• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Rubicon XJLA First kit install pictures

i think he just has to fine tune his kit, and once those springs wear in a little he will see some major flexing. i have seen their 5.5 inch kit with 35's and trimmed fenders, and the jeep was flexing pretty well. im not sure why he said he paid $3400, but if he did he got robbed. there components are pretty strong. if anyone is concerned about spending $1700 on the LA, they could always go with the drop brackets and get about the same performance out of them.
 
SeanP said:
Too bad the report is not flattering towards the kit. I did my RE TJ long arms with a home brew crossmember 4 years ago and I have been very happy with the arms themselves.

SeanP

Buddy of mine did that, too. Full length TJ arms when they first came out. Pounded the drivetrain tunnel to push his t-case and tranny up...then made a x-member/skid that's even with the bottom of the frame. His arms are inboard of the frame and tucked way up. From the side you can't even see them. :)
I plan on doing something similar.
 
What are those pinch weld braces for?

Attaching to the weakest part of a vehicle to gain strength???? Especially in such a short area????????

Can you say "Lost ground clearance"???????

hinkley
 
well this confirms to me that the best commercial LA solution is still and probably always will be Claytons.

I don't like all the bolt together brackets..... it looks like they changed alot of things to make it compete with FT to have a full bolt on kit.

i'd rather pay 50 bucks for welding and get claytons...

very disappointing...
 
FlexyJoe do you work for RK? Just wondering if you are giving a biased opinion. I remember reading a few threads about you and RK and that your jeep was on the RK website.
 
For one thing... DUH! 33's aren't going to fit without trimming :confused1 And if someone paid $3400 for that lift, that's just as dumb as thinking you can fit 33's without doing anything to the fenders... :looser: Or expecting a lift to be superflexy straight out of the box (gotta atleast let the springs break in a bit).

I'm a bit disappointed though, that pinchseam wing is just... rediculous. Hard to tell how much clearance you loose over the stock crossmember though. Man, and their TJ crossmember is so awesome... I think I'd take Rusty's LA setup over that one (the crossmember anyway).

Oh well. Now I'm definitely sure I won't be swapping out my drop bracket setup.
 
That is very disappointing coming from RE especially after how long they took to put the kit out and the fact that they have the rubicon trail practically in their back yard (80 miles to trail head from their facility). :nono: They are right down the street from me & I currently have their 5.5 eduty, with 2" blocks in the back and 8" Skyjacker coils up front to clear my 35" mtrs. I think if I do long arms like I want to then I will get their long arms and Clayton's crossmember. Re's LA kit doesn't address the fact that people needing this kit will be running some sort of rocker protection and need to use the pinch seams. My ORGS style rock sliders use 5 pinch seams mounts and then have 2 legs attaching to the frame, I think the RE kit would make just about any rock slider mounting a problem if not impossible without modifying it somehow.
Troy
 
Hmm...

I think the wings are lame too but - what else about it don't you like? I took a quick look a tthe pictures but didn't really see anything else I didn't like.

I'm just thinking this "wing" setup might be an opportunity - not a problem.

Make some custom sliders that bolt to the x-member using the flange that RE has put there then make the other side of the slider connect to the pinch seam as per normal.

Just thinking that with the flange on the x-memebr being the way it is adding sliders that connect to the pinch seam and this flange would probably really stiffen up the unibody.

JAT

r@m
 
FlexyJOE said:
...It WONT fit 33's, The driveline angles are stupid, the T-case is dropped down way far, the disconnects rattle like a spray paint can,

I'm confused. It's too short for 33's (as all RE 5.5" kits are without trimming), too tall for good driveline angles, and the TC is too low (which improves the driveline angles). Whachutawkinbout Willis?

Other than the dumb "wings" it looks ok, not great but ok.
 
