MC game changer vs Rock Jock Pro

[Emmanuelmv]

Add Rock Krawler to the short list.

I’ve considered them in the past, seems like MC is usually recommended over RK.

I have the MC 3.5 with the MC shocks. Runs great both on and off highway. I can do 85 on the interstate and do Blackbear pass equally easy. 2021 JLUR diesel on 37.

How did you decide on going with a 3.5 instead ?

Sponsored

 

[Philly_]

Having had both MC and RK (RK was on a JKU), I’m a really big fan of MC, even with the Rocksports. Tons of flex, and the duroflex joints take out a ton of the road vibration. I think that’s one of the reason everyone seems to agree it drives better than stock.

From a corrosion standpoint, the gold zinc on the MC stuff holds up great in the salt as well.

I don’t hear much about the RJ stuff, and that might because MC and RK are so dominant in the space that for most it doesn’t make sense to stray from the beaten path.

I think with Clayton’s stiffer springs it really shines when you’re more loaded down with gear more often than having the jeep empty. I keep my Jeep as light as possible and the MC springs feel fantastic while it’s empty, and just as good when I’m loaded with people and camping gear.

With a winch, hard top, and factory steel bumpers, I got exactly 2.5” in the rear, and 3” up front, but I had 3/4” sag on the factory setup from adding my winch.

Any reason you wanted the MC 2.5” and RJ 3.5”? I run 35’s on 2.5, and probably have room for 37’s, but ultimate plan was to swap to 3.5” springs when I bump up tire size. I like all my room for up travel.

 

[Emmanuelmv]

Having had both MC and RK (RK was on a JKU), I’m a really big fan of MC, even with the Rocksports. Tons of flex, and the duroflex joints take out a ton of the road vibration. I think that’s one of the reason everyone seems to agree it drives better than stock.

From a corrosion standpoint, the gold zinc on the MC stuff holds up great in the salt as well.

I don’t hear much about the RJ stuff, and that might because MC and RK are so dominant in the space that for most it doesn’t make sense to stray from the beaten path.

I think with Clayton’s stiffer springs it really shines when you’re more loaded down with gear more often than having the jeep empty. I keep my Jeep as light as possible and the MC springs feel fantastic while it’s empty, and just as good when I’m loaded with people and camping gear.

With a winch, hard top, and factory steel bumpers, I got exactly 2.5” in the rear, and 3” up front, but I had 3/4” sag on the factory setup from adding my winch.

Any reason you wanted the MC 2.5” and RJ 3.5”? I run 35’s on 2.5, and probably have room for 37’s, but ultimate plan was to swap to 3.5” springs when I bump up tire size. I like all my room for up travel.

I appreciate all the information, it’s good to hear from someone who’s ran both MC and RK. I was concerned about the ride difference when loaded and unloaded, but it sounds like that won’t be an issue.

My goal is to run 37’s, from what I read that’s all l would really need to clear them. Which is why I chose the 2.5’ from Metalcloak, Rock Jock only offers a 3.5’ lift. Do you think it would be beneficial to opt for the 3.5’ from MC? I would also swap out the drive shaft of course.

 

[word302]

I’ve considered them in the past, seems like MC is usually recommended over RK.



How did you decide on going with a 3.5 instead ?

With the new Adventure series RK just has many more options than anyone else and arguably the best joints on the market with the best warranty. I've installed and driven both and my choice is always RK without question. You really can't go wrong with either though.

 

[Philly_]

I appreciate all the information, it’s good to hear from someone who’s ran both MC and RK. I was concerned about the ride difference when loaded and unloaded, but it sounds like that won’t be an issue.

My goal is to run 37’s, from what I read that’s all l would really need to clear them. Which is why I chose the 2.5’ from Metalcloak, Rock Jock only offers a 3.5’ lift. Do you think it would be beneficial to opt for the 3.5’ from MC? I would also swap out the drive shaft of course.

Just depends on your preferences for lift height, as there are pros and cons to both.

With super long shocks like the Rocksports, you’ll still have plenty of droop that you won’t have to worry about less up travel limiting your flex off-road. Also, the lower height gives you a better center of gravity for on road manners and off-road on steep or off camber climbs.

