What MPG differences do you notice on the 33’s vs 35’s?
Look at the nuts. They should have a chamfer on one side. They belong on the heim side and are part of the misalignment clearance. There should be no need for the bronze bushing thing.
@jjvw, I edited my response above with a question. Hoping you can answer.
I'm away from the TJ. I'll see if I have a picture showing what I did.
The instructions say if there is room you can put them on the inside. While looking at them it's obvious that it would keep the bolt head further away from the tire under articulation. I look forward to your pics.
Look at the nuts. They should have a chamfer on one side. They belong on the heim side and are part of the misalignment clearance. There should be no need for the bronze bushing thing.
At the end of the day, mine at least, these ridiculously expensive high misalignment FK rod ends were the better solution.
View attachment 358517
View attachment 358515
View attachment 358516
I agree and I pointed that out to @JMT but Jeremy’s solution was still better than using the hardware incorrectly.
I'm less familiar with how more typical installations survive. In my case, the 12" travel shocks created more misalignment than what the ORO rod ends allowed. Then I also figured out far later on than I care to admit that at full shock extension, the SL arm and link in the middle hole would bind against each other. Basically, my longer than normal shock travel along with the stiffness setting was tearing the ORO rod ends apart. When the FK joints went in, I lengthened the links a bit to eliminate the link/arm bind. And the high misalignment joints made everything happy down there.
Although you could put the nut on that way, the bearing side of the nut is the other side, so cross-threading is easily done for some folks. The hardware that came with mine has an all metal nut with tri-lobular swage on the more conical side to create an interference fit to lock the nut to the bolt. It does allow more travel that way but still not as much as the misalignment bushing, putting the nut on the design direction, even less articulation is achieved. The rod ends that you switched to have a shank on each end of the ball that gives you better clearance, @JMT mimicked that with the brass bushing. Below is the type of nut supplied with my bar and some pictures showing the amount of interference both ways. I chose to remove material from the underside of the bolt head but I like Jeremy’s way better.
View attachment 358508
View attachment 358509
View attachment 358510
At the end of the day, mine at least, these ridiculously expensive high misalignment FK rod ends were the better solution. Nine months later and they are still just as snug as the day they went in.
View attachment 358517
View attachment 358515
View attachment 358516
Yeah, I went back and looked at the chamfered nut and checked for clearance. It's not enough to limit misalignment even under no articulation, so I realized I need to stay with my current bushing solution, chamfer the bolt heads more, or try a different rod end like @jjvw. Last thing is to cycle the suspension to see what happens to the misalignment under articulation. Hopefully this is helpful info for others who are doing the SL with the current hardware sent out by ORO. Thanks guys...
If it were the boys Jeeps it wouldn’t be an issue but yours gets pretty flexed out and you would have reached the limits of the hardware, as far as running the nut backwards I would do a conical lug nut instead.