deadbeat son
TJ Addict
Isn't this where the, <ahem> interesting, 6-pack MC shocks come into play?
Does this look right?
- Thread starter ApexOffRoad
- Start date
6 Packs are an interesting shortcut to a bunch of compromises. Having built in 12s on both ends that fit properly around 35s, with very minor compromises, and having done it with an uncut hood, tells me a lot about the BS Metalcloak is selling. What I did can't be done with 37s.
Ok...now we are getting somewhere...bring the criticism and know that I appreciate the input. I can't learn or take advantage of the cumulative knowledge here unless you offer it. My intent here is only to get better by learning and I have learned a lot on this forum. Far as I'm concerned we're all on the same team and anybody who thinks I don't appreciate the input, no matter how bold, is mistaken.
That said, the original post was directed at the image of the excessive adjustment of the Acos to get a somewhat level ride height. Not the image of the spring. Some of you know about the Metal Cloak sales pitch and how it's supposed to look and some don't....I don't care. I made the decision based on my desire to achieve a better more stable ride when loaded or pulling a trailer, not necessarily the articulation aspect of the spring. I agree that adding the dual rate is kinda like adding a spacer to the top of a shorter spring if you don't have the right shocks. I also agree that 37's introduce a myriad of problems that I have only begun to address. Drive shaft angles were considered and accounted for with reputable shops (Arabias Jeep Overkill...guy who sponsors repairs on the Jamboree annually). Sway bar is at the same angle it was with the 35's and single rate springs so not really sure about that comment? I thought about air bags but I guess I was so done with the road manners of a single rate spring (unloaded) that I wanted to try this.
A little more info:
*Rear axle is high pinion Dynatrac 60 connected to Atlas with 1350 U joints and Tom Woods Drive shaft. Angle is not great as with most lifted Tj's but not horrible. Limiting straps were retained to deal with the length of the existing shocks, articulation limits with 37's and to protect the drive shaft angle at extreme angles. Bump stops are adjusted to keep the existing shocks from bottoming out, to keep the drive shaft in a comfortable range when compressed and larger tires from wedging against the factory fenders and wheel wells at full compression. Longer shocks (or six packs) are a consideration for the future but one thing at time for now.
*The old Rubicon Express springs were terrible with a load of gear and worse with a trailer, just not built for that. Way too much sway and compression with any kind of added weight (especially tongue weight). At full droop the old Rubicon Express springs were loose but not coming out of the buckets when the limiting straps were maxed out, I'm assuming the MC dual rate springs will not be loose at full droop as they advertise. Weight of the Tj even with fixed accessories is not over the top and not in my opinion contributing to the spring issue. Metal Cloak dual rate springs should support it without question. Trailer might still be too much?
* Lift height is 4.5 inches. I'm not trying to cheat it or go any higher. Unless I add a body lift and chop the fenders, I can't go any lower with the larger tires and expect any kind of articulation. Adjustments have been made to insure that when a tire is stuffed into a fender to the limit of the bump stops that the opposite side at full droop is within the limits of the existing shocks. I also considered the reasonable range of the driveline and suspension components when adjusting the limiting straps. All in all, adding the 37's isn't as plagued as you would think....several trail trials have worked out well. I'm attempting the Rubicon trail again later this month (no trailer) so that opinion may change drastically.
Basically, I installed the MC springs and couldn't figure out why they had to be adjusted so much in the rear with the Acos system to get a very slight rake in the ride height (rear to front). The slight rake was to account for the option of the trailer being attached. The old single rate Rubicon Express springs didn't need any adjustment to level out the ride height. I was also hoping that somebody could elaborate on the condition where the new MC springs meet the Acos at the top of the spring. When the Acos is adjusted so far down, there's no bucket or frame member directly above to help support the spring under pressure...the first ring of the coil gets all the pressure. I guess it's basically the same as the old RE springs but looks funny with the top five coils fully compressed at normal ride height. Probably not even an issue. I reached out to Metal Cloak today on the issue so I'll update when I hear back.
For now...I'll sign off as "not afraid to talk about the 37's"...ha
That said, the original post was directed at the image of the excessive adjustment of the Acos to get a somewhat level ride height. Not the image of the spring. Some of you know about the Metal Cloak sales pitch and how it's supposed to look and some don't....I don't care. I made the decision based on my desire to achieve a better more stable ride when loaded or pulling a trailer, not necessarily the articulation aspect of the spring. I agree that adding the dual rate is kinda like adding a spacer to the top of a shorter spring if you don't have the right shocks. I also agree that 37's introduce a myriad of problems that I have only begun to address. Drive shaft angles were considered and accounted for with reputable shops (Arabias Jeep Overkill...guy who sponsors repairs on the Jamboree annually). Sway bar is at the same angle it was with the 35's and single rate springs so not really sure about that comment? I thought about air bags but I guess I was so done with the road manners of a single rate spring (unloaded) that I wanted to try this.