Some negatives are, depending in how much gear/weight you run, you might find yourself hitting the bump stops more often than you’d like, or that you want/need to gut/trim your fender flares to regain some of that up travel. Also, your break over, approach, and departure angles won’t be quite as good as if you had that extra inch of lift.

I don’t plan on gutting my stock fenders because I am really happy with the way they look from the factory and my compressor sits right behind the driver’s side fender liner, so I can’t support most aftermarket options anyways. I do have my eyes set on some high clearance aluminum bumpers at some point, though, and will probably see if I’m happy with the 2.5” lift and 37’s before I swap springs. Both the 3.5” and 2.5” MC Gamechanger are identical aside from the spring lengths, so it’s an easy change.

If you run a smaller 37 like BFG’s, you may not need the extra bump stop or feel like you need to trim the fenders at a 2.5” lift, and to help with approach/departure angles you can always swap to high clearance bumpers.

Essentially, the whole thing is a balancing act that is going to depend mostly on what on-road and off-road characteristics are most important to you, as well as what other mods you may want to add or avoid as you continue building and using your Jeep.

 

[limeade]

There's nothing magical about the MC lift, as compared to RK or RJ. Where MC shines is with pairing their shocks and mounts to the amount of articulation their lifts offer. I would bet RK and RJ lifts offer just as much articulation when paired with the correct length of shock.

Unfortunately, most people buy the shock for the advertised lift height, which is what limits articulation. As an example, I have the RK X Factor/No Limits 3.5" lift and use Fox 2.5" with DSC in the 4.5"-6" length. With my lift and amount of bump stop, these shocks are the perfect length and I maximize my up and down travel. These shocks are dang near the exact measurements which MC offers with their Rocksports in their 3.5" lifts. If I were to use shocks advertised for a 3.5" lift, I'd be limiting my articulation.

I've used RJ arms on a TJ and the Currie Johnny Joint is one of the best around. I would not hesitate to use the RJ lift and match it with the correct length shock. If you want to get all the articulation possible, look at installing the RJ front axle upper control arm Johnny Joint bushings when you install whichever lift you decide. These joints are the "missing piece" to maximize front articulation as they replace the stock clevite style bushing with Johnny Joints.

I am a fan of most MC items and have their skid plate system and Sportgate tire carrier. I prefer the RK lift due to their joints, sway bar links (their No Limits links are the best in the business for Rubicon owners), and overall quality. If you're wanting a rock crawler, you won't go wrong with either the MC or RK. Otherwise, the RJ and Clayton are also solid choices.

 

[mcaltitude]

Unfortunately, most people buy the shock for the advertised lift height, which is what limits articulation. As an example, I have the RK X Factor/No Limits 3.5" lift and use Fox 2.5" with DSC in the 4.5"-6" length. With my lift and amount of bump stop, these shocks are the perfect length and I maximize my up and down travel. These shocks are dang near the exact measurements which MC offers with their Rocksports in their 3.5" lifts. If I were to use shocks advertised for a 3.5" lift, I'd be limiting my articulation.

Can you clarify the math here? Are you saying that with a lift of 3.5” and bump stop of assuming >1” that puts you into the 4.5”-6” Fox shocks?

I’m looking at the 2.5” MC Gamechanger lift but was following the crowd on getting the Fox DSC for a 2-3” lift. I had debated if I’d want a 3.5” lift with 37s later, but if I’m reading you right I’m already starting out sub optimally. Appreciate your info!

 

[outlaw.taco]

From Rock Jock website if you look up the coil springs information.

• You can expect around a 4 in. lift in Sport and Sahara models. Rubicons models, expect about 2.5 in. more lift over the stock Rubicon springs.

The joints each lift kit uses are what separates them.

RK Krawler Joint - 60 degrees misalignment (RK use only 1 per control arm)

Johnny Joint - 40 degrees of articulation per joint, 30+ degrees is typical (varies based on mount width and bolt diameter).

