Fox DSC rears in front?

[Bocephus]

Apologize for my tone, was more a reaction to the presentation in the MZ video.

Looks like you definitely need the sway length with your crazy current droop.

If you have the fender room to go to 3" of net non-392 bump (~19.25 shock length at bump) by relocating the shock bottom mounts to be level with the stock mounts as I mention above, it may give you back some uptravel, although it'd reduce down travel accordingly. Looks like you may need clearanced fender liners to accomplish that.

No apology needed, the irony is definitely there regardless of justifications. You made me chuckle (and then rush to defend! lol).

For the FOX piggy back , we went with the ones that are spec'ed for the 3.5 to 4" lift. They are most close to MC shock compress/extend ranges at 18.34 compressed and 30.31 stretched. I think your 19.34 reference was for the longer piggyback shock rated for 4.5 to 6" lift.

We experimented quite a bit with the Fox remote reservoir front shocks. For the remote reservoir shock, we used the shock rated for the 4.5 to 6" lift which is: Extended length - 30.51 inches, compressed length - 18.34 inches. In the end, and after discussions with Fox and MC, we agreed it was a fine idea to run the piggy-backs up front to avoid the hose clearance issue.

I'm going to look into the bilstein shock mount, thanks for sharing that. If that drops my shock lower and allows removal of a bump puck...it'd be worth it to gain a little more up travel. My down travel is more than I'll probably make use of, so I wouldn't mind the trade off.

I'm on the fence about a fender chop. I put the AAL kit on my last jeep, and had mixed feelings about it, and at least for that build, the fender chop didn't allow me to remove any pucks.

One thing I read - not sure the truth in it - is that the long bump towers in the 392 had to do with clearance for the engine. As in, it's not just about clearing fenders, you lose up travel for the sake of the 392 engine . However, when my shop chopped my bump towers to install the Fox hydro bumps, they cut the tower according to standard JLUR specs...they did not leave an extra inch and a half of the bump tower in view of original length. And, the clearance concerns were merely fenders. They set bumps to allow for slight tire/fender contact at max flex, ie full stuff but not going to rip anything off. They didn't encounter engine clearance issues, to my knowledge. Consider too that Jeep puts those long towers in XR's with the regular 3.6 and 2.0 engines...and that's just for sake of clearing the 35s. So it makes me wonder if the long bump towers actually have anything to do with the engine.

So, perhaps a fender chop and the bilstien shock mounts would gain me up travel. Gonna have to look into this. thanks for all the insights

Sponsored

 

[AccuTunedJL]

I'm surprised the sway bar link was the big hiccup. Nothing against your setup, but this can be overcome without needing to use rear shocks up front. Just wanted to chime in on that note so no one should be second guessing buying the standard front Fox 2.5 DSC shocks. We've installed a few of these now without any issues using our adjustable sway bar links.

Did these front shocks force you to run the wheel spacers?

Maybe I missed it, what was the reason for these raised lower shock mounts? Maybe just part of the kit?

(side note, currently working on a Jeep specific tech article reviewing shock fitment. Should be very helpful for the forum)

 

[GATORB8]

No apology needed, the irony is definitely there regardless of justifications. You made me chuckle (and then rush to defend! lol).

For the FOX piggy back , we went with the ones that are spec'ed for the 3.5 to 4" lift. They are most close to MC shock compress/extend ranges at 18.34 compressed and 30.31 stretched. I think your 19.34 reference was for the longer piggyback shock rated for 4.5 to 6" lift.

We experimented quite a bit with the Fox remote reservoir front shocks. For the remote reservoir shock, we used the shock rated for the 4.5 to 6" lift which is: Extended length - 30.51 inches, compressed length - 18.34 inches. In the end, and after discussions with Fox and MC, we agreed it was a fine idea to run the piggy-backs up front to avoid the hose clearance issue.

I'm going to look into the bilstein shock mount, thanks for sharing that. If that drops my shock lower and allows removal of a bump puck...it'd be worth it to gain a little more up travel. My down travel is more than I'll probably make use of, so I wouldn't mind the trade off.

I'm on the fence about a fender chop. I put the AAL kit on my last jeep, and had mixed feelings about it, and at least for that build, the fender chop didn't allow me to remove any pucks.

