Anybody try these yet, thoughts ?

http://jksmfg.com/i-22322737-jeep-jk...-2-5-lift.html

These look interesting but I don't see any improvement when it comes to disconnecting, or are you supposed to just run them connected when when off road? That is, those of us that don't have the electronic disco.

I am perplexed.

I talked to the rep for JKS. The idea is to run them connected off-road but with the softer Springs. The links come with the stiffer springs which are better on road . They are designed to simulate a AR And lower the torsion rate. The kit comes with the stiffer springs. You would still have to buy the upgrade kit with softer Springs.
He told me they sold out of the first Run, so we should be seeing reviews soon.

me too!

so they want you to swap springs back and forth? I like the concept just not having to remove the links and swap the springs back and forth.

He said it takes like 10 minutes to swap the springs.
Just run the middle rate spring & call it a day lol

Or for the low low price of not several hundred dollars, you can get cheap quick disconnects which take all of a couple minutes to pop off and flip up out of the way.

Agree, the price is rather steep. JKS should at least include the different springs for that price tag.

Oooooh this is truly innovative for people who use their jeeps for more than just off roading. Not really a new idea though if you think about systems like toyota's kinetic swaybar system and landrover's various systems like ACE over the years.

One of the issues with the standard front swaybar is its stiffness. Coupled with some off road biased suspension a lifted JK has significantly more side to side rocking motion (head-bobble as JKS describe it) than many other SUV. As a comparison the HJ80 Toyota LandCruiser or Landrover Discovery 2 are vastly superior vehicles on the open road and even more so superior to the JKU when you have a trailer or a good load onboard. IMHO this sucks as the JK is a fantastic vehicle everywhere else compared to these 2 foreigners.

Without the front swaybar the "head bobble" is almost eliminated by good springs and shocks, but you can't go around corners without scraping your door handles on the pavement (Not to mention the JK becomes a properly unsafe vehicle at high speed and the ESP cracks the shits with even a crosswind, I've driven a long way home after breaking a front swaybar link with a OME 2" lift and after the initial novelty of insane body roll it wasn't overly fun).

These should really help reduce the severity of head bobble and make long drives far more comfortable. Not to mention they will improve steering control (i believe there should be a bit less kick through the steering wheel and less jumping on certain bumps) and ride quality on poor quality roads when your tyres are pumped up to road pressure.

That is providing they actually work as described and don't end up exploding or falling to bits.

There's a lot of misunderstanding here....

Look at the pictures and think about what's going on here and how sway bars work. The stock sway bar lacks torsional flexibility and when combined with rigid links, limits suspension travel. This provides solid on-road handling response but requires that the influence of the sway bar be removed (hence "disconnecting" the links) in order to exploit full shock travel.

A performance torsion bar, such as the Currie AntiRock, uses a smaller diameter, hollow, heat treated bar. The bar acts as a spring to counter weight transfer (like all sway bars) but due to the construction allows more torsional flexibility. Therefore, even rigid links can remain connected while full shock travel can be achieved.

JKS simply moves the flexibility from the bar to the links. The springs in the links provide a similar response to a horizontally-mounted torsion bar. It's an interesting design and JKS is well-renowned for putting out quality components. It's not a product I have any interest in personally (I'll stick to Currie bars) but from an engineering standpoint I'm impressed.

Running without the influence of a sway bar (disconnected links) is a completely different story and should not be compared to a product like this. If you don't care about stability and don't want to spend much money, quick-disconnect links are for you. If you care about stability enough to spend a little money, a torsion bar system or these are worth looking into.

IMHO, they missed something that would have made these a clear winner at that price point: magic lever technology (MLT).

If they had a quick/easy way to make the sprung link "solid", they would be offering a dual-rate (factory sway bar or lighter sway bar) setup.

What they have now, unless I missed it, is effectively a reduced rate sway bar (like an Antirock) that you can use tools to change rates (like an Antirock).

Of course, MLT would add complexity and cost, so it might be best to make that link quick-disco and offer a second solid link.
Then, you'd have 3 options (factory rate bar, reduced rate bar, or no sway bar) just 1 - 5 minutes of fookin' around away.

I think they'd have a winner if they added magic lever technology, and would sell a chitload of 'em.
. . . but not to me, 'cuz I have magic button technology (RubiLazyBastardDiscoThingamawidget)

Although I think you're attempting humor I don't see why the magic lever would be needed.

I believe the intent of this linkage is to reduce the immediate effect of factory swaybar until it fully compresses the springs in these magic linkages.

These look promising... but I'll stick to my JKS Quick Discos until I go to the Currie AR

The bullshit terminology I was throwing down was a (less than half-assed) attempt at humor, but the tech was sincere.

I believe that you have nailed the intent of this widget, but I question whether or not that intent is beneficial.



You get a reduced, more progressive sway bar spring rate via the added coil springs in the link acting in series w/ the sway bar.
This could be good or bad, I dunno which - do you? A lighter-rate sway bar (e.g., Antirock) would be similar, BTW.

The potential bad that I see is that you don't have the full rate on the road when you need it, and / or have too much off road.
So your articulation is less limited (but more limited than when disconnected) and you have more body roll on-road (win=?).

My point was that having quick access to the factory swaybar spring rate and to zero swaybar spring rate would make this better.
That would add 2 more spring rates (zero and full) to what this offers, just in case the "happy medium" is not all kittens and roses.

This gimmick might be the next hot ticket, but it might also be a compromise that pulled $300 out of someone's Antirock budget.
By all means; buy one, run it, and report back - I'm all for it, as long as it's not my rig or my money.

And why would one want zero sway bar influence under a coil sprung/link suspension, again?

https://www.jkowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=280009

Haha ask away !!!

So under a flex situation, the link in compression (for the tire going up) can only compress to the limit of the link travel. Same with the link on the droop side. So as stated previously, a disconnected link would appear to have more travel. Or am I missing something?

Fascinating to say the least. Since running a dual rate sway bar for a while, I will never wheel without one again. Not that it is required to wheel, the increase in stability is unreal. This option is cheaper than your dual rate set up, but appears to yield the same(or better...maybe) results.

So it looks like only one of the links has springs, so you're going to gain minimal flex if I understand how they work. Under flex one spring compresses to allow more? flex? How much can a short spring compress? Not enough to make shit for difference IMO.

As for on road I've always said these turds could use a stiffer sway bar, so I don't get how they will help. Is the idea that the will "soak up" quick jars while not effecting body roll in corners? I don't see how an undampened spring can do that.

Seems like really expensive snake oil to me and the dosing spoon(extra springs) is an extra expense, but what do I know?

Our front is too stiff imo. Remember Goody (Mike) ? He tried to use a JK's rear swaybar and make it work on the front.

I understand the reduced torsion rate, softer ride, and maybe a little bit of gained flex.
I think the setup is limited to the length of the solid link (9.25") iirc.
If somebody is running say 3-4" of lift, i still think this setup will have its limits unless the mounts are raised.

Same goes for my single rate antirock. Guys that wheel fully disconnected don't know what they are missing, night and day difference.

That being said I feel these are a good option for people that dont want to pony up for an aftermarket swaybar. Definitely want to ride in a jeep equipped with them to experience it first hand. Props to JKS for being innovative. The engineer in me is totally geeking out, lol.

Ordered. We'll see what they are like.

1.1" to 2.3" of link travel depending on the spring used.

How much travel (at the shocks) does the factory sway bar allow?

Brave lol