Moog 3227 or 3229?

[mmckew33]

Riddle me this tj enthusiasts. A few months ago I did a budget boost to my newly acquired 270k mile 2003 tj in Inca gold. That’s right, I said Inca gold. What a rare beaut. 1.75 in the front and .75 in the back. Original springs I believe but the shocks were replaced before I acquire it.

I originally made the mistake not measuring the front bump stop so I had maybe 2 inches of suspension travel before i thumped the front axle.

It drove me nuts and the ride wasn’t all that great but I loved the look and height with my jk sport wheels. There was a slight rake back to front. Almost dead even.

Because the thump drove me mad, I replaced the front springs with old man emu 2inch coils, removed the 1.75 puck that was in there, added a coil isolator, properly measured the bump stop, and added rancho5000. With that swap, now I have a front to back rake where the front is .5inch taller. My measurement is top of the tire to the fender.

So my idea now is to raise the rear end including replacing the shocks. .75 inch would be ideal. With the current .75 inch puck I have in, the rear with the original springs, the compressed length is 8 inches. So it’s appears that 20 years and 270k miles later, the original coils sagged .75 inches. Does that sound reasonable? That much sag?

Considering that I have no weight in the rear, other than the spare tire, I just want to replace the rear springs to get my .75 inches back to level out the rake. The Jeep is a 4.0 X model. Stock soft top. No fancy bumpers nor rear seat. I am really left with two options…moog 3227 and 3229. I am splitting hairs over this. Which one will give me a comparable spring to match the fronts? My gut says go with the 3227. Not really concerned about ride quality just want to marry up the front and rears and achieve the slight back to front rake I achieved before.

Thoughts?

 

[SSTJ]

Riddle me this tj enthusiasts. A few months ago I did a budget boost to my newly acquired 270k mile 2003 tj in Inca gold. That’s right, I said Inca gold. What a rare beaut. 1.75 in the front and .75 in the back. Original springs I believe but the shocks were replaced before I acquire it.

I originally made the mistake not measuring the front bump stop so I had maybe 2 inches of suspension travel before i thumped the front axle.

It drove me nuts and the ride wasn’t all that great but I loved the look and height with my jk sport wheels. There was a slight rake back to front. Almost dead even.

Because the thump drove me mad, I replaced the front springs with old man emu 2inch coils, removed the 1.75 puck that was in there, added a coil isolator, properly measured the bump stop, and added rancho5000. With that swap, now I have a front to back rake where the front is .5inch taller. My measurement is top of the tire to the fender.

So my idea now is to raise the rear end including replacing the shocks. .75 inch would be ideal. With the current .75 inch puck I have in, the rear with the original springs, the compressed length is 8 inches. So it’s appears that 20 years and 270k miles later, the original coils sagged .75 inches. Does that sound reasonable? That much sag?

Considering that I have no weight in the rear, other than the spare tire, I just want to replace the rear springs to get my .75 inches back to level out the rake. The Jeep is a 4.0 X model. Stock soft top. No fancy bumpers nor rear seat. I am really left with two options…moog 3227 and 3229. I am splitting hairs over this. Which one will give me a comparable spring to match the fronts? My gut says go with the 3227. Not really concerned about ride quality just want to marry up the front and rears and achieve the slight back to front rake I achieved before.

Thoughts?

Yes, I do think you could really get 0.75" of sag after that long. Can you remind us what those two Moogs are 'designed' for? Is one made for the 4.0 and one made the Rubicon?

If you really just want your stock height back, and don't have any unusual weight, I'd go with whichever one is rated/labelled/named for your model. If you have any extra weight, you could buy the set for a heavier model.

I wanted to level out the rake on my stock SE, so I bought Rubicon Moogs for the front. Sure enough, I got 0.75" of lift.

