JKOwners Forum banner

Which kit

1 - 20 of 151 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've used the search button (apparently I spend too much time on Pirate and expect to get yelled at) but still haven't found what im looking for. Going to be upgrading my front and rear suspension soon. Going 14" 2.5 coilovers front/rear and after EJS this year I am debating between RK and Genright. Does anyone have experience with either the RK 3 link rear or Genright double triangulated 4 link rear? Or both? Pros and cons of either? I know most guys on here love Rock Krawler and I don't see too much genright stuff. Seeing the genright JK in action at EJS with their 3 link front and 4 link rear was just incredible. Wanted to see what everyones thoughts are? My jeep doesn't like RK's heims so I would ditch those no matter what and go johnny joints. I have gone through 3 sets of RK control arm heims in 10k miles. The most recent ones I went through (I'm talking completely toasted) in about 4 months.
I know that the genright kit requires gas tank relocation while the RK 3 link doesn't. I don't know all the advantages or disadvantages of the double triangulated 4 link versus the 3 link. Speak up lets hear experiences and opinions. Thanks guys!
 

· JKO Dickhead
Joined
·
2,597 Posts
If tracking is correct... My RK 3 link kit will be here tomorrow.

I will be running a 3 link mid arm rear with only RK 2.5 springs and will have a write up done on install and performance within a few weeks.

I almost went with the genright four link from a buddy's abandoned project, but the price of the genright tank made me drop that plan real quick.

I couldn't find a lot of information on the 3 li k on only a 2.5 max travel kit, so I don't know how much better it will perform... But I assume it will be a big improvement over the stock 4 link
 

· Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Yeah I think the gas tank relocation is a huge negative/roadblock for most guys looking at it. I mean an extra $1100 is expensive when looking at doing a rear suspension.
I'm very curious to see that writeup. I'm currently sitting on their 3.5" midarm so that could be kind of a cool alternative. I know the 3 link will do a ton for a midarm.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
I personally like the genright setup Better and I'm running full Rockkrawler suspension. Rockkrawler also offers a 4 link rear for the 2 door guys like myself. The only thing I don't like about the genright setup is $$$. I would do the 4 link right now if I had the knowledge to set it up correctly.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,363 Posts
im debating this same thing, and i think im going to go with rk. i currently have a rk 2.5 max travel kit and im happy with it and their products. i think that the genright kit may be superior (just by a touch) and more comprehensive, but the price of admission is also a lot higher in the kit itself, not mentioning the supporting mods you have to do to make it work.

not swaying you away from gen right at all, but for the the dollar signs point me towards rk since i know the quality is there and there are a lot of people very happily running their three links here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
im debating this same thing, and i think im going to go with rk. i currently have a rk 2.5 max travel kit and im happy with it and their products. i think that the genright kit may be superior (just by a touch) and more comprehensive, but the price of admission is also a lot higher in the kit itself, not mentioning the supporting mods you have to do to make it work.

not swaying you away from gen right at all, but for the the dollar signs point me towards rk since i know the quality is there and there are a lot of people very happily running their three links here.
I totally understand. The price of genright stuff is just enormous. I saw a post today from Pig of Poly saying they had looked at doing the same type of thing Genright did but that the retail cost was so high it would be prohibitive to buyers and not worth pursuing. I ran the RK 3 link kit front/rear on my 2dr JK and it was super flexy as hell. I am just sort of put off with RK recently considering how much trouble I have had with their joints. I also think the genright stuff is just sick and I have never used it and I like to try out new things.

Hey, where's the bacon option???
Oh no! I was one too many beers in and forgot the bacon option! Blasphemy! :suicide: :suicide:
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,207 Posts
I've used the search button (apparently I spend too much time on Pirate and expect to get yelled at) but still haven't found what im looking for. Going to be upgrading my front and rear suspension soon. Going 14" 2.5 coilovers front/rear and after EJS this year I am debating between RK and Genright. Does anyone have experience with either the RK 3 link rear or Genright double triangulated 4 link rear? Or both? Pros and cons of either? I know most guys on here love Rock Krawler and I don't see too much genright stuff. Seeing the genright JK in action at EJS with their 3 link front and 4 link rear was just incredible. Wanted to see what everyones thoughts are? My jeep doesn't like RK's heims so I would ditch those no matter what and go johnny joints. I have gone through 3 sets of RK control arm heims in 10k miles. The most recent ones I went through (I'm talking completely toasted) in about 4 months.
I know that the genright kit requires gas tank relocation while the RK 3 link doesn't. I don't know all the advantages or disadvantages of the double triangulated 4 link versus the 3 link. Speak up lets hear experiences and opinions. Thanks guys!
I have a bit of experience with the RK 3-link and really think it's a great lift setup. Whether you go short arm or long arm. BUT, if you look at the incredible layout of the GenRight, to me there really isn't even a question as to which lift to go with. When you think about all the crap hanging down on most lifts including the RK's, cleaning up the underbelly and ridding the axle of all that metal just begging to be ripped off, the GenRight has my vote 110%.

