a low lift, they just won't clear without some bump & steering work.

The MC isn't a bad a choice, but it's a heim end....and heim's have a bad track record. On the flip side, Currie and JKS have their own issues too, but the Currie JJ has shown excellent long term durability - something you can't say about heim's. Time will tell how the MC heim holds up...and as I stated earlier in this thread, heim's aren't that expensive to replace...you'll just have to keep an eye on it.
Like I said, I'm at 2.25" exactly on my lift up front. I am perfectly centered. I did 0 mods to my MC TB.

And I was prepped to be modding the bar too since I have a large band saw and the proper thread tap to extend the internal threads. I didn't need to though.

As for how long the heim will last, obviously I can't answer that, but as stated, I got a pair of extra heims on hand plus the TB for basically the same price as the JKS bar. So even if it last only half as long as the JJ, its still a better option. I honestly though don't see it wearing out anytime soon. Like I said, my swaybar heim links have some serious use and abuse on em now, closing in on 2 years and they still have not shown any wear and tear, I expect to get another few years out of them too. And those heims get ALOT of direct abuse.

Yes, the JKS/CUrrie TJS do have the adjusting end on the axle side, but as you yourself stated you can't easily overcome the inherent issue of he large frame side joint with the glaring bumpstop issue. At least with the MC TB you can mod it if it needs to be a bit shorter in a few different ways.
09-26-2013 07:18 PM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
Actually I disagree an feel the MC tb is better than the stock tb for no or low lift vehicles. It does shift the axle over to the passenger side, but does less so at no lift vs. the factory tb at low lift(2")to the drivers side. And the heim has a larger travel range on top of it. Strength? Yeah.....the MC is stronger.......not even debatable. Get yourself a MC tb in hand and come back to this post.

And as stated.....i have just a bit over 2" lift in front and my axle is perfectly centered with the mc tb.
I've played with the MC track bar at 0" to 4" of lift, cycled it to full bump, and I've seen it at 2" of lift on freeskier's rig.

The axle can't be centered at less than ~3" of lift unless you drill a new hole or cut the threaded end. The bar is simply too long. It's too bad because the clearance rocks at full bump.

The JKS & Currie adjustable section is on the axle side, so they can adjust plenty short for a low lift, they just won't clear without some bump & steering work.

The MC isn't a bad a choice, but it's a heim end....and heim's have a bad track record. On the flip side, Currie and JKS have their own issues too, but the Currie JJ has shown excellent long term durability - something you can't say about heim's. Time will tell how the MC heim holds up...and as I stated earlier in this thread, heim's aren't that expensive to replace...you'll just have to keep an eye on it.
09-26-2013 06:37 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskier View Post

That might be true, for low lift you either run the MC bar which is to long, or stock bar which is to short. It comes down to which is better and IMO the stock track bar is the best track bar you can run. It has the best clearance and the best frame side joint, and is plenty strong (often you'll see the cast frame mount fail before the stock track bar).

It would great if someone made a track bar exactly like the stock one but adjustable.
Actually I disagree an feel the MC tb is better than the stock tb for no or low lift vehicles. It does shift the axle over to the passenger side, but does less so at no lift vs. the factory tb at low lift(2")to the drivers side. And the heim has a larger travel range on top of it. Strength? Yeah.....the MC is stronger.......not even debatable. Get yourself a MC tb in hand and come back to this post.

And as stated.....i have just a bit over 2" lift in front and my axle is perfectly centered with the mc tb.
09-26-2013 06:31 PM
PStov98TJ Sorry for the hi-jack, but while we're on the topic of MC, does anyone have info or pictures of a rear MC trackbar installed? Roughly on a 3" lift.
09-26-2013 06:27 PM
freeskier
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJO View Post
Yes the MC bar when adjusted does bring the TB out forward a bit(which is IMO a good thing). But just to move it forward by about an eight of an inch you need to lengthen the threads by over .75". Which is highly doubtfull will ever be done unless that lift is well in excess of 4-5".

Also, concerning the lower lifts. At 2-2.5" of lift, I find that the MC TB actually perfectly centers the axle. Some people claim its shifted over towards the passenger side by a fraction of an inch. But on my rig at 2.25" of lift roughly the axle is perfectly centered with the heim end threaded all the way in. The jounce bumpers perfectly line up vertically on top of the jounce pads. I know with no lift the TB shifts the axle over to the passenger side a little over half an inch, but the offset is still less than using the stock TB which offsets the axle to the drivers side even more.

So I feel that the MC TB is just fine for no or very low lift vehicles.
That might be true, for low lift you either run the MC bar which is to long, or stock bar which is to short. It comes down to which is better and IMO the stock track bar is the best track bar you can run. It has the best clearance and the best frame side joint, and is plenty strong (often you'll see the cast frame mount fail before the stock track bar).

