twaldron

I'll give a big second to that. There is no better customer service than
Bob gives...period.

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Bob Supplee (great guy to buy Jeep parts from) owns Supplee 4WD Parts
> and is at supplee@ionet.net or 405-799-8977. I've been buying most of
> my stuff from him for 6-7 years now and he has done some
> amazing/impressive things as part of his normal customer service. I
> can't recommend Bob highly enough, great delivered prices as well as an
> honest guy with good mid-western values..
>
> Jerry


--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

twaldron

I'll give a big second to that. There is no better customer service than
Bob gives...period.

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Bob Supplee (great guy to buy Jeep parts from) owns Supplee 4WD Parts
> and is at supplee@ionet.net or 405-799-8977. I've been buying most of
> my stuff from him for 6-7 years now and he has done some
> amazing/impressive things as part of his normal customer service. I
> can't recommend Bob highly enough, great delivered prices as well as an
> honest guy with good mid-western values..
>
> Jerry


--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

Steve

Hi Brian,

I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
3.5" springs. Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now
was more important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never
make, so I opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the
new longer shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by
fitting the 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the
opposite, it is done for performance and is actually more expensive than
4.5" springs and no shackles.

On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35
- the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any
shimming with the 4.5" springs?

How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new,
I suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but
I've still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much
weight had the rear sitting about level with the front.

I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra
dollars, but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I
found that with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got
just the right amount of positive caster.

As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> I decided on the 4.5" kit for my XJ and I was initially drawn to the RE kit
> because of it's reputation. I decided against the RE kit because of it's
> components. The RE kit comes with the 3.5" springs, if I ever wanted to go
> up I would need new springs. The RE kit comes with fixed length upper and
> lower control arms, again, if I wanted to go up I would need adjustable
> control arms to correct castor angle. The disco's would need new tubes as
> well unless I upgraded to JKS at the time of purchase. The adjustable track
> bar is nice but the frame end comes with a heim joint. These are optimal for
> flex but don't last long in our salt belt.
>
> I went with the Rusty's 4.5" kit. I'm not trying to sell you on Rusty's but
> this kit fit the bill for my reasons. The kit comes with 4.5" springs, I can
> always add shackles or blocks to go up. While it only includes a set of
> fixed length lower control arms, I can order adjustable uppers to fine tune
> castor angles - this is necessary even at 4.5" and they should be
> recommended in the kit. The adjustable track bar comes with a TRE frame end
> and the heavy duty bushing end (same as the axle end) is available. I
> believe the heavy duty setup would last the life of the Jeep unless you plan
> to lift beyond 8".

Steve

Hi Brian,

I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
3.5" springs. Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now
was more important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never
make, so I opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the
new longer shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by
fitting the 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the
opposite, it is done for performance and is actually more expensive than
4.5" springs and no shackles.

On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35
- the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any
shimming with the 4.5" springs?

How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new,
I suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but
I've still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much
weight had the rear sitting about level with the front.

I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra
dollars, but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I
found that with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got
just the right amount of positive caster.

As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> I decided on the 4.5" kit for my XJ and I was initially drawn to the RE kit
> because of it's reputation. I decided against the RE kit because of it's
> components. The RE kit comes with the 3.5" springs, if I ever wanted to go
> up I would need new springs. The RE kit comes with fixed length upper and
> lower control arms, again, if I wanted to go up I would need adjustable
> control arms to correct castor angle. The disco's would need new tubes as
> well unless I upgraded to JKS at the time of purchase. The adjustable track
> bar is nice but the frame end comes with a heim joint. These are optimal for
> flex but don't last long in our salt belt.
>
> I went with the Rusty's 4.5" kit. I'm not trying to sell you on Rusty's but
> this kit fit the bill for my reasons. The kit comes with 4.5" springs, I can
> always add shackles or blocks to go up. While it only includes a set of
> fixed length lower control arms, I can order adjustable uppers to fine tune
> castor angles - this is necessary even at 4.5" and they should be
> recommended in the kit. The adjustable track bar comes with a TRE frame end
> and the heavy duty bushing end (same as the axle end) is available. I
> believe the heavy duty setup would last the life of the Jeep unless you plan
> to lift beyond 8".

