Clayton Offroad Leaf Springs

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

Not yet resolved ... what with Thanksgiving and some other issues. Still trying to determine why they are flat & Clayton is working with me. Without saying too much yet, I'll offer that things should should be moving along in about a week & I'll add an update. Sorry if this is holding you up .... but I fully expect things to turn out positive.

 

[austinaubinoe]

damn that sucks. I have 6.5" leaf packs with no rear bump stops. the tire hits the inner fender before the spring pack can over-flex I highly doubt that is what caused them to look like that.

Oh and those look exactly like the stock leaf packs on my 20 year old wagoneer!

 

[ktm racer 419]

regardless of who manufactured the spring for clayton, that is NOT the advertised 4.5". its not a super clear photo but you can still see the arch in the spring (no relocation brackets). yours looks flat.

id call clayton and explain the situation. as a reputable manufacturer id ask them to replace it and cover shipping of your current spring back to them.

where you have the jackstands set is taking a good deal of weight off the back end. think of it as a pivot point on a see-saw. much of the weight is in front, bringing the back end up a bit.


and every set of re springs i have ever had sucked

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

UPDATE: Clayton Offroad Leaf Springs

Update (it's been a couple of weeks since he told me this ... holidays & all): Clayton believes that the weight of my XJ is the cause of this problem. At first the extra long shackle was suspect, but Iron Man made me some shorter shackles & the leafs look the same after the swap. So Clayton told me that he's trying to arrange with his supplier to see whether he can get me a spring pack with a higher rate.

This makes me wonder ... how many of you guys have actually weighed your XJ fully loaded, and what do they weigh? Mine is heavy at over 4800#, but I can't see it being heavier than Jeeps that carry guys heavier than my 148#, have front/rear bumpers, winch, lots of tools, cage, and gear/spare parts that I have never even heard of ... in addition to my "extra" stuff that consists of 3 underbody skids + mopar gas tank skid, rear bumper/carrier w/ 33" rubber, 1/4 panel protection, empty rack, a decent selection of hand tools, spare fluids (in 1 qt. bottles), a hi lift, 2 front drive shafts & 2 spare D30 shafts. Until 4 weeks ago my stuff was kept in canvas tool bags. Is it really unusually heavy? I don't get it ... I don't have extra tubing, no winch, no front bumper, rack not loaded, small spare on aluminum, no passenger ... blah blah. I'm not happy.

 

[VAhasnoWAVES]

where you have the jackstands set is taking a good deal of weight off the back end. think of it as a pivot point on a see-saw. much of the weight is in front, bringing the back end up a bit.


and every set of re springs i have ever had sucked

makes sense... its been almost 4 years now and the jeep still has a bit of rake to it. not as much as it used to, i think the 3/16" bumper and tire carrier that i put on it took care of most of that. i beleive my leafs are the older and more desirable packs. (via online reading though... so i could be wrong. ha! the numbers matched though)

Update (it's been a couple of weeks since he told me this ... holidays & all): Clayton believes that the weight of my XJ is the cause of this problem. At first the extra long shackle was suspect, but Iron Man made me some shorter shackles & the leafs look the same after the swap. So Clayton told me that he's trying to arrange with his supplier to see whether he can get me a spring pack with a higher rate.

This makes me wonder ... how many of you guys have actually weighed your XJ fully loaded, and what do they weigh? Mine is heavy at over 4800#, but I can't see it being heavier than Jeeps that carry guys heavier than my 148#, have front/rear bumpers, winch, lots of tools, cage, and gear/spare parts that I have never even heard of ... in addition to my "extra" stuff that consists of 3 underbody skids + mopar gas tank skid, rear bumper/carrier w/ 33" rubber, 1/4 panel protection, empty rack, a decent selection of hand tools, spare fluids (in 1 qt. bottles), a hi lift, 2 front drive shafts & 2 spare D30 shafts. Until 4 weeks ago my stuff was kept in canvas tool bags. Is it really unusually heavy? I don't get it ... I don't have extra tubing, no winch, no front bumper, rack not loaded, small spare on aluminum, no passenger ... blah blah. I'm not happy.

i agree with you, something is amiss. keep us updated. out of curiosity, what is their spring pack rated at?

