GJeep

There's no way that changing just the arms would make such a difference.
For the same overall weight, tire type and tire pressure, ride softness is determined by the coil/shock combination.

Even long arms have minimal effect on softness -- I tried.
The stock Jeep articulation is determined by the travel of the coils & shocks, and by the bump stops.
Longer travel of the shocks & coils – and not the type of arms -- allows more articulation.
The rest of the system(s) should just prevent strains.

Tire diameter has absolutely nothing to do with articulation.
Be it 32" or 40" wheel, it doesn't effect axle movement.

But... let's get off it, and not steal the thread.

ranjr

It's not the arm that makes the difference, it's the joint. The rubber drastically cuts down on the NVH compared to the typical "Johnny Joint". It's the same reason OEMs use it.

http://www.metalcloak.com/Jeep-Suspe...arts-s/235.htm

DualJK2013

I just installed MC 3.5 springs and front arms. I had a BB before so I knew it would make a big difference in hight and ride. Compared to my wife's JKU 2.5 TF it's a solid 2" higher (mine has a stock front bumper after market rear, no sag. Her's is stock.) The ride is great, it's firm but not harsh.

GJeep

My previous Jeep was an 'experiment'... the coils were replaced with air springs (truck springs).
For DD, it rode at stock height. For offroading, the Jeep was typically lifted to 2"~3", by increasing the air springs' psi.
For more demanding obstacles it was lifted to 4"~6" or even more (for short durations, because of the stock arms and driveshafts).

(The picture on the left shows it at max' lift, which was needed because the stock bumper wasn't yet replaced, and blocked the wheels from getting to the step, and max' ground clearance was needed to go over.)

That suspension - with stock arms & joints - was quite softer than stock, and without any NVH.
At one point along the process, the Jeep was without the shocks (sent for re-valving).
Out of curiosity, I drove it a bit... Without the shocks' damping, and with the sway bar disconnected, potential NVH would have been clearly felt – there was none.
The ride was so funny that I actually laughed... it madly swayed like a little boat on tall waves -- but it was smooth, soft, no noise, no vibration and no harshness.

This, I think, was the ultimate test for the stock joints, and they did not impair the ride or articulation in any way, in spite of much more articulation than they were made for.

Following that experience, I can't buy the "blames" of stock joints, except for one:
They will deteriorate quite faster by increased articulation.
I agree with you that the Metalcloak joints are much better than the stock ones, because they would last much longer and won't deteriorate by stresses like stock joints do.

Stock joints, or any joints, as long as they're in good condition, won't feel any different.
They certainly do not make this kind of difference –

"[69mach1] ....changed out the Currrie Control arms for MetalCloak Control arms and the difference in off road ride is very apparent No more airing down necessary on a wash board road...."

If there was such a difference, something was faulty before the replacement.

GJeep

Is yours a 4-dr too, or a 2-dr ?

DougC

Sorry if I'm hijacking, but the OP said this would be a thread for all things MC....

I'm seriously looking at buying the Metal Cloak Game Changer Lite but had a couple of questions that I'm hoping I can get some opinions on.

1.) The GC Lite kit is available in 2.5" or 3.5" and I'm trying to decide between the two. I'll be running 35" tires on a 2013 JKUR. I know it is best to keep the jeep as low as possible to clear the tires for center of gravity. I also know that going to 3.5 introduces lots of geometry issues, etc. However, I was talking to a couple of local shops that install lifts and they said that the MC Lite has a LOT of travel so it is better to get the 3.5". Also, they said that the MC Lite kit has everything included to be able to correct geometry, etc. They are recommending the 3.5" and the only difference between the 2 are that the springs (3.5" has a few exra coils).

2.) The MC Lite comes with standard with OME shocks but Bilstein 5100s are an option. I'm not a shock expert so I can't really tell the diffference between them except the color and I don't want to make a shock decision just on that.

I appreciate any help you can give.

Thanks,
Doug

DualJK2013

Both are JKU's.

DualJK2013

I'm running 35's on a 3.5 with stock fenders and really like the stance. I felt the 2.5 had the 35's really stuffed in the fenders already, the 3.5 gave it just enough hight over the 35's. if I was to go aftermarket flat fenders I would go 37's. I'm running 5100 as well. The ride is good but I will upgrade later to something different. Our other JKU has Fox shock's and I can tell a difference in performance.

TheDirtman

The lift has nothing to do with the travel, bump stops and shock length determine the travel of your suspension. Replacing one short arm for another will not do anything for suspension travel over the factory arms. Depending on the joint you may get less bind during max articulation but that is it.

I would bet the 3.5" kit comes with longer travel shocks and more bump stop.

Not a single lift kit out there comes with the correction to regain the factory caster and geometry. You need to have the axle corrected for that, spinning the C and moving all the brackets to get that back.
They use adjustable control arms to allow you to balance the caster and the driveline vibrations that will occur from having the pinion and driveshaft at steep angles. The higher you go the harder it is to balance this.

With the 3.5" lift netting 4"+ a high steer kit would likely be needed to eliminate the bumpsteer you get from improper steering geometry. This will also raise your roll center.

GJeep

Thanks pal