Does this look right?

[ApexOffRoad]

Just installed MC dual rate springs to take the place of original Rubicon Express springs. I'm running JKS Acos adjustable bump stops front and rear. In both cases the circumference of the spring at its widest point exceeds the spring bucket or stop at the top of the adjustable Acos...(see pics). This is essentially the same condition that existed with the Rubicon Express springs. Difference is with the RE the distance between each of the the coils didn't draw your attention to the condition as much as all of the top coils on the MC that are compressed together. The dual rate springs are obviously "softer" at the top by nature to compress together and then expand when the wheel on either side droops keeping the spring seated at the top and the bottom. I'm wondering if this softer material or rating at the top of the spring (especially in the rear when loaded with gear) is now a weak point? there's no full width bucket at the top of the spring for the larger circumference coils to rest against during full compression and absorb some of the load. The first and smallest turn of the spring at the top will absorb all the pressure. I realize the bump stops will be set to prevent over compression of the spring and shocks....just looks funny to me. Should I fabricate and place a full width bucket or cover to go on top of the spring where it meets the Acos?

Jeep is pretty heavy with full roll cage, accessories, cooler full of beer, blah blah blah....

Thanks for any input.....

 

[Jerry Bransford]

Those certainly appear to have a grossly insufficient spring rate for the weight they're supporting.

 

[jjvw]

Yuck

 

[ApexOffRoad]

Thats exactly what I said when I saw it ...Yuck!

 

[Chris]

Yuck indeed

 

[ApexOffRoad]

Anybody care to elaborate on Yuck?.....taller spring in the back to adjust that spacer back up? Spring rate seems ok, vehicle is more stable than it was on the RE springs as advertised. It's just that the adjustment to get the ride height correct sucks. Way too far down the threads for me.

 

[Jerry Bransford]

The springs are 100% responsible for and set the ride height. Nothing else.

 

[jjvw]

Anybody care to elaborate on Yuck?.....taller spring in the back to adjust that spacer back up? Spring rate seems ok, vehicle is more stable than it was on the RE springs as advertised. It's just that the adjustment to get the ride height correct sucks. Way too far down the threads for me.

Your Jeep is waaaay too heavy for those springs. That's the problem.

 

[Woodrow]

MC dual rate springs... Jeep is pretty heavy

The soft portion of the spring is fully compressed so It looks like you effectively have a single rate set up. Your rig seems too heavy for the springs. I would go back to the old springs or get a different dual rate with a higher rate on the soft part.

 

[jjvw]

Let's start here. What is your desired lift height? What do those springs measure right now in the garage? What is the measurement between the factory spring seats (spring+ ACOS)?

 

[Vasq]

@Woodrow MC "dual rate" springs are suppose to be collapsed on the top portion. It only expands during down travel to keep the spring seated. They're still silly.

@ApexOffRoad Are those the 3.5" springs, or the 4.5"?
And as a side question, how much lift do you have overall? your Jeep must be really tall.

 

[Woodrow]

@Woodrow MC "dual rate" springs are suppose to be collapsed on the top portion. It only expands during down travel to keep the spring seated. They're still silly.

I just learned something. Thanks. Metal Cloak has a you tube video explaining exactly what you said. So the soft upper coil is only functional in extension (down travel). I have dual rates on the rear of a Mustang and always thought they functioned in compression as well. I'll have to figure out a way to look at them with the car on the ground (hard because its so low).

 

[jjvw]

I just learned something. Thanks. Metal Cloak has a you tube video explaining exactly what you said. So the soft upper coil is only functional in extension (down travel). I have dual rates on the rear of a Mustang and always thought they functioned in compression as well. I'll have to figure out a way to look at them with the car on the ground (hard because its so low).

It's a gimmick. A Mustang can't be compared to a lifted Wrangler.

 

[Jerry Bransford]

Get rid of those springs. What size tires do you run?

 

[ApexOffRoad]

jjvw...I'm pulling it apart and re-measuring today and your line of thinking is exactly where I went. This jeep is a decade long build, can't remember the original RE lift height but I want to say 4.5. The springs I ordered from MC are also for 4.5 lift. I sort of glossed over the comments here about "way too heavy" because the springs actually sit correct with the top five rings fully compressed as they are supposed to. The look of the springs is correct. The problem as I stated in my original post (I think everybody just reacted to the pictures) is the adjustment required to achieve a level ride height. That coupled with the way the larger diameter springs look up against the Acos with no bucket or frame member directly above the spring...especially when adjusted down this far. What's weird is that the front spring looks correct and did not require an adjustment, it slipped into place without a problem and bump stops/ pucks didn't need to be adjusted. I didn't measure the overall height of the original Rubicon Express REAR springs when I removed them or compare them to the new MC springs which I probably should have done.