It would great if someone made a track bar exactly like the stock one but adjustable.
09-26-2013 06:07 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazypainter27 View Post
I ordered the metal cloak bar. Should be with witching two weeks. I'll be asking for some install advice when it gets here. Thanks for all your guys help
Thats a WIN purchase. Even if the wait for shipping is a bit longer than you wanted to wait or have patience for, it will be well worth it in the end.
09-26-2013 05:56 PM
Crazypainter27 I ordered the metal cloak bar. Should be with witching two weeks. I'll be asking for some install advice when it gets here. Thanks for all your guys help
09-26-2013 10:20 AM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post
i was speaking from a DD/weekend warrior perspective. the wearing out of heims is probably another thing that's less effected by "hardcore" wheeling, and more effected by normal daily driving stuff...dust, road salt, moisture, mileage, etc. hardcore wheelers generally get towed to the trail on a trailer, only go out when the weather is nice, and accumulate very low mileage. that said, plenty of hardcore buggies run heims...but they do replace them often.

IMHO, metalcloak has a really weird thing going....uber long springs that require a lot of bumpstop extension to avoid coil bind but track bars with the best low lift clearance - which can't be adjusted short enough to operate there and only work at taller lifts.
I don't have enough time on my MC TB yet on the wear characteristics of the heim used, but I was able to pick up a pair of spare replacement heims from MC to have as backup and the cost was still lss thn the JKS TB. So even if they do need to be periodically replaced, the much cheaper cost more than makes up for it, plus all the benefits it comes with on top of cost(clearance, travel range, alignment with pitman arm). Regardless I highly doubt its going to wear out anytime soon. The smaller and cheaper heim end links on my swaybar get a lot more use and abuse than the TB ever will and they have lasted me a few years now and have no noticeable wear and tear at all.

I agree on the MC springs(well specifically the rear, I THINK the front springs might just be under the maximum total compressed length the front will allow using stock bumpstopping)though being a bit odd. BUt I think that only applies to those of us who like to mix n match parts.

For those doing the entire MC kit though, then the way they were setup makes sense. For example, assuming 35" tires using MC's fenders and suspension kit combined the rear will need about 2" of bumpstopping regardless if using the springs due to the 6pak shocks used in combination with stuffing one tire up fully while the other tire is fully dropped. The dropped tire drops down so low due to the long 12" travel that it shoves the opposite tire up significantly into the fender well where a couple inches of bumpstopping is needed to keep the tire from hitting the top of the tubs well.

So as a whole the kit makes perfect sense.

But for folks like me and you who mix n match, those springs can potentially make no sense. With my 2942 OME rear springs and the 20mm bumpstop extensions using a shorter 10" travel shock, I just barely clear the top of the tub at full stuff with my 35" SSR's. Now if I had an extra 2" of down travel on the opposite side, my stuffed 35" would probably be kissing the top of the tub.

What would be nice, would be see MC to make a 2-2.5" version of their springs using less of the 2nd rate compressed coils that take up so much space at bind. If they made a set of those, I would be looking at a set no question, just so I have rear springs that can fully support 12" of travel since my rear 2942's only support about 10.5" of travel when all the components are perfectly matched since my next upgrade for my rig is going from 10" to 12" travel shocks using a low SA lift of under 3".
09-26-2013 10:03 AM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post

JKS & Currie are also adjustable on the axle side, instead of the frame side. the MC track bar changes clearance slightly when adjusted because making the bar longer at the frame side pushes the bar further out into the tie-rod (at full bump). the heim joint also has less length adjustment possibility than the JKS/Currie axle side adjustments, but for most people in ~3-4.5" range, that's mostly insignificant. however, it does mean the MC is too long for no lift or lower lifts....despite that i may have better clearance at those low lifts.
Yes the MC bar when adjusted does bring the TB out forward a bit(which is IMO a good thing). But just to move it forward by about an eight of an inch you need to lengthen the threads by over .75". Which is highly doubtfull will ever be done unless that lift is well in excess of 4-5".

Also, concerning the lower lifts. At 2-2.5" of lift, I find that the MC TB actually perfectly centers the axle. Some people claim its shifted over towards the passenger side by a fraction of an inch. But on my rig at 2.25" of lift roughly the axle is perfectly centered with the heim end threaded all the way in. The jounce bumpers perfectly line up vertically on top of the jounce pads. I know with no lift the TB shifts the axle over to the passenger side a little over half an inch, but the offset is still less than using the stock TB which offsets the axle to the drivers side even more.