A little more info:
*Rear axle is high pinion Dynatrac 60 connected to Atlas with 1350 U joints and Tom Woods Drive shaft. Angle is not great as with most lifted Tj's but not horrible. Limiting straps were retained to deal with the length of the existing shocks, articulation limits with 37's and to protect the drive shaft angle at extreme angles. Bump stops are adjusted to keep the existing shocks from bottoming out, to keep the drive shaft in a comfortable range when compressed and larger tires from wedging against the factory fenders and wheel wells at full compression. Longer shocks (or six packs) are a consideration for the future but one thing at time for now.
*The old Rubicon Express springs were terrible with a load of gear and worse with a trailer, just not built for that. Way too much sway and compression with any kind of added weight (especially tongue weight). At full droop the old Rubicon Express springs were loose but not coming out of the buckets when the limiting straps were maxed out, I'm assuming the MC dual rate springs will not be loose at full droop as they advertise. Weight of the Tj even with fixed accessories is not over the top and not in my opinion contributing to the spring issue. Metal Cloak dual rate springs should support it without question. Trailer might still be too much?
* Lift height is 4.5 inches. I'm not trying to cheat it or go any higher. Unless I add a body lift and chop the fenders, I can't go any lower with the larger tires and expect any kind of articulation. Adjustments have been made to insure that when a tire is stuffed into a fender to the limit of the bump stops that the opposite side at full droop is within the limits of the existing shocks. I also considered the reasonable range of the driveline and suspension components when adjusting the limiting straps. All in all, adding the 37's isn't as plagued as you would think....several trail trials have worked out well. I'm attempting the Rubicon trail again later this month (no trailer) so that opinion may change drastically.
Basically, I installed the MC springs and couldn't figure out why they had to be adjusted so much in the rear with the Acos system to get a very slight rake in the ride height (rear to front). The slight rake was to account for the option of the trailer being attached. The old single rate Rubicon Express springs didn't need any adjustment to level out the ride height. I was also hoping that somebody could elaborate on the condition where the new MC springs meet the Acos at the top of the spring. When the Acos is adjusted so far down, there's no bucket or frame member directly above to help support the spring under pressure...the first ring of the coil gets all the pressure. I guess it's basically the same as the old RE springs but looks funny with the top five coils fully compressed at normal ride height. Probably not even an issue. I reached out to Metal Cloak today on the issue so I'll update when I hear back.
For now...I'll sign off as "not afraid to talk about the 37's"...ha
Your lift height is not 4.5" if you are running 4.5" MC springs and an ACOS spacer/bump. Assuming your getting 4.5" from the MC springs, you're at a minimum of 5 7/8" lift height running ACOS with the MC springs. With the amount you've adjusted you're likely well over 7" lift height at the spring.
From their site:
From their site:
- Variable length coil spring spacer allows convenient ride height adjustments without removing any suspension components
- Adjustable lift height from 1-3/8" to 3-1/4"
agree...........some can baulk all they want but i never found my MC springs to be wimpy, they held me over the estimated height if i didn't carry sufficient weight.
Last edited:
lotta shade throwwed on these things.
i thought about why don't we run 2 shorter shocks like this and i cannot be the 1st to think this way.
they are funky hokey lookin things that appear they would just snap or break easily to me. but the principal should be sound, the execution is just to complicated IMO.
to be simple........... x2 .........a 20" shock that compresses to 10" still eats 10" of open space. a 50/50 travel split on this is 5up/5dn.
x3..........a 19.8" shock sys that compresses to 7" leaves 12.8" of open space. a 50/50 split of 6.4" each way.
i think the package is fugly and cost to much for me to sport that amount of fugly.........couldn't even tell you if they got their design right but the idea is sound.
i cannot disagree, but those are design and execution faults.
the theory is sound,
the popularity of remote resi's and small tubes in todays products from some of the top end manufacturers could tighten the design. but it's almost a niche item being unique and costly to properly design and build. unless it could gain popularity over a wider spectrum of motor sports the market is to small to pursue it.
That's why I say the 6 pack is interesting, because it is. However, to fully utilize it's travel and put it in the right spot on a stock axle requires more than bolting in the shock. At that point, why not go down the "traditional route" with a tunable RR on custom mounts?
cause they ain't all us and some will fork over the coin to bolt um on while we would never consider it. and once we do consider it, we can do as you say, it becomes cheaper and easier for us with what we have available to us right now cause we know how to do it.
i don't think i'm trying to disagree with you at all.