One thing I read - not sure the truth in it - is that the long bump towers in the 392 had to do with clearance for the engine. As in, it's not just about clearing fenders, you lose up travel for the sake of the 392 engine . However, when my shop chopped my bump towers to install the Fox hydro bumps, they cut the tower according to standard JLUR specs...they did not leave an extra inch and a half of the bump tower in view of original length. And, the clearance concerns were merely fenders. They set bumps to allow for slight tire/fender contact at max flex, ie full stuff but not going to rip anything off. They didn't encounter engine clearance issues, to my knowledge. Consider too that Jeep puts those long towers in XR's with the regular 3.6 and 2.0 engines...and that's just for sake of clearing the 35s. So it makes me wonder if the long bump towers actually have anything to do with the engine.

So, perhaps a fender chop and the bilstien shock mounts would gain me up travel. Gonna have to look into this. thanks for all the insights

Well, you know what they say about assuming... thanks for clarifying that. I was wondering how you were that close to the fenders.

That actually puts you in a pretty good spot now. Shock length on metal to metal stock bump should be around 16.25" for a standard and around 17.75" for the 392/XR. With the 17.43" shock compression and ~1.5" from the MC brackets, if you bump to just protect the shocks, you should still have about an inch more drivetrain/axle protection than the stock setup.

 

[GATORB8]

I'm surprised the sway bar link was the big hiccup. Nothing against your setup, but this can be overcome without needing to use rear shocks up front. Just wanted to chime in on that note so no one should be second guessing buying the standard front Fox 2.5 DSC shocks. We've installed a few of these now without any issues using our adjustable sway bar links.

Did these front shocks force you to run the wheel spacers?

Maybe I missed it, what was the reason for these raised lower shock mounts? Maybe just part of the kit?

(side note, currently working on a Jeep specific tech article reviewing shock fitment. Should be very helpful for the forum)

MC wanted outboard, but I'd assume the raising of the mount has more to do with extending the compressed length of their 6 packs. In addition to the lower mount, they drop the top so they can utilize the travel of a shock that is 13.25" compressed / 28.25" extended.

 

[AccuTunedJL]

There is a upper shock drop bracket as well?

 

[Bocephus]

I'm surprised the sway bar link was the big hiccup. Nothing against your setup, but this can be overcome without needing to use rear shocks up front. Just wanted to chime in on that note so no one should be second guessing buying the standard front Fox 2.5 DSC shocks. We've installed a few of these now without any issues using our adjustable sway bar links.

Did these front shocks force you to run the wheel spacers?

Maybe I missed it, what was the reason for these raised lower shock mounts? Maybe just part of the kit?

(side note, currently working on a Jeep specific tech article reviewing shock fitment. Should be very helpful for the forum)

You're right, could have gone with a shorter / adjustable link and we considered it, but I think that equates to limiting down travel and making use of the MC coils. No? Considered that the adjustable valving mitigates largely whatever valving difference exists (front remote vs rear piggy). And I considered that if the valving were just god-awful, well shops like your exist and I suspect can dial in a valve regardless of remote vs piggy. It just didn't seem like a painful trade-off, and we indeed started with the front remote resi and the shop spent some time test-fitting and considering options and trade-offs.


Not sure if those shock mounts were part of the kit, but I presume they were, or at least standard fare accessory for the MC lift kit. I did end up adding wheel spacers (Teraflex, and I believe 1.75), but that's mostly bc my wheels (titan 7 T-AK1) didn't have the right backspace. Didn't get the sense that the need for spacers was bc of the piggybacks being ran up front. I think spacers were anticipated in either case (ie even if we had run the front remote resi).

Honestly, I welcome critique of the set-up and ideas. I have more work planned, and I'm thinking about other suspension options long term. I think about long arms, and coil-overs, but not sure I want to hack off brackets and then it begs the question of whether it's smart to make such committed alterations with stock axles.

 

[GATORB8]

There is a upper shock drop bracket as well?

Available, but doesn't appear to be installed (or needed) here.

https://metalcloak.com/6pak-front-upper-shock-mount-kit-jl-wrangler.html

 

[GATORB8]

You're right, could have gone with a shorter / adjustable link and we considered it, but I think that equates to limiting down travel and making use of the MC coils. No? Considered that the adjustable valving mitigates largely whatever valving difference exists (front remote vs rear piggy). And I considered that if the valving were just god-awful, well shops like your exist and I suspect can dial in a valve regardless of remote vs piggy. It just didn't seem like a painful trade-off, and we indeed started with the front remote resi and the shop spent some time test-fitting and considering options and trade-offs.