Steve

Hi Brian,

I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
3.5" springs. Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now
was more important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never
make, so I opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the
new longer shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by
fitting the 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the
opposite, it is done for performance and is actually more expensive than
4.5" springs and no shackles.

On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35
- the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any
shimming with the 4.5" springs?

How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new,
I suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but
I've still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much
weight had the rear sitting about level with the front.

I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra
dollars, but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I
found that with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got
just the right amount of positive caster.

As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org


Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
>
> I decided on the 4.5" kit for my XJ and I was initially drawn to the RE kit
> because of it's reputation. I decided against the RE kit because of it's
> components. The RE kit comes with the 3.5" springs, if I ever wanted to go
> up I would need new springs. The RE kit comes with fixed length upper and
> lower control arms, again, if I wanted to go up I would need adjustable
> control arms to correct castor angle. The disco's would need new tubes as
> well unless I upgraded to JKS at the time of purchase. The adjustable track
> bar is nice but the frame end comes with a heim joint. These are optimal for
> flex but don't last long in our salt belt.
>
> I went with the Rusty's 4.5" kit. I'm not trying to sell you on Rusty's but
> this kit fit the bill for my reasons. The kit comes with 4.5" springs, I can
> always add shackles or blocks to go up. While it only includes a set of
> fixed length lower control arms, I can order adjustable uppers to fine tune
> castor angles - this is necessary even at 4.5" and they should be
> recommended in the kit. The adjustable track bar comes with a TRE frame end
> and the heavy duty bushing end (same as the axle end) is available. I
> believe the heavy duty setup would last the life of the Jeep unless you plan
> to lift beyond 8".

Cherokee-Ltd

"Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:383mvrF5kl3slU1@individual.net...

> I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
> the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
> less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
> 3.5" springs.

That's news to me. I called a couple places (admittedly not RE themselves)
for quotes and asked why they didn't come with 4.5" springs. Never got a
straight answer.

> Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now was more
> important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never make, so I
> opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the new longer
> shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by fitting the
> 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the opposite, it
> is done for performance and is actually more expensive than 4.5" springs
> and no shackles.

Depending on the construction of the new leaf pack, a longer shackle may
limit flex. The good folks at RE have obviously considered this and designed
that package accordingly. I don't fully understand the geometry so I won't
try to -------- you with an explanation - I was able to relocate this info
on the web. It was very helpful for researching my lift.

http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/ForSale/...es.shtml#FAQ2;
<copy & paste>
Three strategies for designing lift springs.
1. Keep the stock spring geometry and just use thicker and stiffer leaves to
gain lift.
This does give the desired lift but the ride quality is reduced and
suspension compliance is reduced.
2. Retain the stock arc-length (see above) but use more free arch to gain
lift (an arched leaf will be stiffer than a similar flat leaf).
The advantage of this design is that it will work fine with stock spring
shackles.
3. Keep the stock chord length and instead use a longer free-arch which
results in a longer arc-length.
For this type of spring, you must use a longer spring shackle or else you
may find the stock length shackle will bottom out on the frame and cause
excessive stress.

> On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
> good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
> degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
> figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35 -
> the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any shimming
> with the 4.5" springs?

This was the main reason for not going with shackles on my lift. I was not
in a position financially to afford an SYE and driveshaft (just did
body/paint and engine) and I wanted to keep pinion angle to a minimum. I was
fortunate not to need any shims on my 4.5" springs. When they do settle, I
may fine tune with 1or 2 degrees but so far it's been good.

> How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new, I
> suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but I've
> still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
> fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much weight
> had the rear sitting about level with the front.

Mine are still about 5" (netted about 5.5-6" when installed) over new from
factory stock ride height measured from the flare to ground at the hub. I
have not done much wheeling, not much city driving for that matter either
(no interior right now) but it's had 5 rims and tires in the back for about
7 months now.

> I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra dollars,
> but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I found that
> with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got just the right
> amount of positive caster.

That's probably a good decision if you don't foresee adding to you lift in
the near future. The Rustys kit only comes with fixed lowers, if you use
them your caster WILL be out of whack and you'll need to replace the uppers.
This is frustrating and should be explained in the product description. I
would probably be better off with stock arms from an alignment point of
view. I like the fixed LCA's construction and the dog leg design reduces
tire rub but I'll be a lot happier when I get the adjustable uppers
installed.