Which is exactly why I feel it is important for people to understand how things work and what is actually happening. In this case, Metalcloak coils aren't solving a problem. In fact, they may be creating a problem with coil bind and suspension travel that doesn't need to exist. But we won't know until the OP answers a basic question.
i'm interested to know.
if those are 37's and the angle of the rear CA's with the space in the wells , my $ is on north of 6". but that's just a dumb guess.
if those are 37's and the angle of the rear CA's with the space in the wells , my $ is on north of 6". but that's just a dumb guess.
this may be nothin but when we move our upper mounts but keep the OE bracket they dont really get flush up onto the frame like his does, do they?
is he loosing something there?
is he loosing something there?
What matters is where the top of the spring lives relative to the frame. But since all factory reference points are gone, we really need to be looking more at shock travels, spring travels, tire/body clearances, etc.
Last edited:
Ok hold on...trying to keep up.
The rear shock mounts were moved to be centered over the axle when the axles were installed. As you know, lifted Tj's tend to create an "arc" in the springs when you retain the OEM spring mount location. The Acos was a last minute decision I was talked into by one of our mechanics..same guy who shaved the old hardware and welded in the new mounts. In hind sight, they aren't as durable as other options I could have gone with. I might have paid somebody to do the work I'm not skilled for but I have been there every step of the way just as I am here now....trying to learn.
I was intrigued by the Acos because of the weight of the trailer and the ability to make easy adjustments. I have broken them towing the trailer (see my earlier posts), the resulting damage went further than just the stops. The learning curve here was tough because they are stupid expensive to replace. Before I re-invent the wheel and go another route, I'm trying to learn to live with them. Outside of the problems I have had with them, the replacement cost alone and the fact that you have to buy them in pairs is enough to discourage anybody from getting them.
The Acos in the pics I originally submitted show the spacers adjusted WAY DOWN to get the ride height I had previously with the Rubicon Express linear rate springs. As you said..."what matters is where the top of the spring lives relative to the frame" and the current amount of adjustment is just wrong. The old springs did not require a spacer adjustment so the Acos spacer nut sat up against the frame at the top just as they do in the front of the jeep now. This added minimally to the overall height of the lift, you could even argue that with all the shit I have on this jeep the weight factor might even reduce the overall lift.
The brackets/mounts that hold the Acos in place are now welded flush to the frame where the OEM brackets had a space between the frame and the spring bucket. I get the point being made about the added height of the lift with the Acos involved but it really wasn't a factor in the lift height before and theoretically it shouldn't be now (unless I purposely adjust it to account for the weight of the trailer). Even then, I'm simply increasing the tension of the spring to keep the same ride height with added weight. The Metal Cloak springs right out of the box had to be sandwiched down WITHOUT the added load of gear or the trailer to achieve the former (empty) ride height I used to have....that make sense?
The Walker Evans Shocks I'm running aren't even made anymore. They actually perform well and the articulation range I had with 35's was greater than I now have with 37's. I beat it pretty good with the 35's and towed the trailer over the Rubicon without issue. The sway bar link was never a consideration or a problem but I will further research that now so thanks. The droop and shock travel is now less because I adjusted the bump stops down to keep the 37's out of the fenders. You probably know but the Acos system allows to adjust the bump stops within the spring, it doesn't raise, compress or lift the spring at all. I double checked the straps after I added the larger tires to make sure the shocks aren't overextended when the wheels come off the ground. Again, I know that kinda defeats part of the advertised purpose of the MC dual rate springs. I already explained my reasoning behind that choice. I can also move to the 6 pack shocks and custom mounts if need be...it wasn't broken or part of the plan to swap springs so I didn't go there....yet
I'll get the measurements today, that will help a lot. I do know he overall length of the new MC springs ordered for a 4.5' lift is 20" in the box. Installed, they are sandwiched down over 2.5 inches now by the Acos spacer nut to a 13-3/4" overall spring height to get the jeep level with just a slight rake in the back so maybe it is a weight thing? You all seem to think I have much more lift than 4.5"... I'm just not getting it so hopefully the measurements clear that up.