I run Johnny Joints on everything and I don't think you can get a better joint, period. Articulation is great and they are quiet, quiet, quiet. I never feel that they limit my flex in any way. My only issue is with the stock mounting brackets not providing proper clearance for the joint to move to it's fullest extent without rubbing. Not the JJ's fault!

The reason you don't see many of the GenRight lifts around is due to cost, bottom line. Most all of us are cheap asses as you already know and when you can get a very, very functional bolt on lift from RK that will perform on the trail all day long, it makes it very hard to justify something as expensive as the GenRight setup. That said, if one doesn't screw around changing lifts, shocks, CA's, flex joints, mounting brackets, etc.. you could probably afford the GenRight out the gate much easier than throwing piles of money into changing things constantly that ultimately your not happy with.

I'm very happy with my current lift and it performs really well. However, the GenRight is the only other lift I really, really want. It is on my dream list and hopefully I can have it someday soon! You could go with the RK and most likely you won't be disappointed, but if you want to be absolutely satisfied and not be looking back, GenRight is the real deal as long as you go all out and do everything above the axles!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
I have run a 3 link long arm and just got done building a double triangulated 4 link rear with fuel tank relocate. Running 4" of lift with outboard 2.0 coil overs.
I am also running a stretch.

Lots and lots of work. Even with the fuel tank relocate there are other limiting factors such as cross members that need to be moved with a lcog build. I used a gen-right tj crawler tank and mounted it up with a new rear floor. I am still working out the fine/show details and have to come up with a new fuel fill cap since I am spilling fuel when I get off camber.

I did use the axle bridge from genright because it can be used as a 3 link or 4 link. I used it with the old 3 link and am using it with the 4 link. I would recommend if getting the bridge you get it already welded up, even if you know how to weld. They do such a nice tig job on it and with their jigs it is nice and square.

Cost is one factor in not seeing too many of these kits, another I think is that if you can cut and relocate new cross members you can just build the whole suspension yourself like I did if you have the time.

At some points I was wishing I had let someone else do all the calculations but after finishing the frame mounts cross member the rest was cake.

So far I have only had it out on the trails once but was very happy with the performance and feel a bit more secure having two upper arms.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
If tracking is correct... My RK 3 link kit will be here tomorrow.

I will be running a 3 link mid arm rear with only RK 2.5 springs and will have a write up done on install and performance within a few weeks.

I almost went with the genright four link from a buddy's abandoned project, but the price of the genright tank made me drop that plan real quick.

I couldn't find a lot of information on the 3 li k on only a 2.5 max travel kit, so I don't know how much better it will perform... But I assume it will be a big improvement over the stock 4 link
looking forward to this review
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
I would highly recommend that you install new axle control arm, shock, and raised track bar mounts to take advantage of ground clearance and have everything lined up correctly. Rotate those coil mounts too. Doing all that work you might as well do it right.
 

· RIP Brad
Joined
·
2,898 Posts
I think is that if you can cut and relocate new cross members you can just build the whole suspension yourself like I did if you have the time.
x2.... seems to me that once you have to start relocating big items, you have really gone into customland and should be looking at different ideas.

While I haven't seen the detailed pics of the RK lift, I have seen some of the GR ones. The rear doesn't look right. Not at all. Now maybe I am not getting the right angle on the pics, but the separation on the frame side looks way too little.

After building my own double tri link on my JK, I can tell you the way they have that mounted, they threw traditional suspension design out the window. It looks like the decisions they made were for packaging and end appearance reasons.

If you look at the GR suspension links at teh frame side, you see the uppers mounted on the inside frame rails and the lowers are sort of in the middle, but up above the frame rails. There can't be much more than a couple of inches of separation with the height of the frame rail being what it is. Look at the axle side... there is 8 or 10 inches (looks to be).



Separation should be closer to a 1/4 inch of difference (well.. that is a goal to shoot for).

If you look at what I did on mine, you will see what you have to do, to get the proper setup.



Obviously work in progress pics, but you get the idea.

I have obtained 1/4" of separation between front and rear on mine.





And maintain all that clean axle goodness.