> As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
> the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
> bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
> keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

I will be upgrading to the heavy duty bushing end and bracket fairly soon.
The TRE end doesn't excite me and it feels restrictive. It seems to bind a
bit under load. The track bar itself is the same in both regular and heavy
duty variations so I just have to buy the end and bracket to convert.

-Brian

Cherokee-Ltd

"Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:383mvrF5kl3slU1@individual.net...

> I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
> the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
> less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
> 3.5" springs.

That's news to me. I called a couple places (admittedly not RE themselves)
for quotes and asked why they didn't come with 4.5" springs. Never got a
straight answer.

> Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now was more
> important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never make, so I
> opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the new longer
> shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by fitting the
> 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the opposite, it
> is done for performance and is actually more expensive than 4.5" springs
> and no shackles.

Depending on the construction of the new leaf pack, a longer shackle may
limit flex. The good folks at RE have obviously considered this and designed
that package accordingly. I don't fully understand the geometry so I won't
try to -------- you with an explanation - I was able to relocate this info
on the web. It was very helpful for researching my lift.

http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/ForSale/...es.shtml#FAQ2;
<copy & paste>
Three strategies for designing lift springs.
1. Keep the stock spring geometry and just use thicker and stiffer leaves to
gain lift.
This does give the desired lift but the ride quality is reduced and
suspension compliance is reduced.
2. Retain the stock arc-length (see above) but use more free arch to gain
lift (an arched leaf will be stiffer than a similar flat leaf).
The advantage of this design is that it will work fine with stock spring
shackles.
3. Keep the stock chord length and instead use a longer free-arch which
results in a longer arc-length.
For this type of spring, you must use a longer spring shackle or else you
may find the stock length shackle will bottom out on the frame and cause
excessive stress.

> On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
> good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
> degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
> figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35 -
> the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any shimming
> with the 4.5" springs?

This was the main reason for not going with shackles on my lift. I was not
in a position financially to afford an SYE and driveshaft (just did
body/paint and engine) and I wanted to keep pinion angle to a minimum. I was
fortunate not to need any shims on my 4.5" springs. When they do settle, I
may fine tune with 1or 2 degrees but so far it's been good.

> How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new, I
> suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but I've
> still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
> fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much weight
> had the rear sitting about level with the front.

Mine are still about 5" (netted about 5.5-6" when installed) over new from
factory stock ride height measured from the flare to ground at the hub. I
have not done much wheeling, not much city driving for that matter either
(no interior right now) but it's had 5 rims and tires in the back for about
7 months now.

> I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra dollars,
> but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I found that
> with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got just the right
> amount of positive caster.

That's probably a good decision if you don't foresee adding to you lift in
the near future. The Rustys kit only comes with fixed lowers, if you use
them your caster WILL be out of whack and you'll need to replace the uppers.
This is frustrating and should be explained in the product description. I
would probably be better off with stock arms from an alignment point of
view. I like the fixed LCA's construction and the dog leg design reduces
tire rub but I'll be a lot happier when I get the adjustable uppers
installed.

> As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
> the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
> bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
> keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

I will be upgrading to the heavy duty bushing end and bracket fairly soon.
The TRE end doesn't excite me and it feels restrictive. It seems to bind a
bit under load. The track bar itself is the same in both regular and heavy
duty variations so I just have to buy the end and bracket to convert.

-Brian

Cherokee-Ltd

"Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:383mvrF5kl3slU1@individual.net...

> I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
> the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
> less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
> 3.5" springs.

That's news to me. I called a couple places (admittedly not RE themselves)
for quotes and asked why they didn't come with 4.5" springs. Never got a
straight answer.

> Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now was more
> important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never make, so I
> opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the new longer
> shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by fitting the
> 4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the opposite, it
> is done for performance and is actually more expensive than 4.5" springs
> and no shackles.