HMM When we went up to the Con we ran into an XJ from RE that was testing the long arms and it looked like a different setup then what you have here (Rabbit? Dan? Justin? did anyone of you get any pics?) :confused:

FlexyJOE said:
Ok guys here they are. The XJLA kit from RE. Let me tell you, DISSAPOINTING to say the least. Take a look at the pictures and see for your self...It WONT fit 33's, The driveline angles are stupid, the T-case is dropped down way far, the disconnects rattle like a spray paint can, and it didnt do a 900 on a 23 degree ramp :shocked: AND its Pretty spendy. And how do you plan to put Rock Sliders on???? I KNOW ORGS wouldnt fit and many others I am sure. This guy Just spent 8 Large. He brought the XJ in stock and now it has gears, ARB's Super 30kit, XJLA, wheels and tires, SYE and all labor. Nice for a 900 huh???? :rolleyes:



http://community.webshots.com/user/flexyxj
Joe
 
okay, a few people have mentioned using Clayton's crossmember with the RE arms. I know a few people have done this because they got a killer deal on the RE arms and actually saved money. But other than that, WHY would you spend more to use the RE arms? The Claytons ones work GREAT. Don't tell me you're gonna spend another couple hundred more just to get round control arms :rolleyes:
 
I have the complete Clayton kit and am very pleased at how it is engineered. Being me, I couldn't leave well enough alone, but that's for another thread. It has survived a flat tow from NJ to MO, but I unfortunately haven't been able to test it otherwise. The installation was straightforward, and it is durable and simple. This RE system seems to concentrate the stresses in too small of an area of the unibody... some things just shouldn't be bolt on.
 
BrettM said:
okay, a few people have mentioned using Clayton's crossmember with the RE arms. I know a few people have done this because they got a killer deal on the RE arms and actually saved money. But other than that, WHY would you spend more to use the RE arms? The Claytons ones work GREAT. Don't tell me you're gonna spend another couple hundred more just to get round control arms :rolleyes:

That's what I'm always wondering. Clayton's arms are seriously heavy duty, and square maybe doesn't have the bling factor...but then I'm not painting them yellow, either. I guess if you are a weight loss freak you might want a lighter arm.

That RE plate between the frame rail and pinch seam is unbelievable. what happens if you ever land on that low clearance POS? It bends and takes the pinch seam with it. That is the worst idea from a major company that I have seen in a long, long time. That thing can do nothing but get caught up and cause damage.

It is amazing what crap we see in the name of "bolt-on".

Weld, people.

Weld.

Nay
 
Nay said:
That's what I'm always wondering. Clayton's arms are seriously heavy duty, and square maybe doesn't have the bling factor...but then I'm not painting them yellow, either. I guess if you are a weight loss freak you might want a lighter arm.

That RE plate between the frame rail and pinch seam is unbelievable. what happens if you ever land on that low clearance POS? It bends and takes the pinch seam with it. That is the worst idea from a major company that I have seen in a long, long time. That thing can do nothing but get caught up and cause damage.

It is amazing what crap we see in the name of "bolt-on".

Weld, people.

Weld.

Yeah, my bro Nate if buying a portable welder. I know that more serious you are about wheeling, the more serious you should be with a welder. I'm surprised too to see what a crappy design with the pinch seam mount that a quality co like re has put out. Since they took so long to come out with something, they should have came up with something better. Most la kits just do a nice strong cross member that you can bolt then weld or just weld in place. I'm going to take a close look at the Clayton's LA kit, I do think round ca's look better, but if the square ca's are stronger than I'll go with those. My bud had square driveshafts on his 85' tubed toy and I know those are balances for the street/highway, but just about anything else could be make with that strong square hitch material.
Troy

Nay
 
I'm having second thoughts about starting this arguement up again... but oh well :D

Square tube IS stronger for a long-arm application. Round tube is stronger than a similarly sized square tube for tension/compression forces, but of ALL the kits out there all are WAY overkill for tension/compression strength. It's bending strength that is the higher concern for Longarms, and when the impact is coming at a predictable angle (from underneath) square tube is much stronger to resist bending.

edit: oh, and it's cheaper too :yelclap:
 
MDMIKE said:
FlexyJoe do you work for RK? Just wondering if you are giving a biased opinion. I remember reading a few threads about you and RK and that your jeep was on the RK website.

Has anybody else noticed that FlexyJoe started this thread and has not come back which really seems to add a little question to the above qoute
 
Fullsizexj said:
Has anybody else noticed that FlexyJoe started this thread and has not come back which really seems to add a little question to the above qoute
that's a good point and a fun conspiracy theory, but I really doubt he faked a whole RE suspension system. so the facts remain just from the pictures that it's a crappy design.
 
BrettM said:
that's a good point and a fun conspiracy theory, but I really doubt he faked a whole RE suspension system. so the facts remain just from the pictures that it's a crappy design.


He pimps RK cause he gets it for free.
 
Back
Top