Looks like Metalcloak is trying to out-do OR-Fab with their tire carrier
https://metalcloak.com/jeep-tj-lj-tub-mount-spare-tire-carrier.html
https://metalcloak.com/jeep-tj-lj-tub-mount-spare-tire-carrier.html
Looks like Metalcloak is trying to out-do OR-Fab with their tire carrier
- Thread starter voodooridr
- Start date
says you have to have corner armor to hang it and there is no weight listed.
1000$ of hey look what i bought.......and if your forced to move the plate, why not have a new hanger for it? the only spot they left was in the back window. and the hole in the center of the tire mount should have a 3/4" red LED bulb since they took your 3rd brake lamp.
i wanna see how those bushings do once it's loosed off 1 side with a heavy 35. will they allow sag?
1000$ of hey look what i bought.......and if your forced to move the plate, why not have a new hanger for it? the only spot they left was in the back window. and the hole in the center of the tire mount should have a 3/4" red LED bulb since they took your 3rd brake lamp.
i wanna see how those bushings do once it's loosed off 1 side with a heavy 35. will they allow sag?
You have to watch their video on the NEW release where it says it will handle up to a 40" tire.
Now in all fairness if you look at the cost of a GenRight tire carrier they are about the same cost.
Now in all fairness if you look at the cost of a GenRight tire carrier they are about the same cost.
ay looks nice and sturdy when it's pegged at 4 points on soft bushings, i don't doubt it could handle a 40 and i bet it's great as far as rattle. but not 1x does it show it actually close, most of that is animated.
my point is more if 2 of those bushings can't hold a 35 dead nuts level and not allow as much as 1/8" sag when loosed of those brackets no way it's good enough to be running on a TB. more what i was thinkin. this is a great application for those bushings........not the TB.
i can see it drop out of the bracket when opened and when it contacts the bracket when closing even though they blocked that part from view.
my point is more if 2 of those bushings can't hold a 35 dead nuts level and not allow as much as 1/8" sag when loosed of those brackets no way it's good enough to be running on a TB. more what i was thinkin. this is a great application for those bushings........not the TB.
i can see it drop out of the bracket when opened and when it contacts the bracket when closing even though they blocked that part from view.
We'll have to wait until someone buys one and tries it out.
That's exactly what I thought, SomeGuy. Would be awfully hard for it to hang open without wanting to twist the two mounts. Plus "easily go spareless" means you would have to be holding that 40" tire with 1 hand while pulling pins with the other. While gravity may help out a bit when you take it off, how the hell do you lift and hold up a 40" tire strapped to that contraption and then line up the pins and insert them "easily"?
I dunno, I watched it. They show the carrier coming closed at about the 2:20 mark. Looks like it slides right home. Its overbuilt, imho. 7 gage steel is what? 1/4" thick? 3/16 wall tubing? That's gonna add another 100+ lbs on the back of your jeep, BEFORE you ever put a tire or a tank of water, fuel, hi-lift, whatever on.
220 and view of contact is blocked.
nothing about how it's built, it's fine and i think this is a much better application for those bushings.
the tabs on the release side are bent for a reason.
1 more time that thing is fine .......a bit expensive and probably heavy, but would function as advertised.
but if that bushing flexes 1mm under weight of a tire, how well can it really control your rig at TB connection, is my thought.
nothing about how it's built, it's fine and i think this is a much better application for those bushings.
the tabs on the release side are bent for a reason.
1 more time that thing is fine .......a bit expensive and probably heavy, but would function as advertised.
but if that bushing flexes 1mm under weight of a tire, how well can it really control your rig at TB connection, is my thought.
EzPeezy
TJ Enthusiast
Better than their Duroflex bushing can.
I can complain about Metalcloak all day long, but I never had any problems with the Durotrak bushing in the front track bar. But like anything else surrounding Metalcloak marketing hype, their magic bushing doesn't do anything in that application that a cheap rubber cleavite can't do just as well.
if the 2 joints are the same materials it all comes full circle to does it have a high enough durometer rating for link control. i can't point to any direct issue but the soft material leaves questions.
Follow that to the end and we can call into question all of MC's nonsense about their bushings and NVH claims. Metalcloak likes heim joints in their links too.
My tire carrier doesn't have any bushings beyond the stock tire snubbers and it doesn't rattle.
$1000 to do what my stock carrier does with some added 1/2" steel support. The last one held up for 7 years before the Jeep was sold. Hmm... I'll pass.
MC outdo OR-Fab? 
MC strikes out again... it looks good on the surface but not once you get past the surface.
Their design is not even close to the strength and longevity of the Offroad Fabricators product. It looks similar on the outside but that's it. MC is bolting it solely to the exterior of the corners which are not strong enough for bigger tires like ORF's is.
ORF uses heavy steel internal support brackets that are hidden from view and bolted to the rollbar bases. It's those brackets bolted to the rollbar bases that provide the strength. The TJ's corners, by themselves, are nowhere near strong enough to support larger/heavier spare tires.
Here are the brackets that you can't see from the outside of the Jeep. MC didn't incorporate them into their look-alike design because they're hidden from view and what you can't see doesn't count where MC is concerned.
This is not my TJ but this photo shows ORF's hidden internal support brackets that transfer the weight of the spare tire to the rollbar bases and stronger sections of the tub. If MC was more worried about good design and strength they would have copied this part of the ORF design too. But they're not so they didn't.
My TJ with the ORF showing the external design.
a
MC strikes out again... it looks good on the surface but not once you get past the surface.
Their design is not even close to the strength and longevity of the Offroad Fabricators product. It looks similar on the outside but that's it. MC is bolting it solely to the exterior of the corners which are not strong enough for bigger tires like ORF's is.
ORF uses heavy steel internal support brackets that are hidden from view and bolted to the rollbar bases. It's those brackets bolted to the rollbar bases that provide the strength. The TJ's corners, by themselves, are nowhere near strong enough to support larger/heavier spare tires.
Here are the brackets that you can't see from the outside of the Jeep. MC didn't incorporate them into their look-alike design because they're hidden from view and what you can't see doesn't count where MC is concerned.
This is not my TJ but this photo shows ORF's hidden internal support brackets that transfer the weight of the spare tire to the rollbar bases and stronger sections of the tub. If MC was more worried about good design and strength they would have copied this part of the ORF design too. But they're not so they didn't.
My TJ with the ORF showing the external design.
a
Tldelaney
TJ Enthusiast
Check out the sag as he removes the pin and pulls the carrier at 00:40 
that doesn't look promising as time goes on.
Who else finds it fitting that they are using a milestar Patagonia with it?
that doesn't look promising as time goes on.Who else finds it fitting that they are using a milestar Patagonia with it?