On the frame side, it's a problem, no? Yes... it is. I wasn't happy when I learned about suspension design and that proper separation (I am new to it and my knowledge is light... so correct me if I get some wrong). So I had to make the decision to do it right or go with the idea that most, if not all bolt on kit manufactures take... throw conventionally proven methods out the door. So what I will do is create a sub frame to contain the link bracketry and give me the flat belly GR has obtained.... but mine will have correct the separation and geometry. The down side to doing it right is a lowered belly height.... correctable only by lifting the COG. Luckily, the boat anchors are unsprung.

Not sure what RK has done in the rear, but the GR kit looks like compromise city and if I was spending that kind of coin, I'd want perfection. I can, with 100% certainty, tell you that I have less in my front and rear links than GR charges for only the rear. I am going to guess that if I put their matching front in the equation, I'd have my struts paid for as well.

Now I am completely aware that few will ever do a custom suspension... but design methods should be of importance. Proper setup is proper setup. What we want (flat belly and super low COG) and what we can have are two different things... if we do it right.

Also.... it should be said, that to get that clean axle look, you'll likely have to put holes in your body to clear the coilovers/struts.... oh yeah, factor that into the cost as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,527 Posts
x2.... seems to me that once you have to start relocating big items, you have really gone into customland and should be looking at different ideas.

While I haven't seen the detailed pics of the RK lift, I have seen some of the GR ones. The rear doesn't look right. Not at all. Now maybe I am not getting the right angle on the pics, but the separation on the frame side looks way too little.

After building my own double tri link on my JK, I can tell you the way they have that mounted, they threw traditional suspension design out the window. It looks like the decisions they made were for packaging and end appearance reasons.

If you look at the GR suspension links at teh frame side, you see the uppers mounted on the inside frame rails and the lowers are sort of in the middle, but up above the frame rails. There can't be much more than a couple of inches of separation with the height of the frame rail being what it is. Look at the axle side... there is 8 or 10 inches (looks to be).



Separation should be closer to a 1/4 inch of difference (well.. that is a goal to shoot for).

If you look at what I did on mine, you will see what you have to do, to get the proper setup.



Obviously work in progress pics, but you get the idea.

I have obtained 1/4" of separation between front and rear on mine.





And maintain all that clean axle goodness.



On the frame side, it's a problem, no? Yes... it is. I wasn't happy when I learned about suspension design and that proper separation (I am new to it and my knowledge is light... so correct me if I get some wrong). So I had to make the decision to do it right or go with the idea that most, if not all bolt on kit manufactures take... throw conventionally proven methods out the door. So what I will do is create a sub frame to contain the link bracketry and give me the flat belly GR has obtained.... but mine will have correct the separation and geometry. The down side to doing it right is a lowered belly height.... correctable only by lifting the COG. Luckily, the boat anchors are unsprung.

Not sure what RK has done in the rear, but the GR kit looks like compromise city and if I was spending that kind of coin, I'd want perfection. I can, with 100% certainty, tell you that I have less in my front and rear links than GR charges for only the rear. I am going to guess that if I put their matching front in the equation, I'd have my struts paid for as well.

Now I am completely aware that few will ever do a custom suspension... but design methods should be of importance. Proper setup is proper setup. What we want (flat belly and super low COG) and what we can have are two different things... if we do it right.

Also.... it should be said, that to get that clean axle look, you'll likely have to put holes in your body to clear the coilovers/struts.... oh yeah, factor that into the cost as well.
the RK one is pretty straight forward. you weld in a mount that runs front to back on the "tunnel" cross supports. And it goes to their truss.

it seemed to work really well on nick's. Welding in the mounts for the frame is a little tough (hard to see). But overall it's a pretty straight forward install. as long as you don't mind having a rear trac bar it was fine.

i'm a big 4 link fan though. a correctly set up 4 link performs awesome. however, a poorly setup 4 link usually rides and performs like poo. I'm not saying GR is poorly setup. Just something to think about. my old TJ was sold to a guy that did his own 4 link. on paper it looks right but something's off. and it WILL NOT flex. it's the damnest thing lol.


also, what issues are people having with the krawler joints? mine on the big jeep have been holding up well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
Out of those two, GR hands down. I've never been a fan of RK's joints and bushings. If you can, get the crossmember and mounts and build the rest yourself. You'll probably save some serious coin.

As for the vertical separation of the GR setup, it does look to be on the light side. Geometrically, having the lower mounts @ the axle tucked up like they are help make up for that. Regardless, the less separation you have, the less leverage the arms have against the rotation of the housing. Fortunately, Currie JJ's are up to the task so I wouldn't consider it a big issue. Personally, I would stick to frame-mounted lowers using high clearance brackets from Poly Performance. Sure, having a perfectly smooth underbody is great but once you understand the costs in regards to suspension performance, you may not appreciate it as much.