 

[mmckew33]

The 3227 is a free inch taller but both are compressed at 8 inches. Depending on what site you go on, Amazon, advanced auto, moog, it varies. For example. Moogs website says Saraha with auto should receive 3229 while the standard transmission is 3227. The 3227 is the one loaded for more weight. But a auto transmission is heavier than a manual, so why a less weighted spring for a heavier Jeep and vice versa? Doesn’t make sense. The rubicon and sport state to get the 3227. The X is a sport with less options available. They don’t even have the X model to choose from on the moogs website.

Also, when you choose the 2004 instead of 2003 model, the moog website states to get the 3229 instead of the 3227 for a sport. Same with the 2005. There is no consistency. That’s why I am trying to see what folks have to say here from their own experience on these two options…3227 or 3229.

 

[TheBoogieman]

2003 tj in Inca gold. That’s right, I said Inca gold. What a rare beaut.

Beaut isn't a word I would use to describe Inca gold. More like Kermit the frog and Big Bird had an ugly kid.

 

[Ron505]

Beaut isn't a word I would use to describe Inca gold. More like Kermit the frog and Big Bird had an ugly kid.

Don't listen to this guy^^^ Lol

And we need photos, or it didn't happen.

 

[SSTJ]

The 3227 is a free inch taller but both are compressed at 8 inches. Depending on what site you go on, Amazon, advanced auto, moog, it varies. For example. Moogs website says Saraha with auto should receive 3229 while the standard transmission is 3227. The 3227 is the one loaded for more weight. But a auto transmission is heavier than a manual, so why a less weighted spring for a heavier Jeep and vice versa? Doesn’t make sense. The rubicon and sport state to get the 3227. The X is a sport with less options available. They don’t even have the X model to choose from on the moogs website.

Also, when you choose the 2004 instead of 2003 model, the moog website states to get the 3229 instead of the 3227 for a sport. Same with the 2005. There is no consistency. That’s why I am trying to see what folks have to say here from their own experience on these two options…3227 or 3229.

Gotcha, good points. Let's hope that someone on this forum has experience with 3227 or 3229. I wonder if you called Moog, could you get the actual spring rates? But even then there'd be the difference in free length.

Edit: You might even want to update the title to include the numbers, so that other forum members who have bought one of those springs will take interest.

 

[mmckew33]

Thanks for the idea. did the edit. In laymen terms, i have no idea what the actual spring rate means when it comes to on the road driving experience and lift. i've read that the 3227 will handle more weight. that's why its rated for the Rubicon as this is more of a overland vehicle wilh likely additional supplies/weight.

Regarding the color. some people either love it hate it. haha. it looked like a turd when i got it but it's nice now. darkened fenders and new shoes gave it a fresh look.

 

[Andy-WhiteTJ]

Thanks for the idea. did the edit. In laymen terms, i have no idea what the actual spring rate means when it comes to on the road driving experience and lift. i've read that the 3227 will handle more weight. that's why its rated for the Rubicon as this is more of a overland vehicle wilh likely additional supplies/weight.

Regarding the color. some people either love it hate it. haha. it looked like a turd when i got it but it's nice now. darkened fenders and new shoes gave it a fresh look.

Need photos.

 

[Vtx531]

It is my belief that the taller ones are the same except simply taller by .8" I think?

Same spring rate. I think the taller one is designed for a hardtop and it is taller because the extra weight will compress it more, giving the same 8" compressed length.

If you had a Jeep with same weight the taller ones should sit .8" taller than same Jeep with the shorter springs.

That being said, I swapped my old oem "tall" springs for the ac delco version shorter springs and ended up at the exact same height as before. I beleive this is because my taller old springs were sagging along with replacing new coil isolators top and bottom.

 

[mmckew33]

Thanks this is helpful. Leaning towards the shorter springs since I dont have anything in the back other than the normal spare tire.

 

[Andy-WhiteTJ]

Still need photos of the Inca Gold Jeep!

 

[mmckew33]

This was before I took the heat gun to the fenders.

 

[SSTJ]

What’s the latest here? Did you have luck?

 

[mmckew33]

Waiting for the weather to warm up first.