TOTM: Rear Suspension

[5.9 ANDY]

well, i have seen first hand all 3 of these kits.
the claytons on agitated pancake's jeep
the tnt on my own
and the IRO on a friends of mine.

ill start with the IRO... i dont like them, at all realy... bolt on=stress points, that caster bracket is NO MORE than 3/16" thick, if that. i just would not tust it under a good hard beating.

as for the claytons, a great system, and i had lmy eyes on them for some time, however, drawbacks with those.. now keep in mind, that these are my oppinion.

i dont like how the front control arms go straight from the frame, down to the LCA mount on the axle, also. the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.

now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.

next, was the rear links are double triangulated, now... like the claytons, there is no rear track bar. but unlike the caytons, with the double tri, there is no flex steer.

i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.

now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs... also, tnt is not currently producing thier kit... so support is meah. but i am at the point now, where if i had any major failure, we would just repair/upgrade our selfs anyway.

thats my 2 cents.

can we get into brands? pros and cons?

i have claytons front and i have seen people remove the pasenger upper arm to make it a 3 link- ill save that for another topic,
point being im debating if i should stick w the same brand for rear LAs.

Im really digging TnT frame stiffeners vs claytons and i also like the LA setup they have as seen on AndyZJs rig being built.

thoughts on TnT vs Claytons? for all fairness you could include IRO in the debate but i absolutely refuse to use a bolt on long arm kit- + not have uni stiffeners. like to hear the experts chime in im really leaning towards tnt

[lateralus3]

well, i have seen first hand all 3 of these kits.
the claytons on agitated pancake's jeep
the tnt on my own
and the IRO on a friends of mine.

ill start with the IRO... i dont like them, at all realy... bolt on=stress points, that caster bracket is NO MORE than 3/16" thick, if that. i just would not tust it under a good hard beating.

as for the claytons, a great system, and i had lmy eyes on them for some time, however, drawbacks with those.. now keep in mind, that these are my oppinion.

i dont like how the front control arms go straight from the frame, down to the LCA mount on the axle, also. the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.

now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.

next, was the rear links are double triangulated, now... like the claytons, there is no rear track bar. but unlike the caytons, with the double tri, there is no flex steer.

i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.

now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs... also, tnt is not currently producing thier kit... so support is meah. but i am at the point now, where if i had any major failure, we would just repair/upgrade our selfs anyway.

thats my 2 cents.

how did you go about getting the tnt rear longarms? im looking at planning out my rear suspension as i finish up my 8.8

[5.9 ANDY]

how did you go about getting the tnt rear longarms? im looking at planning out my rear suspension as i finish up my 8.8

bought them off the website, they are no longer offered as far as i know, its seems to have been a limited production run.

[AgitatedPancake]

I talked to TnT on the phone while installing Andy's kit, when I told them it was for a ZJ they were half stunned, as they only made like 4 or 5 kits from the impression I got haha.

[cowboy63b]

well they need to start building them again, id rather have it versus the clayton kit.

[lateralus3]

Same here that kit just looks like beeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SirFuego]

the rear is not a double triangulated system, the lowers are still straight, and that leads to flex steer.. how bad that is, i have no clue. i have never seen it first hand, so i will not comment.

The flex steer was really noticeable (visually) when we had my rig flexed out on a forklift, but I'll admit that I never noticed it once I got in the rocks and never noticed it on pavement. I had asked a similar question earlier in the thread about the drawbacks. I looked into it a bit more and the main drawback to a single-tri setup is in high travel situations at high speeds (i.e. desert racing). The flex steer can pull the rig to one side if the rear axle flexes out. So if pre-running/desert racing is your goal, double tri might be more ideal, but I've yet to hear of anyone complain about a single-tri setup on pavement or in the rocks.

now, for the TNT customs.. i chose these for a few reasons, one, the "Y" link fronts, the front lowers go stright out, and then bend down to the LCA mounts on the axle, so they wont drag on as many rocks and such, but not so much that they leave my DS or tranny pan too exposed.

In my experience with Clayton's, the control arm itself has never been a hangup point -- it's always the mounts (which are going to get hit if the arms are high clearance or not). Typically, every inch counts when it comes to ground clearance (as long as your critical components aren't exposed as you mentioned), but sometimes a "sliding" design can be just as effective. So I'll just leave that up to personal preference.

I haven't looked at your front axle setup in a while -- were you able to set it up so the lowers mounted flush with the axle tube? I figured it would be, but was just curious.

i also liked that the mounting point for the arms at the frame side were built into the crossmembers, and do not hang down low, so they are not as prone to being hung up. it also come with a sweet belly skid that ties the two crossmembers together.

Those are my two complaints about the Clayton's kit. The arm mounts hang a bit low and mine get beat up pretty good (though I have no failures). They have been hangup points for me in the past. The belly skid looks beefy, but it's just too big to not have any additional support beyond the side bends. I would recommend reinforcing a Clayton's belly skid with angle iron or something. My belly skid has taken a beating and it's bowed pretty good in the middle.

now, are there disadvantages to the TNT customs, sure, there are flaws in any system. it is said that the claytons style sub frame is actualy stronger than the tnt customs...

Whether or not clayton's is stronger is sorta moot point, IMO -- all that matters is if the TNT kit is "strong enough". If it stiffens up the chassis enough to dramatically increase the life of the chassis when offroading, it has done its job. We are only talking about a small part of the chassis anyways, so there is a lot more that needs beefed up anyways regardless of whether you have Clayton's or TnT. You* would be good with either setup, so I would just go with whichever one works best with your suspension setup.

* Not you, specifically, but "you" as in the person reading this.

[blackjack12982]

well they need to start building them again, id rather have it versus the clayton kit.

Just a note, I emailed TNT about their LA kit while I was deployed, and Rob emailed me back this-

The reason you don't see it is cause we have yet to officially release it.
Don't get me wrong, it works amazing and is an extremely durable setup. We
need to finalize some things with the bellypan cut files to insure that all
the mounting holes are correct, etc. We've just not had the time to bring
the shop ZJ back in to tear it al down.

They gave me the impression through further emails that you could purchase the kit if you were really adamant about it. When I originally started talking to them I was flush with money, now not so much so...

[CRJEeP_wj]

I recently started mocking up my rear suspension, its gonna be single lower triangulated |/\|. Im guessing my lowers will be 40-42" and my uppers 36-38 give or take. My separation at frame will be 5" and at the axle 8-9". Has anybody dealt with this style? I expect a little less stability than a double triangulated would provide but can I expect a good strut like ORIs properly dialed to control any bad characteristics while in off camber situations?

Heres a pic of mine and below a pic of how it will be when completed.