Re: lift size for tires...
 

Same old story froom Bill. That got disproved on the last round of this
topic.

L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Leverage, just like you may curl more weight, than at arms length.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve G wrote:
>
>>What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
>>springs?

Re: lift size for tires...
 

I have 2" of spring lift and 1" of body lift for 32s.





"Steve G" <stevncin@charter.net> wrote in message
news:X0n1f.402$3n2.137@fe02.lga...
> Whats the general concensus for amount of lift on a CJ for 33" tires?
>

Re: lift size for tires...
 

I have 2" of spring lift and 1" of body lift for 32s.





"Steve G" <stevncin@charter.net> wrote in message
news:X0n1f.402$3n2.137@fe02.lga...
> Whats the general concensus for amount of lift on a CJ for 33" tires?
>

Re: lift size for tires...
 

I have 2" of spring lift and 1" of body lift for 32s.





"Steve G" <stevncin@charter.net> wrote in message
news:X0n1f.402$3n2.137@fe02.lga...
> Whats the general concensus for amount of lift on a CJ for 33" tires?
>

Re: lift size for tires...
 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> Steve G did pass the time by typing:
>> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
>> springs?
>
> springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> just
> move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> axle up.
>
> I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> puts
> all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> increased angle
> is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> better
> off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
>

There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.

I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
D300 tcase.

Re: lift size for tires...
 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> Steve G did pass the time by typing:
>> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
>> springs?
>
> springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> just
> move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> axle up.
>
> I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> puts
> all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> increased angle
> is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> better
> off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
>

There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.

I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
D300 tcase.

Re: lift size for tires...
 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> Steve G did pass the time by typing:
>> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
>> springs?
>
> springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> just
> move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> axle up.
>
> I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> puts
> all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> increased angle
> is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> better
> off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
>

There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.

I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
D300 tcase.

Re: lift size for tires...
 

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> > Steve G did pass the time by typing:
> >> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
> >> springs?
> >
> > springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> > just
> > move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> > axle up.
> >
> > I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> > puts
> > all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> > increased angle
> > is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> > better
> > off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
> >
>
> There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.
>
> I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
> D300 tcase.

That's correct, the driveshaft has the slip yoke.

The shackle is 1" longer giving the 1/2" lift.

I run with a load mostly now on the highway going camping instead of
local day trips and that seems to help them last longer by lowering the
rear a bit. It isn't too much off.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: lift size for tires...
 

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> > Steve G did pass the time by typing:
> >> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
> >> springs?
> >
> > springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> > just
> > move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> > axle up.
> >
> > I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> > puts
> > all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> > increased angle
> > is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> > better
> > off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
> >
>
> There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.
>
> I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
> D300 tcase.

That's correct, the driveshaft has the slip yoke.

The shackle is 1" longer giving the 1/2" lift.

I run with a load mostly now on the highway going camping instead of
local day trips and that seems to help them last longer by lowering the
rear a bit. It isn't too much off.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Re: lift size for tires...
 

Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
> news:imv1f.2622$xE1.2313@okepread07...
> > Steve G did pass the time by typing:
> >> What is it about the longer shackles that cause this more than the lifted
> >> springs?
> >
> > springs move the whole axle down, keeping the geometry. Where shackles
> > just
> > move the back of the spring down while the front stays put, tilting the
> > axle up.
> >
> > I wonder though how 1/2" of larger shackle could do that since it probably
> > puts
> > all of 1 degree (or less) into the equasion. It's more likely the
> > increased angle
> > is just beyond what the stock U joints can do reliably and Mike would be
> > better
> > off with a CV joint conversion and prolly a slip yolk eliminator.
> >
>
> There is no slip yoke to eliminate on a CJ.
>
> I'm with you on the CV joint drive shaft, but there is no slip yoke on a
> D300 tcase.

That's correct, the driveshaft has the slip yoke.

The shackle is 1" longer giving the 1/2" lift.

I run with a load mostly now on the highway going camping instead of
local day trips and that seems to help them last longer by lowering the
rear a bit. It isn't too much off.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's