Picture is with the 37's but the old RE springs. Passenger wheel is floating off the ground suspended by the limiting strap with 3/4" of travel left in the shock. RE spring is free and loose on the Acos on the passenger side. With the current adjustments, virtually the same condition would exist in the back if I reversed onto the rock but to a lesser degree because of the articulation limited by adjustments for the short drive shaft. The idea behind the switch to the MC springs dual rate was to keep the spring under pressure and positioned as they advertise but clearly I have limited the effectiveness of that. Ride stability on road was the other big issue for me, the old springs swayed when the wind blows. I had also read that the MC springs are made to account for jeeps may be loaded down with aftermarket gear/weight...I really didn't expect this problem.
The rear shock mounts were moved to be centered over the axle when the axles were installed. As you know, lifted Tj's tend to create an "arc" in the springs when you retain the OEM spring mount location. The Acos was a last minute decision I was talked into by one of our mechanics..same guy who shaved the old hardware and welded in the new mounts. In hind sight, they aren't as durable as other options I could have gone with. I might have paid somebody to do the work I'm not skilled for but I have been there every step of the way just as I am here now....trying to learn.
I was intrigued by the Acos because of the weight of the trailer and the ability to make easy adjustments. I have broken them towing the trailer (see my earlier posts), the resulting damage went further than just the stops. The learning curve here was tough because they are stupid expensive to replace. Before I re-invent the wheel and go another route, I'm trying to learn to live with them. Outside of the problems I have had with them, the replacement cost alone and the fact that you have to buy them in pairs is enough to discourage anybody from getting them.
The Acos in the pics I originally submitted show the spacers adjusted WAY DOWN to get the ride height I had previously with the Rubicon Express linear rate springs. As you said..."what matters is where the top of the spring lives relative to the frame" and the current amount of adjustment is just wrong. The old springs did not require a spacer adjustment so the Acos spacer nut sat up against the frame at the top just as they do in the front of the jeep now. This added minimally to the overall height of the lift, you could even argue that with all the shit I have on this jeep the weight factor might even reduce the overall lift.
The brackets/mounts that hold the Acos in place are now welded flush to the frame where the OEM brackets had a space between the frame and the spring bucket. I get the point being made about the added height of the lift with the Acos involved but it really wasn't a factor in the lift height before and theoretically it shouldn't be now (unless I purposely adjust it to account for the weight of the trailer). Even then, I'm simply increasing the tension of the spring to keep the same ride height with added weight. The Metal Cloak springs right out of the box had to be sandwiched down WITHOUT the added load of gear or the trailer to achieve the former (empty) ride height I used to have....that make sense?
The Walker Evans Shocks I'm running aren't even made anymore. They actually perform well and the articulation range I had with 35's was greater than I now have with 37's. I beat it pretty good with the 35's and towed the trailer over the Rubicon without issue. The sway bar link was never a consideration or a problem but I will further research that now so thanks. The droop and shock travel is now less because I adjusted the bump stops down to keep the 37's out of the fenders. You probably know but the Acos system allows to adjust the bump stops within the spring, it doesn't raise, compress or lift the spring at all. I double checked the straps after I added the larger tires to make sure the shocks aren't overextended when the wheels come off the ground. Again, I know that kinda defeats part of the advertised purpose of the MC dual rate springs. I already explained my reasoning behind that choice. I can also move to the 6 pack shocks and custom mounts if need be...it wasn't broken or part of the plan to swap springs so I didn't go there....yet
I'll get the measurements today, that will help a lot. I do know he overall length of the new MC springs ordered for a 4.5' lift is 20" in the box. Installed, they are sandwiched down over 2.5 inches now by the Acos spacer nut to a 13-3/4" overall spring height to get the jeep level with just a slight rake in the back so maybe it is a weight thing? You all seem to think I have much more lift than 4.5"... I'm just not getting it so hopefully the measurements clear that up.
Picture is with the 37's but the old RE springs. Passenger wheel is floating off the ground suspended by the limiting strap with 3/4" of travel left in the shock. RE spring is free and loose on the Acos on the passenger side. With the current adjustments, virtually the same condition would exist in the back if I reversed onto the rock but to a lesser degree because of the articulation limited by adjustments for the short drive shaft. The idea behind the switch to the MC springs dual rate was to keep the spring under pressure and positioned as they advertise but clearly I have limited the effectiveness of that. Ride stability on road was the other big issue for me, the old springs swayed when the wind blows. I had also read that the MC springs are made to account for jeeps may be loaded down with aftermarket gear/weight...I really didn't expect this problem.
I'd get rid of those effing MC springs and stop buying into their bullshit surrounded by smoke and mirrors.
Did you measure the ride height of the springs? As they sit on the Jeep, in the garage right now?
Ok.... First, I have to say "Gotta love Jerry" ..He's right to the point and I'm beginning to lean his way..."effin springs" ...ha.