Not sure if those shock mounts were part of the kit, but I presume they were, or at least standard fare accessory for the MC lift kit. I did end up adding wheel spacers (Teraflex, and I believe 1.75), but that's mostly bc my wheels (titan 7 T-AK1) didn't have the right backspace. Didn't get the sense that the need for spacers was bc of the piggybacks being ran up front. I think spacers were anticipated in either case (ie even if we had run the front remote resi).

Honestly, I welcome critique of the set-up and ideas. I have more work planned, and I'm thinking about other suspension options long term. I think about long arms, and coil-overs, but not sure I want to hack off brackets and then it begs the question of whether it's smart to make such committed alterations with stock axles.

Which rears are you running?

 

[AccuTunedJL]

You're right, could have gone with a shorter / adjustable link and we considered it, but I think that equates to limiting down travel and making use of the MC coils. No? Considered that the adjustable valving mitigates largely whatever valving difference exists (front remote vs rear piggy). And I considered that if the valving were just god-awful, well shops like your exist and I suspect can dial in a valve regardless of remote vs piggy. It just didn't seem like a painful trade-off, and we indeed started with the front remote resi and the shop spent some time test-fitting and considering options and trade-offs.


Not sure if those shock mounts were part of the kit, but I presume they were, or at least standard fare accessory for the MC lift kit. I did end up adding wheel spacers (Teraflex, and I believe 1.75), but that's mostly bc my wheels (titan 7 T-AK1) didn't have the right backspace. Didn't get the sense that the need for spacers was bc of the piggybacks being ran up front. I think spacers were anticipated in either case (ie even if we had run the front remote resi).

Honestly, I welcome critique of the set-up and ideas. I have more work planned, and I'm thinking about other suspension options long term. I think about long arms, and coil-overs, but not sure I want to hack off brackets and then it begs the question of whether it's smart to make such committed alterations with stock axles.

The suspension would need to be cycled properly to confirm what length is needed for the sway bar end links. Since there are a variety of lift heights, we make ours adjustable to make them just right. Yes you don't want them too short for a few reasons. Most of the time, the sway bar will sit pretty level at ride height if they are setup properly. See below (392, MC kit except for springs).

DSC adjusters may work fine for your needs. I wont dive into that too much.

I don't understand the need for that lower shock relocation bracket. You may be correct that they are needed for MC shocks.

Just a note on shock travel, we typically recommend about 1/3 - 2/3 of the shock travel be used for up-travel. 4-5" of up travel is ideal for a daily driver/weekend warrior looking for the best ride quality.

 

[GATORB8]

The suspension would need to be cycled properly to confirm what length is needed for the sway bar end links. Since there are a variety of lift heights, we make ours adjustable to make them just right. Yes you don't want them too short for a few reasons. Most of the time, the sway bar will sit pretty level at ride height if they are setup properly. See below (392, MC kit except for springs).

DSC adjusters may work fine for your needs. I wont dive into that too much.

I don't understand the need for that lower shock relocation bracket. You may be correct that they are needed for MC shocks.

Just a note on shock travel, we typically recommend about 1/3 - 2/3 of the shock travel be used for up-travel. 4-5" of up travel is ideal for a daily driver/weekend warrior looking for the best ride quality.

MC's notes on the lower brackets:

Engineered for strength the shock relocation brackets have been designed for a bolt in application and provides the needed clearance for the shock bodies from hitting the frame when articulating your Jeep. The MetalCloak Outboard Shock Mounts work for both Stock & Aftermarket shocks on either a Jeep JL Wrangler or JT Gladiator​

The 6 packs are fat, so I'm not sure if it's necessary for shock body to frame clearance on fully articulated droop with smaller bodies.

 

[Roky]

The Mount Zion video explains it. We went with the front remote reservoirs first, but the long MC links impacted the hose at flex, and the shop cautioned against it. the shop was in touch with both MC and Fox as we thought through options.