Depending on the construction of the new leaf pack, a longer shackle may
limit flex. The good folks at RE have obviously considered this and designed
that package accordingly. I don't fully understand the geometry so I won't
try to -------- you with an explanation - I was able to relocate this info
on the web. It was very helpful for researching my lift.

http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/ForSale/...es.shtml#FAQ2;
<copy & paste>
Three strategies for designing lift springs.
1. Keep the stock spring geometry and just use thicker and stiffer leaves to
gain lift.
This does give the desired lift but the ride quality is reduced and
suspension compliance is reduced.
2. Retain the stock arc-length (see above) but use more free arch to gain
lift (an arched leaf will be stiffer than a similar flat leaf).
The advantage of this design is that it will work fine with stock spring
shackles.
3. Keep the stock chord length and instead use a longer free-arch which
results in a longer arc-length.
For this type of spring, you must use a longer spring shackle or else you
may find the stock length shackle will bottom out on the frame and cause
excessive stress.

> On thing about the shackle though is that it tips the pinion up. This is
> good for the SYE, but in my case I had to shim my Dana 35 down a few
> degrees. When I switched to the XJ Dana 44, no shims (still haven't
> figured out why it would have a slightly lower pinion angle than the 35 -
> the perches were left in the stock position). Did you need any shimming
> with the 4.5" springs?

This was the main reason for not going with shackles on my lift. I was not
in a position financially to afford an SYE and driveshaft (just did
body/paint and engine) and I wanted to keep pinion angle to a minimum. I was
fortunate not to need any shims on my 4.5" springs. When they do settle, I
may fine tune with 1or 2 degrees but so far it's been good.

> How are your springs settling? Mine were way high in the rear when new, I
> suppose to allow for settling. They've dropped a bit in a year, but I've
> still got a slight nosedive. I recently loaded a 600 lb cast iron
> fireplace insert and six bags of mortar mix in the back. That much weight
> had the rear sitting about level with the front.

Mine are still about 5" (netted about 5.5-6" when installed) over new from
factory stock ride height measured from the flare to ground at the hub. I
have not done much wheeling, not much city driving for that matter either
(no interior right now) but it's had 5 rims and tires in the back for about
7 months now.

> I also thought about substituting adjustable arms for a few extra dollars,
> but again couldn't justify the added expense for a 'maybe'. I found that
> with the fixed upper and lower arms on the RE kit, I've got just the right
> amount of positive caster.

That's probably a good decision if you don't foresee adding to you lift in
the near future. The Rustys kit only comes with fixed lowers, if you use
them your caster WILL be out of whack and you'll need to replace the uppers.
This is frustrating and should be explained in the product description. I
would probably be better off with stock arms from an alignment point of
view. I like the fixed LCA's construction and the dog leg design reduces
tire rub but I'll be a lot happier when I get the adjustable uppers
installed.

> As for the track bar, I had heard that the 'regular' one that comes with
> the RE kit had durability issues so I went with the heavy duty bar and
> bracket. So far so good. No rust apparent on the joint so far, but I do
> keep the whole undercarriage heavily gooped up over winter.

I will be upgrading to the heavy duty bushing end and bracket fairly soon.
The TRE end doesn't excite me and it feels restrictive. It seems to bind a
bit under load. The track bar itself is the same in both regular and heavy
duty variations so I just have to buy the end and bracket to convert.

-Brian

Steve

Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
> "Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
> news:383mvrF5kl3slU1@individual.net...
>
>>I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
>>the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
>>less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
>>3.5" springs.
>
> That's news to me. I called a couple places (admittedly not RE themselves)
> for quotes and asked why they didn't come with 4.5" springs. Never got a
> straight answer.

When I called around, at least one place (maybe mesa4x4 or dpg?) said
that sub was no problem. I ended up getting the kit from national4wd in
Burlington after they agreed to match the US dealers prices + duty and
then chucked in the JKS discos on top.

>>Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now was more
>>important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never make, so I
>>opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the new longer
>>shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by fitting the
>>4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the opposite, it
>>is done for performance and is actually more expensive than 4.5" springs
>>and no shackles.
>
> Depending on the construction of the new leaf pack, a longer shackle may
> limit flex. The good folks at RE have obviously considered this and designed
> that package accordingly. I don't fully understand the geometry so I won't
> try to -------- you with an explanation - I was able to relocate this info
> on the web. It was very helpful for researching my lift.
>
> http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/ForSale/...es.shtml#FAQ2;
> <copy & paste>
> Three strategies for designing lift springs.
> 1. Keep the stock spring geometry and just use thicker and stiffer leaves to
> gain lift.
> This does give the desired lift but the ride quality is reduced and
> suspension compliance is reduced.
> 2. Retain the stock arc-length (see above) but use more free arch to gain
> lift (an arched leaf will be stiffer than a similar flat leaf).
> The advantage of this design is that it will work fine with stock spring
> shackles.
> 3. Keep the stock chord length and instead use a longer free-arch which
> results in a longer arc-length.
> For this type of spring, you must use a longer spring shackle or else you
> may find the stock length shackle will bottom out on the frame and cause
> excessive stress.

