Partly yes. IMO any shock longer than 26.5" in the stock mount allows the front to droop too far with the stock arm length. Longer arms help with that, reduce roll steer and improve caster angle (or pinion angle through travel depending on link orientation). Three link is typically use for both packaging as has been mentioned and for less axle bind since we typically have a track bar adding constraint to the axle.
Dave Kishpaugh's (Jeep West) geometry correction brackets are now available
- Thread starter psrivats
- Start date
- Status
Partly yes. IMO any shock longer than 26.5" in the stock mount allows the front to droop too far with the stock arm length. Longer arms help with that, reduce roll steer and improve caster angle (or pinion angle through travel depending on link orientation). Three link is typically use for both packaging as has been mentioned and for less axle bind since we typically have a track bar adding constraint to the axle.
Pressurized
TJ Enthusiast
@jjvw
As the primary naysayer here, lets just ask a simple question... Do you think the overall performance is better, exactly the same or worse with these brackets, over the stock locations at 4" of lift? No BS... Is it better, the same or worse?
As the primary naysayer here, lets just ask a simple question... Do you think the overall performance is better, exactly the same or worse with these brackets, over the stock locations at 4" of lift? No BS... Is it better, the same or worse?
He did answer a very similar question of mine some where in this disaster of a thread. Lol.
I believe he said the brackets offer some improvement. But given the work required he thinks the mid arm is a better choice.
I can fully understand that. Just wish it was said around the beginning of this crud.
Because the way Dave was presenting them could have been better and he probably needed to be called out on that. But as some have basically called the brackets snake oil is not necessarily true. If you wheel in the PNW or here in Alaska for example where there is little to no traction the higher AS the brackets leave you with will most likely not present the same behavior that Starkey had happen in Moab. So the benefits they provide in that terrain outweigh the negatives so for those that may be the correct solution for them.
I hope more people do give feedback both good and bad.
Please do. I would also hope the folks @toximus mentioned would come in here and just be honest. Tell us where you wheel, the terrain you encountered and if the brackets provided enough benefit or not. The more real world feedback the better.
I think I lost most of my brain cells watching that video...lots of dumb
I think they're scared off since they can't just "not like it" but apparently need to prove the reason why to be considered valid in this thread. I know one of them took a forum hiatus because of this thread.
Have they posted somewhere in this thread stating they didn’t like the changes they made? Maybe I missed it, this thread is very long. You don’t think it is a valid question to ask what about the brackets they didn’t like?
If they had a bad experience with said product why wouldn't they share and prevent others from possibly making a similar mistake?
Please ask them to speak up.
I believe one already did.
The others have been asked, but like I said, they unfortunately have not wanted to so far.
Well, I'm sure several things are clear, but one is that both @starkey480 and @jjvw made that climb without any real issue at all. Kudos to both of them. It's not the end all be all of tests. Go to JV. Get in some real shit, or just wheel where you wheel and study the more involved concepts of geometry from a distance. This thread was kind of stupid because of ego, but some good came out of it IMHO. When I get more time I will delve in more. For now I know that AS is important, I have some relative concept of what numbers to aim for, shocks are important, well a lot is important, but again, that's more about the concepts, and I learned a few things thinking through and researching along the way. So, thanks for those involved, all of you.
Sri (OP) is the person taking a break, he did not state he didn't like Dave's work on his TJ. His ride has Dave's midarm so, a lot more than a $160 bracket mod.
Pressurized
TJ Enthusiast
I think he said roll center, but wouldn't state that the AS was an improvement.... As I said, they might just be a stepping stone to the rear mid arm for me anyways, but it's absurd to constantly see the attempted comparison of the 2 options.
For me as well. If I don’t like it the parts I added would be changed with a mid arm anyway.
I am not doubting anyone, but I would like to hear directly from folks who has had the brackets installed and doesn’t like them. And what about them they didn’t like.
Have you looked at factory welds? My shit looks gold compared to what mopar put out and soccer moms just love 80 mph...and not many fail
If it is who I am thinking of he was trying to fix an 8.8 with a Artec swap kit on it. Did a nice job of building his own brackets and did everything except move the axle side of the lower control arm up. As I recall the Artec lower arm mounts could not be redrilled and would have needed reworked. Unfortunately that most likely left him with an AS in the 150-160% range so almost little to no change from where he started.
I have not read any negative comments from the folks that have the gc brackets on their rides. As you stated, long thread so maybe I missed it.
As far as I'm concerned, 24.5" is maximum on the front with 16" arms to keep it in a position its barely usable 24.5" is also the point a stock driveshaft has to be SHORTENED to keep from jack hammering the t-case when running short arms. The 26.5" shock is the point currie 4" and metal cloak 3.5" 22.5" freelength springs unseat.
26" mid arms work well upto 28". If you want to play with a 14" travel relocated shock set to a 2" bumpstop, you need at least 30".
- Status
Similar threads