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

I'm gonna have to look that up ... not listed on their site, but I know I have that info somewhere. Or I'll just ask him ...

 

[muddeprived]

I asked a question previously and it went unanswered. Are your bumpstops set? I am asking because if not, you could have inverted the springs with those LONG shackles and lack of bumpstops and this can kill a spring pack. Ask me how I know.

But anyways, I was outside looking at my rig. I have 4.5" RC spring packs and mine have slightly deeper arch to them and I have 4.5" lift and ZERO extra weight in the back. My springs are just regular 4-leaf packs with THICK springs. If I loaded down my jeep (did once with a trailer) the springs would look a little similar to your pictures. Also your springs do not look inverted from the pictures in the original post. XJ springs don't have a huge arch to them unless you have a huge lift on there. When loaded down, they will look somewhat flat. These aren't pickup truck springs. Again, long shackles will flatten out a leaf pack, especially with added cargo.

Also you said your rig is 4800 lbs? Isn't the stock weight 3300 or around there? You are carrying about 1500 lbs MORE so if I were you, I'd be expecting some spring sag or less of an arch from all that weight, unless you are running true HD leaf packs.

From the pictures you show me, the long extended shackles, the extra weight, and possibly no bumpstops, I would say that is what I would expect from that setup. I don't think it's a spring issue.

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

I asked a question previously and it went unanswered. Are your bumpstops set? I am asking because if not, you could have inverted the springs with those LONG shackles and lack of bumpstops and this can kill a spring pack. Ask me how I know.

....
From the pictures you show me, the long extended shackles, the extra weight, and possibly no bumpstops, I would say that is what I would expect from that setup. I don't think it's a spring issue.

I think you're mistaken.
First, I do have extended bumpstops dear. Big ol' poly things, further lowered by a 2" aluminum bar.

Now I agree that my XJ is heavy, but given that the springs are brand new, they should not have sagged so soon. I posted this thread about a month after having them installed. They still sag when I empty the Jeep, altho to a lesser extent. Observe below, my OME medium duty spring pack that was on the XJ for about 6 years, hauling the exact same load, wheeled many times & beat on - and the arch was better when I removed them. This pic was taken last Summer, about 6 months before being removed.

Below is the XJ right now, with shackles identical in length to the JKS 1" lift shackles above. Like I said, we recently swapped on shorter shackles. Note the springs are curved downwards at the end.

So maybe you can explain how a spring pack noted for its ride quality, not even called "lift" springs (granted, with the overload spring) can after 5-6 years look better than a pack that has 1 wheeling trip & 1 month installed.

 

[muddeprived]

Thanks for answering the bumpstop question. I didn't see any references towards whether you had adjusted them or not. It's a key component in the suspension that's often neglected and can ruin a set of springs rather quickly when left in stock form but that's not the case with yours since you have modified em.

Now looking at the last picture, I see a rig that's a little bit higher in the rear but rather level. I do not see the rear sagging BUT when we consider the flatness of those rear springs and subtract what the extended shackles + relocation brackets netted, you could be right that the packs are sagging.

Now after looking into your springs in more detail, my opinion has changed. when I look at your springs from the side, they are designed with two thin leaves on top that are pretty equal in length and then no leaf for about 8-10" forward. This is, to me, looks like a weak link when the packs are subjected to heavy loads. If you look at my former OME HD 2" spring packs, your'll see a new leaf supported the one above it within every 4".

So this will prevent the one or two of the leaves from being overloaded from the weight of your rig. I am guessing at this point that the springs you have are not rated for the weight you are carrying since we don't know what the spring rates are or what they are rated for. But you said Clayton told ya that the weight might be what's causing it and that is what I see.

Here's your pix that shows how the top two are unsupported underneath and to me, these are not meant to be subjected to heavy loads:

And in this picture, you can see the top two leaves separating from the pack from lack of support underneath. See the gap?:

Here's a pix of Clayton's 4.5" leaf springs I just got from their site:

Notice every spring is supported by another one underneath it. This pack would seem to work better with your extra weight. Have you brought this difference up with Clayton? I wonder why your springs are different from what is shown on their website? If you had the springs that are advertised, I doubt you would have this sagging/flatness issue.