Also, some of the things GR says in the "kit features" and "notes" are kind of bogus....I'd recommend educating yourself on link suspension so that you can make up your own mind.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
I don't think the separation is as important on the frame side as the axle since it cannot rotate. You need it at the axle for anti squat and with proper lengths on the arms you can control the pinion angle better then having to worry about two large arches that have that much separation. I see that genright does that so you can maintain the room to run an exhaust to the rear, something I can not do with mine. I terminate it under the belly.

On my set up the upper arms are actually longer then the bottoms and I have about 2" of separation between the two. I have 8" of separation at the axle. Handling is very good with the outboard coil overs and no sway bars, no top heavy feel to it at all but I am pretty wide and long.

I can fully droop it with 12" of down travel with no binds in the driveshaft. I have about 4.5" of up travel.

On the JK is is really impractical to have that much separation at the frame due to what you said about belly clearance. I guess it really would come down to what you are doing with it, high speed running or rock crawling. Different needs will require different set ups.
 

· RIP Brad
Joined
·
2,898 Posts
having a perfectly smooth underbody is great but once you understand the costs in regards to suspension performance, you may not appreciate it as much.
That is what I was saying after I learned about things... my decision was to lose some belly clearance in order to protect everything... thus I'll end up going up. Low COG will suffer, but I am hoping at about 87" wide and 115" long, I'll get the stability there. Time will tell.

I don't think the separation is as important on the frame side as the axle since it cannot rotate.
School me on Instant Center.... apparently my thoughts are incorrect as I believed that separation values affected this number?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
I don't think the separation is as important on the frame side as the axle since it cannot rotate. You need it at the axle for anti squat and with proper lengths on the arms you can control the pinion angle better then having to worry about two large arches that have that much separation.
You can't say it's important on one end and not the other.....the separation defines where the instant center is, which defines how the rear suspension will behave when weight is transferred. The general rule of thumb is frame side separation being 75% of axle side. That doesn't even bring up the subject of roll axis angle and roll center height, both of which are directly affected by the angle and triangulation of the lower control arms.

The problem with flush xmember-mounted lowers is that the uppers need to be through the tub to provide sufficient separation when compared to more traditional frame-mounted lowers. The uppers @ the axle will also need to be higher above the diff and in order to not have a big up travel limitation, the tub will need to go bye bye there as well.....

That's exactly why suspensions like that work much better on buggies. There's no tub to deal with, no fat constraints to work against, and you can put things wherever you want. If you want the most suspension with the least amount of limitations in a full body rig, I'm afraid the lowers will have to run under the frame.

Like I said earlier, I'd take the GR setup out of those two but IMO, you can do better than either while probably spending less.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Mine turned out quite well, front 3 link has about 4-5 inches of seperation at the axle and like 2 at the frame and it climbs right up everything. The rear has about 7 or 8 on the axle side and about 4-5 at the frame and i didnt have to cut any major frame crossmembers out. I just cut the frame off after it curves up. I will be double triangulating the rear to get rid of rear steer. Genright puts a ton of R&D in there product and it shows.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
Although I am not running the GR suspension kit, I do know that it takes additional modifications like the gas tank addressed earlier. For what it's worth, I would add though that the GR suspension has been put through all of the major trails (KoH, Moab, Rubicon, etc) in the GR JK Rig by Tony and the GR team, as well as installed and displayed in the following pictures.


 

· RIP Brad
Joined
·
2,898 Posts
The more I see the GR setup, the less I like it... and I am a HUGE fan of triangulated four links (I did one on mine). I guess... my opinion is that if you are going to that level with a suspension, you might as go custom. It will be less expensive and likely work much better. I don't care how much R&D GR put into that kit, it is full of compromise.

I haven't seen good pics of the RK rear... so I am blind there. It may be no better than this abortion.

Price out a universal kit at Barnes, Ruffstuff, Artec, etc... you will see what I mean. You will also have options and upgrades unavailable in the GR setup. The downside is that it will cost a ton to install if you don't do it yourself. Shops, IMO, like easy bolt on crap as it is easy to price labor and any fucking idiot with a wrench can do it. They make money doing bolt on installs... a custom job, could be a headache for them when it comes to cost... either you will be unhappy or they will be. It's going to be expensive.


It is my opinion to do it right... or as close to that as possible. As Imped verified my understanding of Instant Center, this separation is important to making the rig perform.
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top