They're so much lower than the bumper, it doesn't take much to bend
up the rear part of the spring when it hits a rock.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I relied on the 4x4 shop's recommendation for the lift and shackles.
> Of course, they cater to the extreme crowd....the ones who think a weekend
> is fun only if it includes at least one roll-over.
>
> The original shackles measured 3" bolt to bolt, mine measure 6". I guess
> I'll start by replacing the shackles with 4" ones. Do you think that will
> give the springs enough room to flex.
>
> Thanks,
> -Tracy

 

They're so much lower than the bumper, it doesn't take much to bend
up the rear part of the spring when it hits a rock.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I relied on the 4x4 shop's recommendation for the lift and shackles.
> Of course, they cater to the extreme crowd....the ones who think a weekend
> is fun only if it includes at least one roll-over.
>
> The original shackles measured 3" bolt to bolt, mine measure 6". I guess
> I'll start by replacing the shackles with 4" ones. Do you think that will
> give the springs enough room to flex.
>
> Thanks,
> -Tracy

 

They're so much lower than the bumper, it doesn't take much to bend
up the rear part of the spring when it hits a rock.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I relied on the 4x4 shop's recommendation for the lift and shackles.
> Of course, they cater to the extreme crowd....the ones who think a weekend
> is fun only if it includes at least one roll-over.
>
> The original shackles measured 3" bolt to bolt, mine measure 6". I guess
> I'll start by replacing the shackles with 4" ones. Do you think that will
> give the springs enough room to flex.
>
> Thanks,
> -Tracy

 

On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> I have the ConFer heavy duty
>shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
>assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed the
>space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.

I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
the middle, that the originals don't have.

 

On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> I have the ConFer heavy duty
>shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
>assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed the
>space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.

I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
the middle, that the originals don't have.

 

On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> I have the ConFer heavy duty
>shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
>assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed the
>space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.

I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
the middle, that the originals don't have.

 

On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> I have the ConFer heavy duty
>shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
>assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed the
>space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.

I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
the middle, that the originals don't have.

 

That could be, the added length is about the size of the bracing.




"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4324964b.511294468@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> > I have the ConFer heavy duty
> >shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
> >assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed
the
> >space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.
>
> I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
> the middle, that the originals don't have.
>

 

That could be, the added length is about the size of the bracing.




"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4324964b.511294468@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> > I have the ConFer heavy duty
> >shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
> >assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed
the
> >space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.
>
> I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
> the middle, that the originals don't have.
>

 

That could be, the added length is about the size of the bracing.




"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4324964b.511294468@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:49:31 -0700 in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote,
> > I have the ConFer heavy duty
> >shackles, and they are just a fraction of an inch longer than stock, I
> >assume this is because the material is so much beefier that they needed
the
> >space avoid compromising the strength after they drilled the holes.
>
> I think it is because they needed to make room for the extra brace in
> the middle, that the originals don't have.
>