Thanks for the extra pictures to clear up my questions and suspicions. Good luck with the issue and I hope Clayton comes through and helps you out. (i'm sure they will)

By the way, I've seen your rig on the net before. Didn't you used to browse the cherokeetalk forum? It's a sick lookin jeep and i remember it from somewhere. I do remember the owner of that rig was a female and since you called me "dear" i'm guessing you are a female.

 

[muddeprived]

Double post. Oops.

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

... Now looking at the last picture, I see a rig that's a little bit higher in the rear but rather level. I do not see the rear sagging ...

This is because I have ACOS up front. They have been adjusted to compensate. (Below I hope you don't mind that I took some editing liberties with your post in the interest of brevity)

Now after looking into your springs in more detail, my opinion has changed. when I look at your springs from the side, they are designed with two thin leaves on top that are pretty equal in length and then no leaf for about 8-10" forward. This is, to me, looks like a weak link when the packs are subjected to heavy loads ...

... your pix that shows ... the top two are unsupported underneath and to me, these are not meant to be subjected to heavy loads:

And in (another) picture, you can see the top two leaves separating from the pack from lack of support underneath ...

Here's a pix of Clayton's 4.5" leaf springs I just got from their site:

... Have you brought this difference up with Clayton? I wonder why your springs are different from what is shown on their website?...

I think you just nailed it mud. Good eye! There a noticeable difference in the composition of the springs. That is something I would never have noticed, the unsupported leafs. I am going to bring this to Clayton's attention. Their 4.5" packs are arrived at by removing a leaf from the 6.5" pack. Could be that the wrong leaf was removed from this pack, or that that strategy simply doesn't work for a fat pig like my XJ.

By the way, I've seen your rig on the net before. Didn't you used to browse the cherokeetalk forum? It's a sick lookin jeep and i remember it from somewhere. I do remember the owner of that rig was a female and since you called me "dear" i'm guessing you are a female.

Aye, 'tis me indeed (dear) :wave:... you've seen the beast before ... it's everywhere you want to be ... . I rarely go to CT anymore - not enough tech, too many picture threads - if you know what I mean .

 

[spencer elliott]

hey Mighty,

how do you like the ACOS and Iron Man adjustable shackle combo? i think im going to run these together as well.

positives or negatives?

thanks

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

OT, but all positive feedback. The I.M. shackles that I now have don't offer a lot of adjustability due to them being boomerangs. But it's what I wanted and so far I like them. You won't find these on the web site. Granted, I prolly have less than 200 miles on them. Ask me again after NAC Fest . I have nothing but love for the ACOS - pure suspension "secks". Adjustability & beef ... it's what's for dinner .

 

[1-tonxj]

My 6.5 leafs did this after the relocation boxes. After the box install I had lost 1 inch or so in lift and leafs had more sag I had same 1.5 lift shackles b4 boxes but set at 45' I was not concerned about the loss and this change pushed my leaf down some ,and then I installed Iron man adj shackles at max length (10.5 inches) ,but not to get 3.5 lift but to get more drop so shakle box was adusted as far forward as provided and I used 1st hole to get 45' my leafs sit close to flat after all this ,and before I adjusted box to get 45 I let the shackle sit at about 60' and that had the leafs dead flat ...Inorder to mount my shackles 2 leafs I had 2 push leaf down with small jack ,so obviously leaf is being forced down ...all seems related to lower shackle box and longer shackles ...keep in mind you're only dropping rear half of leaf pack with boxes not f/r I think think this puts leverage on the leaf causing the sag...All that said it flexs fine ,but hangs way low ... way lower than gas tank ,And unless you have some very stiff springs I think you'll have this issue with all soft spring rate leafs ,and has nothing to do with defective leafs .

 

[Mighty.Mighty_XJ]

A well placed period here & there would make your post a lot easier to read.

Regardless, I figured out the last 2 lines of your post & my response is thus: with an open mind, look closely at the ends of my leaf pack posted in my original post. Then come back to this page & look at the ends of the leaf packs here. If you can see a clear difference then your argument is null & void, and I need not explain further. A picture is worth a thousand words.