Second...Y'all were right about the Acos. It adds roughly 2.5" of lift (before any adjustment of the spacer), whether I want to admit it or not. Might be a little less because the Acos might be mounted a little closer to the frame than OEM in the back but who's counting. "someguysjeep" ...you're the winner, the lift is definitely north of 6".
*Old RE springs were 20" long in the front and 16" long in the back before installation (they were part of the whole original RE 4.5" long arm lift kit)
New MC springs are again 20" long in the front but they are also 20" long in the back before installation. So MC back springs start out 4" longer before installation.
* MC Springs compress down 2.5" in the front to 17.5" installed and under the weight of the jeep...add in the 2.5" (for the Acos adjusted all the way up) and you're at 7" of lift on a spring rated at 4.5" of lift. Maybe deduct 1/2 to 3/4 inch for weight of bumpers, winch whatever. It's a pig for sure, when you start doing the math there's a lot of extra weight to account for.
* Here's where it gets weird...The front seems fine but in order to level out the ride and add 1/2 inch more of height in the back, the rear 20" long MC spring has to be adjusted with the Acos spacer down 2 inches + to a ride height of 12". Thats compressing the spring a full 8" to get a somewhat level appearance. Of corse these are newly installed so yet to determine if they will settle much.
* The overall height from the top of the axle to the bottom of the frame in the back is 16" (same as the height of the former RE spring). That means with no adjustment downward to the Acos the overall height from the top of the axle to where the top of the spring meets the Acos is 13.5". So if I didn't have to adjust the Acos downward at all the 20" free length of the new rear MC spring would be compressed 6.5" down simply by the weight of the jeep to a ride height of 13.5". That still seems like a lot to me?
*Shock tubes are 14" in the back 16" in the front. Both have about 7" of piston showing at ride height.
*Limiting straps in the back are restricted to about 3.5- 4 inches of downward travel in the back and bumps set to 6.5" of upward travel. Front is set at a little more travel. When I put it on the forklift...no issues with the shocks or driveline and the flex seems reasonable for such big tires on a little jeep.
I threw in some pics of the rear drive shaft angle and better angle of sway bar link just to invite comments. I think the sway bar issue hasn't been a problem because the strap doesn't allow it to get to a point where it can invert. I should probably still address it...maybe Antirock or comparable solution?
Second...Y'all were right about the Acos. It adds roughly 2.5" of lift (before any adjustment of the spacer), whether I want to admit it or not. Might be a little less because the Acos might be mounted a little closer to the frame than OEM in the back but who's counting. "someguysjeep" ...you're the winner, the lift is definitely north of 6".
*Old RE springs were 20" long in the front and 16" long in the back before installation (they were part of the whole original RE 4.5" long arm lift kit)
New MC springs are again 20" long in the front but they are also 20" long in the back before installation. So MC back springs start out 4" longer before installation.
* MC Springs compress down 2.5" in the front to 17.5" installed and under the weight of the jeep...add in the 2.5" (for the Acos adjusted all the way up) and you're at 7" of lift on a spring rated at 4.5" of lift. Maybe deduct 1/2 to 3/4 inch for weight of bumpers, winch whatever. It's a pig for sure, when you start doing the math there's a lot of extra weight to account for.
* Here's where it gets weird...The front seems fine but in order to level out the ride and add 1/2 inch more of height in the back, the rear 20" long MC spring has to be adjusted with the Acos spacer down 2 inches + to a ride height of 12". Thats compressing the spring a full 8" to get a somewhat level appearance. Of corse these are newly installed so yet to determine if they will settle much.
* The overall height from the top of the axle to the bottom of the frame in the back is 16" (same as the height of the former RE spring). That means with no adjustment downward to the Acos the overall height from the top of the axle to where the top of the spring meets the Acos is 13.5". So if I didn't have to adjust the Acos downward at all the 20" free length of the new rear MC spring would be compressed 6.5" down simply by the weight of the jeep to a ride height of 13.5". That still seems like a lot to me?
*Shock tubes are 14" in the back 16" in the front. Both have about 7" of piston showing at ride height.
*Limiting straps in the back are restricted to about 3.5- 4 inches of downward travel in the back and bumps set to 6.5" of upward travel. Front is set at a little more travel. When I put it on the forklift...no issues with the shocks or driveline and the flex seems reasonable for such big tires on a little jeep.
I threw in some pics of the rear drive shaft angle and better angle of sway bar link just to invite comments. I think the sway bar issue hasn't been a problem because the strap doesn't allow it to get to a point where it can invert. I should probably still address it...maybe Antirock or comparable solution?
Similar threads
