CJ handling problems after 4" lift
05-18-2005, 02:00 PM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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
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
05-18-2005, 02:00 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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
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
05-18-2005, 02:00 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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
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
05-18-2005, 03:26 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
"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.
05-18-2005, 03:26 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
"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.
05-18-2005, 03:26 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
"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.
05-18-2005, 03:26 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
"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.
05-18-2005, 03:29 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
>
"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.
>
05-18-2005, 03:29 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
>
"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.
>
05-18-2005, 03:29 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
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.
>
"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.
>