In case you have a problem seeing the difference: simply put, the removal of the single leaf has reduced support for the pack at the 2 stress points, hence premature sag. In addition, and as a much needed update, I will add that Clayton is currently testing some differently manufactured leafs and it is my understanding that they have (or will) abandoned the practice of removing 1 leaf to create a pack with less lift. 6.5" & 4.5" packs will be completely different. So this problem is being addressed, thereby forcing the conclusion that they acknowledge that there is a problem (even tho you don't). While I doubt that their retooling is in direct response to our observations here, I'm sure it didn't hurt. I have been invited to wait for the new springs, or accept a full refund. I haven't yet decided what I want to do, but let it be known, the ball is in my court & Clayton has not abandoned me. I have nothing but good things to say about the way they are handling this.

And in conclusion: my Jeep isn't that heavy. I have a stock front bumper, no winch, no cage & no power tools, no gas cans, blah, blah & I'm 145lbs soaking wet. If it were that bad, maybe you can explain why my OME medium rate pack had more arch than my new Claytons.

 

[1-tonxj]

A well placed period here & there would make your post a lot easier to read.

Regardless, I figured out the last 2 lines of your post & my response is thus: with an open mind, look closely at the ends of my leaf pack posted in my original post. Then come back to this page & look at the ends of the leaf packs here. If you can see a clear difference then your argument is null & void, and I need not explain further. A picture is worth a thousand words.

In case you have a problem seeing the difference: simply put, the removal of the single leaf has reduced support for the pack at the 2 stress points, hence premature sag. In addition, and as a much needed update, I will add that Clayton is currently testing some differently manufactured leafs and it is my understanding that they have (or will) abandoned the practice of removing 1 leaf to create a pack with less lift. 6.5" & 4.5" packs will be completely different. So this problem is being addressed, thereby forcing the conclusion that they acknowledge that there is a problem (even tho you don't). While I doubt that their retooling is in direct response to our observations here, I'm sure it didn't hurt. I have been invited to wait for the new springs, or accept a full refund. I haven't yet decided what I want to do, but let it be known, the ball is in my court & Clayton has not abandoned me. I have nothing but good things to say about the way they are handling this.

And in conclusion: my Jeep isn't that heavy. I have a stock front bumper, no winch, no cage & no power tools, no gas cans, blah, blah & I'm 145lbs soaking wet. If it were that bad, maybe you can explain why my OME medium rate pack had more arch than my new Claytons.

I'm not going to explain, because it's simple by looking at the set up that what's happening to the rear of the leaf is caused by current set up , And I noticed it the moment (I) installed same equipment ...Yes I figured it out instantly without calling lift manufacturer and looking foolish even with my poor Grammar .:shocked:

 

[muddeprived]

I'm not going to explain, because it's simple by looking at the set up that what's happening to the rear of the leaf is caused by current set up , And I noticed it the moment (I) installed same equipment ...Yes I figured it out instantly without calling lift manufacturer and looking foolish even with my poor Grammar .:shocked:

She already figured out the issue with the springs. Faulty springs cuz of the removal of a critical leaf in the pack. Clayton acknowledged it and is changing their setup.

 

[1-tonxj]

And I'll be nice ,And offer this on your 4.5 pack vs OME ,which is the OME pack had less arch and was prbably stiffer ,so droppng rear box affected them less ,but if you take a quick thought on your newly designed shackle boxes they essentialy not only relocate for angle ,but also drop the entire mounting location lower than OEM box ,but you're not lowering front OEM mounting point ,And this pushes rear of leaf down ...causing what you see .

 

[1-tonxj]

She already figured out the issue with the springs. Faulty springs cuz of the removal of a critical leaf in the pack. Clayton acknowledged it and is changing their setup.

Must be faulty deavers on my XJ then huh .

 

[muddeprived]

Must be faulty deavers on my XJ then huh .

I have the same relocation boxes with 4" springs that have the overload removed. I do not have any issues with the spring sagging, even with my 250 lbs of tools back there.

You simply cannot remove a leaf spring from a pack and leave the two top long thin springs unsupported underneath for that amount of distance. It will cause the spring to bend. Clayton uses many thin leaves to make a pack and they have to have support under each leaf or the pack will not function correctly. It's common sense when building a leaf pack with thin leaves.