Great link. Thanks. Kind of makes me wonder if RE is having their cake
and eating it too. As far as I know, the 3.5" leafs are the exact same
ones that ship with both the 3.5" kit (stock shackle) and the 4.5" kit
(extended shackle):

From http://www.rubiconexpress.com :

RE1462 4.5" Extreme-Duty XJ Rear Spring (1) : $149.95 + S&H
RE1463 3.5" Extreme Duty XJ Rear Spring (1) : $149.95 + S&H

I wonder which of the two configurations it's optimized for. Might also
mean that using the 4.5" spring in the 4.5" kit might be suboptimal if
it is tuned for the 5.5" kit with shackle. When the snow melts (probably
June, another nor'easter blowing in tomorrow), I'll dig up my stock
springs and compare arc cord/length, freearch, etc.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org

Steve

Cherokee-Ltd wrote:
> "Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
> news:383mvrF5kl3slU1@individual.net...
>
>>I almost went with Rusty's for the taller leaf springs, but I found that
>>the RE kit can be ordered with 4.5" springs at no extra charge (actually
>>less if you pass on the shackles). The 4.5" springs cost the same as the
>>3.5" springs.
>
> That's news to me. I called a couple places (admittedly not RE themselves)
> for quotes and asked why they didn't come with 4.5" springs. Never got a
> straight answer.

When I called around, at least one place (maybe mesa4x4 or dpg?) said
that sub was no problem. I ended up getting the kit from national4wd in
Burlington after they agreed to match the US dealers prices + duty and
then chucked in the JKS discos on top.

>>Then after thinking on it, I decided that performance now was more
>>important than hedging on some future upgrade I might never make, so I
>>opted for the 3.5" springs and all the extra flex that the new longer
>>shackles give me. The point is, RE isn't 'cheaping out' by fitting the
>>4.5" kit with 3.5" springs and extended shackles. Quite the opposite, it
>>is done for performance and is actually more expensive than 4.5" springs
>>and no shackles.
>
> Depending on the construction of the new leaf pack, a longer shackle may
> limit flex. The good folks at RE have obviously considered this and designed
> that package accordingly. I don't fully understand the geometry so I won't
> try to -------- you with an explanation - I was able to relocate this info
> on the web. It was very helpful for researching my lift.
>
> http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/ForSale/...es.shtml#FAQ2;
> <copy & paste>
> Three strategies for designing lift springs.
> 1. Keep the stock spring geometry and just use thicker and stiffer leaves to
> gain lift.
> This does give the desired lift but the ride quality is reduced and
> suspension compliance is reduced.
> 2. Retain the stock arc-length (see above) but use more free arch to gain
> lift (an arched leaf will be stiffer than a similar flat leaf).
> The advantage of this design is that it will work fine with stock spring
> shackles.
> 3. Keep the stock chord length and instead use a longer free-arch which
> results in a longer arc-length.
> For this type of spring, you must use a longer spring shackle or else you
> may find the stock length shackle will bottom out on the frame and cause
> excessive stress.

Great link. Thanks. Kind of makes me wonder if RE is having their cake
and eating it too. As far as I know, the 3.5" leafs are the exact same
ones that ship with both the 3.5" kit (stock shackle) and the 4.5" kit
(extended shackle):

From http://www.rubiconexpress.com :

RE1462 4.5" Extreme-Duty XJ Rear Spring (1) : $149.95 + S&H
RE1463 3.5" Extreme Duty XJ Rear Spring (1) : $149.95 + S&H

I wonder which of the two configurations it's optimized for. Might also
mean that using the 4.5" spring in the 4.5" kit might be suboptimal if
it is tuned for the 5.5" kit with shackle. When the snow melts (probably
June, another nor'easter blowing in tomorrow), I'll dig up my stock
springs and compare arc cord/length, freearch, etc.

Steve
http://xjeep.dyndns.org