So I feel that the MC TB is just fine for no or very low lift vehicles.
09-26-2013 09:54 AM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnlimitedLJ04 View Post
it doesn't matter in this case. the OP has 4" of lift and needs bumpstop extensions anyway for other reasons. in fact, he likely needs enough that either JKS or Currie will also work.
It may r may not, depends how much or how little he has for bumpstopping, the diff cover used, length of CA's etc etc. Even IF the Currie or JKS does fit, the MC TB still has numerous advantages, now and potentially for FUTURE mods etc.
09-26-2013 04:30 AM
MosesTJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold Miner View Post
Mine arrived in less than a week. Just call them to see what their current ship time is. It's not always 2-3 weeks.
it is as of last week.
09-25-2013 10:45 PM
brs256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazypainter27 View Post
This is the area in question, it's loose. Pretty sure it's the cause of the wandering

that is absolutely terrifying ...... x2 on the metal cloack track bar ... its the best bang for the buck
09-25-2013 09:29 PM
Gold Miner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazypainter27 View Post
Don't want to wait three weeks for one though. (MC)
Mine arrived in less than a week. Just call them to see what their current ship time is. It's not always 2-3 weeks.
09-25-2013 07:45 PM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazypainter27 View Post
I'm going back to my original pitman arm. I want this to be as painless as possible. Which bar is the best for my situation. They all seem to be around $200 so price isn't that big of deal. Don't want to wait three weeks for one though. (MC)
Best bet is still going to be the MC trackbar.
09-25-2013 07:38 PM
Crazypainter27 I'm going back to my original pitman arm. I want this to be as painless as possible. Which bar is the best for my situation. They all seem to be around $200 so price isn't that big of deal. Don't want to wait three weeks for one though. (MC)
09-25-2013 07:35 PM
Crazypainter27 What is a heim
09-25-2013 11:29 AM
Gary2 The Mc bar don't drop the pivot point of the frame end as far as the other two bars with JJ's do. The less that is changed the better it matches the OE drag link end's pivot point when a stock pitman is used . Which is why I vote for the MC bar .
09-25-2013 09:56 AM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold Miner View Post
Ok, we'll see how it goes.
some heims last longer than others. generally cheap ones don't last very long. there are high quality units that do well. it just waits to be seen what the MC heim is...so only time will tell.

the good thing is that heim's are fairly inexpensive to replace...you can buy a whole lot of replacement heims for the difference between the MC vs Currie TJS.
09-25-2013 09:54 AM
Gold Miner Ok, we'll see how it goes.
09-25-2013 09:51 AM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold Miner View Post
Thanks for the excellent detailed response!
MC has a beefy heim... I can't imagine it "wearing out quickly" but time will tell. I'm not a hardcore 4 wheeler so maybe not the best tester.
Regarding your statement: "...it does mean the MC is too long for no lift or lower lifts"
I can attest that this is correct. I'm running a 2" SL and the bar was slightly too long out of the box. MC failed on this by not including any lift requirement information in their product description. It was apparently designed for 3" or larger SL. It definitely would NOT work on stock suspension. I removed about 1/2" of thread-end from the spherical adjustment rod to get my fit with 2" SL.
i was speaking from a DD/weekend warrior perspective. the wearing out of heims is probably another thing that's less effected by "hardcore" wheeling, and more effected by normal daily driving stuff...dust, road salt, moisture, mileage, etc. hardcore wheelers generally get towed to the trail on a trailer, only go out when the weather is nice, and accumulate very low mileage. that said, plenty of hardcore buggies run heims...but they do replace them often.

IMHO, metalcloak has a really weird thing going....uber long springs that require a lot of bumpstop extension to avoid coil bind but track bars with the best low lift clearance - which can't be adjusted short enough to operate there and only work at taller lifts.
09-25-2013 09:38 AM
Gold Miner Thanks for the excellent detailed response!
MC has a beefy heim... I can't imagine it "wearing out quickly" but time will tell. I'm not a hardcore 4 wheeler so maybe not the best tester.
Regarding your statement: "...it does mean the MC is too long for no lift or lower lifts"
I can attest that this is correct. I'm running a 2" SL and the bar was slightly too long out of the box. MC failed on this by not including any lift requirement information in their product description. It was apparently designed for 3" or larger SL. It definitely would NOT work on stock suspension. I removed about 1/2" of thread-end from the spherical adjustment rod to get my fit with 2" SL.
09-25-2013 08:47 AM
UnlimitedLJ04
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold Miner View Post
Are there any advantages with using JKS or Currie rather than MC? Curious.
JKS & Currie use Currie JJ's instead of a heim end - generally speaking, heim's wear out quickly. the heim is smaller and helps provide the better clearance profile. another advantage is that the heim end provides slightly better steering characteristics vs the JJ due to the track bar pivot point vs drag-link TRE. the smaller end more closely matches the stock TRE drop...the JJ is bigger and puts that pivot point slowly lower. this gives very slight bumpsteer, but this is insignificant to most.

JKS & Currie are also adjustable on the axle side, instead of the frame side. the MC track bar changes clearance slightly when adjusted because making the bar longer at the frame side pushes the bar further out into the tie-rod (at full bump). the heim joint also has less length adjustment possibility than the JKS/Currie axle side adjustments, but for most people in ~3-4.5" range, that's mostly insignificant. however, it does mean the MC is too long for no lift or lower lifts....despite that i may have better clearance at those low lifts.
09-25-2013 08:42 AM
NJO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold Miner View Post
Are there any advantages with using JKS or Currie rather than MC? Curious.
No.
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 05:37 PM.



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