MC Duroflex - Articulation (34 degrees)

 

[Kraxler]

I’ve considered them in the past, seems like MC is usually recommended over RK.



How did you decide on going with a 3.5 instead ?

Had on my last Jeep JK and also the greater flex available.

 

[Roky]

I’ve considered them in the past, seems like MC is usually recommended over RK.



How did you decide on going with a 3.5 instead ?

The main reason for people preferring MC over RK is maintenance free joints on the MC, and they’re customer service is more accessible, you can reach them on this forum, as well as the conventional ways, where you have to call or Email RK with questions… they’re equally as helpful, but a little less bedside manner I guess you could say……RK also is thought of as more of an off road lift….. But they offer maintenance free joints now and have very good on road manners….. there’s other reasons as well , like some love the gold bling, lol….. but these are the most common I’ve encountered…….

 

[limeade]

Can you clarify the math here? Are you saying that with a lift of 3.5” and bump stop of assuming >1” that puts you into the 4.5”-6” Fox shocks?

I’m looking at the 2.5” MC Gamechanger lift but was following the crowd on getting the Fox DSC for a 2-3” lift. I had debated if I’d want a 3.5” lift with 37s later, but if I’m reading you right I’m already starting out sub optimally. Appreciate your info!

The best way to figure out which length shock you need with a lift other than MC, is to install the lift and then cycle your suspension without shocks to get your compressed and extended lengths, then get the correct shock to match. You'd measure from the upper shock mount bolt to the lower mount bolt to get the overall shock length. Then use the shock manufacturer specs to find the proper setup for you. You can add/subtract bumpstops to fit your setup as each rig is different (type of fenders, wheel well liners, weight, control arm clearance, wheel back spacing, etc.).

For my setup with a 3.5" lift, I went with the Fox 2.5 shocks advertised for a 4.5"-6" lift. I'm using high clearance aftermarket fenders and wheel well liners and run less bumpstop than recommended in the RK instructions. My front tires do slightly rub to tops of my fender wells, but don't cause any damage and I'm good with it as I don't want to add any more bumpstop.

For a novice, it is perfectly fine to install a lift and shocks per the manufacturer instructions and guidelines. I want to squeeze every bit of articulation from the lift and took the extra steps to figure out where I can make those gains.

 

[Philly_]

Something else to note when installing longer shocks optimized for a different lift height is that it may be worth having them professionally tuned. I have no personal experience with this, but the way most shocks are valved is for the suspension to rest near the middle of the shock stroke.

I've heard good things about Accutune Off-Road and they could likely chime in more on this.

 

[failsafe306]

I went with MC because it seemed like their joints were a great combo of good flex and durability. RK has a long history of revising their joints due to discovering durability issues with the previous version, and the newer Johnny Joints used in the RJ kit seem to have issues with the zerks accepting grease due to tight tolerances, forcing owners to disassemble three joint just to lube them.

 

[word302]

I went with MC because it seemed like their joints were a great combo of good flex and durability. RK has a long history of revising their joints due to discovering durability issues with the previous version, and the newer Johnny Joints used in the RJ kit seem to have issues with the zerks accepting grease due to tight tolerances, forcing owners to disassemble three joint just to lube them.

RK didn’t “revise their joints” due to durability issues. They changed them to utilize grease that was more readily available. Yes they had a bad run of bushings from a supplier that they no longer use. They made all their customers whole. The adventure series joints aren’t a replacement to the X-factor joints, they are simply another option. Should a company stop progressing and innovating because they have parts that work? That’s a silly argument.

 

[failsafe306]

RK didn’t “revise their joints” due to durability issues. They changed them to utilize grease that was more readily available. Yes they had a bad run of bushings from a supplier that they no longer use. They made all their customers whole. The adventure series joints aren’t a replacement to the X-factor joints, they are simply another option. Should a company stop progressing and innovating because they have parts that work? That’s a silly argument.

We all know you’re a fan boy, but that’s my opinion on RK. I remember people having issues with their joints back in the JK days. All that being said, after talking with Roky about RK, I was all set to buy a set of their X factor arms up until this happened on their FB page. I’m the one that called them out. See below.

Sponsored