|
|
02-09-2009, 11:40 AM
There's no "feud." And IRO offers something Clayton cannot, a price point. But, you get what you pay for. For many people the IRO kit may work just fine, but for many they prefer the added strength and adjustability of a Clayton's kit even at the higher price.
IRO does have a great track record, and an excellent reputation when it coms to customer service. Nobody's arguing about that here. We're simply analyzing the differences between this kit and the others that are available out there. If you don't like it, too bad.
02-10-2009, 12:22 AM
Sorry I asked...
02-10-2009, 03:55 PM
ok got a chance to mall crawl it a bit to flex it out ( this first set of pictures was actually AT the mall LOL )
02-10-2009, 03:56 PM
02-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Hell, you should be able to drive way more up that ramp man. Looks good though.
02-10-2009, 04:18 PM
you dont need to cut off the stock brackets.. the arms go around them..Originally Posted by MotoX5874
i stopped on the ramp because i dont have my bumpstops in yet so i didnt wanna go any further
02-10-2009, 04:37 PM
I may be wayyy late to the game here, but...
Perhaps the pictures are fooling me, but it looks like the "high clearance" arms are only bent for tire clearance (which I like) and not ground clearance. Someone please clarify this for me. I was under the impression that they were bent for ground clearance, too (like the TnT kit).
Last edited by SirFuego; 02-10-2009 at 04:50 PM.
Originally Posted by SB406
02-10-2009, 05:19 PM
I think they're bent inward and upward, though I could be mistaken. Matt, you need to get some bigger tires now!
02-10-2009, 05:36 PM
If they were bent upwards, too, the control arm couldn't sit flush with the table like it is in this pic:
Originally Posted by SB406
02-10-2009, 06:29 PM
I guess I don't follow. Looks to me that at the bend there is some space between the counter and the arm.
02-10-2009, 06:41 PM
theres no upward bend
(as you can kinda see in this pic )
BUT....they ARE higher ground clearance due to the fact that they are tucked on the inside of the unibody rails as opposed to the underside of the unibody rails...this allows them to sit closer to the body giving better ground clearance.
they are made for ground clearance AND body clearance
02-10-2009, 06:52 PM
x2!! Those tires look itty bitty!
02-10-2009, 07:49 PM
yeap new tires are coming after tax return
02-10-2009, 08:46 PM
The bend is so you can have 37 whatever at full lock and not rub on the control arms.
02-11-2009, 04:49 PM
Close up pics of the front fender trim. How did you go about it?
02-11-2009, 05:50 PM
I understand what you are saying, but after looking at the pics a little closer, I don't really see how this kit mounts the control arms any higher. The top of the control arm mount is still flush with the bottom of the subframe rail. This is the case for other long arm kits, and I know they barely have room between the top of the control arm mount and the control arm end -- so there really isn't any room for improvement with that type of design.
Since there is no upwards bend, then I'm failing to see how it's any higher ground clearance than other long arm kits. I definitely dig the added tire clearance, but I think it's something I would need to see in person how these mounts actually are tucked up higher than other kits.
Also, is it the pics, or are the bolt heads for the control arm mount exposed to the rocks?
Glad you seem happy with the kit so far.
EDIT: I was reading the description on the site and the mounts are supposed to be high clearance with respect to the factory crossmember -- and not other long arm kits. Plus it looks like only the rear arms are bent for ground clearance. I was under the wrong impression thinking that the front was supposed to be the same way.
Last edited by SirFuego; 02-11-2009 at 05:55 PM.
Originally Posted by SB406
02-11-2009, 05:55 PM
Unless I'm drooping the side of the suspension I'm turning towards (pass drooped, turning pass for example), my 35's hit the inner fender well before the contact my LCA's. Once the tire is clear of the fender I can rub the tire on the LCA, but it's very minimal.
02-11-2009, 06:00 PM
Dave, you are also running 4-4.5"ish of lift. The kit is designed for 7" which would mean less interference with the inner fender at ride height.
Originally Posted by SB406
02-11-2009, 06:08 PM
But as soon as you stuff one side of the suspension you're right back in there running into the fender well. For a street queen it may provide an advantage, but I don't see much advantage on those arms for a trail rig.
02-11-2009, 07:12 PM
i used a cheapo Air Body Saw from Harbor Freight to cut the front fenders... took about 10 minutes
heres a little bit of a closer picture
02-11-2009, 07:14 PM
It looks like they're only bent to clear the factory "frame" mounts so they don't have to be cut off...
It looks like they're calling them high clearance because they're bent to fit between the factory mounts instead of being bent to go underneath them, like the regular WJ arms do.
Originally Posted by CrawlerReady
02-12-2009, 12:39 AM
Another bolt on long arm suspension? Can they even give you grade 8 washers?
Cut the stock brackets off and weld the crossmember in.
02-12-2009, 09:55 PM
I believe the term "high clearance" is a comparison to their original arms, which ran parallel to the plane of the ground after moving rearward off the front axle (dumb design). IRO looks to have moved towards an arm with a straighter path from the axle to the body mount. Thus,it is higher clearance than their original (oddball) design.
You can kind of see the old design here: http://www.postimage.org/aVdNXl0-bf0...8537f32a76.jpg
Bear in mind that this is with the suspension unweighted on a lift.
Last edited by Pitch; 02-14-2009 at 12:33 AM.
02-14-2009, 02:51 AM
I almost got these arms but last minute went back to Claytons, ordered yesterday.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Information |
Users Browsing this ThreadThere are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests) |