I moved up to 37" tires this year. I also pull an Adventure trailer with this thing on occasion which is why I decided to try the MC dual rate springs. Pulling a trailer sometimes overwhelmed the linear rate springs in the past and the extra weight requires and adjustment for ride height so there's the reasoning behind the Acos adjustable in the rear. Any of you who have ever added tongue weight to a TJ with a lift know exactly what I'm saying. I also have no clue if the MC springs will be any better in this scenario.

As you can see by the picture, the jeep isn't any heavier than a lot of your rigs and the lift height may be a little tall but not excessive for 37" tires on a TJ. It's also not over adjusted...about an inch higher in the back in this photo without any gear loaded. I'll report back after I pull it part and do some measuring. At this point and to me...it seems that I'm gonna need a higher lift spring in the back. I'm gonna reach out to Metal Cloak about the bucket issue at the top and using this spring with an Acos setup. Metal Cloak also claims that their springs are set up to account for the extra weight of accessories commonly found on a Jeep which is another reason I chose them. I figured on some settling once they are installed but a lot of what I have read from other users is that they really don't settle much.

 

[jjvw]

jjvw...I'm pulling it apart and re-measuring today and your line of thinking is exactly where I went. This jeep is a decade long build, can't remember the original RE lift height but I want to say 4.5. The springs I ordered from MC are also for 4.5 lift. I sort of glossed over the comments here about "way too heavy" because the springs actually sit correct with the top five rings fully compressed as they are supposed to. The look of the springs is correct. The problem as I stated in my original post (I think everybody just reacted to the pictures) is the adjustment required to achieve a level ride height. That coupled with the way the larger diameter springs look up against the Acos with no bucket or frame member directly above the spring...especially when adjusted down this far. What's weird is that the front spring looks correct and did not require an adjustment, it slipped into place without a problem and bump stops/ pucks didn't need to be adjusted. I didn't measure the overall height of the original Rubicon Express REAR springs when I removed them or compare them to the new MC springs which I probably should have done.

I moved up to 37" tires this year. I also pull an Adventure trailer with this thing on occasion which is why I decided to try the MC dual rate springs. Pulling a trailer sometimes overwhelmed the linear rate springs in the past and the extra weight requires and adjustment for ride height so there's the reasoning behind the Acos adjustable in the rear. Any of you who have ever added tongue weight to a TJ with a lift know exactly what I'm saying. I also have no clue if the MC springs will be any better in this scenario.

As you can see by the picture, the jeep isn't any heavier than a lot of your rigs and the lift height may be a little tall but not excessive for 37" tires on a TJ. It's also not over adjusted...about an inch higher in the back in this photo without any gear loaded. I'll report back after I pull it part and do some measuring. At this point and to me...it seems that I'm gonna need a higher lift spring in the back. I'm gonna reach out to Metal Cloak about the bucket issue at the top and using this spring with an Acos setup. Metal Cloak also claims that their springs are set up to account for the extra weight of accessories commonly found on a Jeep which is another reason I chose them. I figured on some settling once they are installed but a lot of what I have read from other users is that they really don't settle much.

View attachment 269255

Keep a close eye on the rear drive shaft. Your plan isn't doing it any favors. And the shocks look too short. Sounds like what you really need are load assist air bags, a lower ride height. And we'll not discuss the 37s.

 

[Jerry Bransford]

The springs I ordered from MC are also for 4.5 lift. I sort of glossed over the comments here about "way too heavy" because the springs actually sit correct with the top five rings fully compressed as they are supposed to. The look of the springs is correct.

I wish I could agree. Why did you ask if it looks correct at first if you now say the look of the springs is correct?

 

[rasband]

And we'll not discuss the 37s.

I was intentionally avoiding saying anything since this is a whole new bag of worms. Also that rear sway link angle…

 

[jjvw]

I wish I could agree. Why did you ask if it looks correct at first if you now say the look of the springs is correct?

Measuring the spring's current ride height would tell us a lot. For all we know he's trying to cheat an 8" rear lift with the ACOS.

 

[jjvw]

And regarding Metalcloak springs... the way they are designed to have the top bunch of coils go solid is no different than sticking a similarly sized spacer in there. Or another ACOS because it would be funny. The extra free length MC sells people on is useless unless the shock allows it. And to make the shock allow the use of the extra free length requires a whole bunch of work rarely seen. And again, we won't talk about the 37s.