I was concerned of damping / valving differences. Fwiw, As others mentioned…MC puts the same shock at all four corners. These have the adjustable valves. I haven’t messed with them really at all, but I probably will. Middle setting for both dials on all four corners. The suspension feels more taut compared to mushy factory 392 setup. My last jeep had 2.5 Kings remote reservoirs. And so my points of comparison are - standard JLUR, JLUR on Kings and Evo coils, standard 392, and now the 392 on the MC coils and fox 2.5 resis. I’m super happy with it, maybe I don’t what I’m missing. If anything, I could have Accutune valve all four of them for my setup, but I don’t think that’s something I care about at the moment. Fwiw, I tried working with Accutune when setting up my jeep, but they didn’t have much going on for the 392 at the time, especially in my scenario of pairing the MC 3.5 with Fox shocks. I wanted to buy shocks from them, truly could not.

Some test fittings pics with dsc rears up-front. You can see here that more bump pucks are needed.

And flexing it out …

mt zion did lots for me here. The MC lift and fox shocks, fox front hydro bumps, MC steering and track bars, Woods front and rear shafts, RCV front axle shaft (rear is stock). 4.88 gearing. LOD signature rails. Control arm and shock skids, diff cover and skids.
Just a great shop to work with. Pics and texts and calls throughout everything. I live in Virginia with 5 or 6 shops in proximity, but I drive the 100 miles to Mt Zion and will continue.

I daily drive this and weekend trail it. Need a bellypan before I take it to Rausch Creek probably, but there are trails in the area that I can have fun on without risking my oil pan. I’m 99% sure im going with Artec kit, just saving my nickels.

Nice job on your rig….. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why not just move the resi hose out of harms way…… I’ve got long travel shocks and I’m currently testing MC sway links, and they do not hit my resi hose

….here’s how my hose is routed….

But hey, more than one way to skin a cat…… Nice work……

 

[GATORB8]

The suspension would need to be cycled properly to confirm what length is needed for the sway bar end links. Since there are a variety of lift heights, we make ours adjustable to make them just right. Yes you don't want them too short for a few reasons. Most of the time, the sway bar will sit pretty level at ride height if they are setup properly. See below (392, MC kit except for springs).

DSC adjusters may work fine for your needs. I wont dive into that too much.

I don't understand the need for that lower shock relocation bracket. You may be correct that they are needed for MC shocks.

Just a note on shock travel, we typically recommend about 1/3 - 2/3 of the shock travel be used for up-travel. 4-5" of up travel is ideal for a daily driver/weekend warrior looking for the best ride quality.

I believe MC used a one size fits all approach for the sways to prevent inversion/parralel link extension.

With the outboard mounts and uppers, the 6 packs end up well into the low 30" extension. With OP at around 30" of extension looks like he may be able to reduce sway length by an inch or two if he really needed to.

 

[Bocephus]

Nice job on your rig….. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why not just move the resi hose out of harms way…… I’ve got long travel shocks and I’m currently testing MC sway links, and they do not hit my resi hose

….here’s how my hose is routed….

But hey, more than one way to skin a cat…… Nice work……

I asked about routing the hose out of harms way, they didn't find a route that they were happy with. Looks like you did ? ?

 

[AccuTunedJL]

MC's notes on the lower brackets:

Engineered for strength the shock relocation brackets have been designed for a bolt in application and provides the needed clearance for the shock bodies from hitting the frame when articulating your Jeep. The MetalCloak Outboard Shock Mounts work for both Stock & Aftermarket shocks on either a Jeep JL Wrangler or JT Gladiator​

The 6 packs are fat, so I'm not sure if it's necessary for shock body to frame clearance on fully articulated droop with smaller bodies.

Totally understand the outboarding concept, and maybe the raised mount is part of that design. Most likely a MC shock issue and not intended for every shock used with their kits.

 

[Bocephus]

The suspension would need to be cycled properly to confirm what length is needed for the sway bar end links. Since there are a variety of lift heights, we make ours adjustable to make them just right. Yes you don't want them too short for a few reasons. Most of the time, the sway bar will sit pretty level at ride height if they are setup properly. See below (392, MC kit except for springs).

DSC adjusters may work fine for your needs. I wont dive into that too much.

I don't understand the need for that lower shock relocation bracket. You may be correct that they are needed for MC shocks.

Just a note on shock travel, we typically recommend about 1/3 - 2/3 of the shock travel be used for up-travel. 4-5" of up travel is ideal for a daily driver/weekend warrior looking for the best ride quality.

I'm close to 4" on up travel, including my bump compression. But I'd do some work to gain an inch (that's what he said).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on DSC adjusters vs the Accutune magic. I tried buying from you guys back in March, but at the time I think you guys were still trying to dial in for 392.

Sponsored