Any bad experiences with Clayton Long Arms?

I have wheeled the pee out of my XJ on short arms for years. I am going to pick up a set of Clayton long arms tomorrow night. They are used with about 1500 miles on them, almost all on road (hard to do 1500 miles off road back east). Assuming the bushings are good and the Johnny Joints are good (both easy fixes if they arent) I will install it this weekend.

Before I buy I want to know if anyone has ever had a bad experience with the Clayton system. Everything I can find is good, great products, beefy, great customer service etc. All folks who have had them seem to love them. I know there can be problems with radius arms unloading but not everyone seems to have it for some reason (maybe they dont recognize it?).

Anyhow post up and let me know if you what your BAD experiences are if any. If its all good you can say that too, but I am interested in not making a mistake here or at least knowing what demons will lurk under my rig after the long arms are in.

John

Get em, you'll love them. A buddy of mine runs them and although they give up a little clearance compared to the RE arms or RK arms, they can take the beating. 2" square stock! talk about beef!

I am surprised that they give up clearance compared to the RK arms. I thought the RK arms mounted to the bottom of the frame rails and the brackets stuck down a couple inches (rock anchor in reverse) whereas the Claytons tucked up into the cross member and only sat a a fraction of an inch.

Anyone have a picture of the Claytons and how far the cross member and of the arms stick down?

John

I found some pics on the Clayton site. The brackets hang down a couple inches below the frame rails. As badly as I need to replace my worn out short arms (acme threads are shot and very loose) the idea of giving up 2" of ground clearance is just too much. I am on 31's with everything tucked up nice and tight with good skids to slide on. With the Claytons I would need to be on 35's to get the same ground clearance I have right now with 31"s.

The Claytons are only $500 (cross member and arms). I guess I could buy it, install it and them build my own cross member raising the arms and moving them inboard at the cross member end like the BDS long arm cross member. I already have the steel stock for the cross member (BSFAB style) or I could use the Clayton cross member (its removable) and move the mounts in board and up to get the clearance back.

Well I will at least go look at it tomorrow night and see if I can modify it to get some ground clearance back.

John

nosigma said:

I found some pics on the Clayton site. The brackets hang down a couple inches below the frame rails. As badly as I need to replace my worn out short arms (acme threads are shot and very loose) the idea of giving up 2" of ground clearance is just too much. I am on 31's with everything tucked up nice and tight with good skids to slide on. With the Claytons I would need to be on 35's to get the same ground clearance I have right now with 31"s.

The Claytons are only $500 (cross member and arms). I guess I could buy it, install it and them build my own cross member raising the arms and moving them inboard at the cross member end like the BDS long arm cross member. I already have the steel stock for the cross member (BSFAB style) or I could use the Clayton cross member (its removable) and move the mounts in board and up to get the clearance back.

Well I will at least go look at it tomorrow night and see if I can modify it to get some ground clearance back.

John

Click to expand...

You will be fine. If you REALLY wanted some of the clearance back...You could almost just shave off some of the bracket. I would get them. Like you said, you could build a new cross member. I would at least get the arms.

Why would you want long arms if you plan on keeping the 31"s? You don't need the kind of flex long arms provide if you plan on running tiny tires, you'll get hung up on or unable to climb obstacles regardless of how low your breakover angle is. Most people step up to LAs when they plan to run 35"s and have the corresponding 5-7"+ lift. If you're only on 3-4" of lift that accompany a 31" tire, the short arms should provide a decent ride.

fubar XJ said:

Why would you want long arms if you plan on keeping the 31"s? You don't need the kind of flex long arms provide if you plan on running tiny tires, you'll get hung up on or unable to climb obstacles regardless of how low your breakover angle is. Most people step up to LAs when they plan to run 35"s and have the corresponding 5-7"+ lift. If you're only on 3-4" of lift that accompany a 31" tire, the short arms should provide a decent ride.

Click to expand...

I'm not buying that argument. Each inch you lift messes with the CA angles. There is nothing wrong with having additional articulation with smaller tires along with a better ride quality.

I saw a guy break the frame side end off of his Claytons, he was being pulled sideways though, in a ZJ.

-Alex

Markos said:

I'm not buying that argument. Each inch you lift messes with the CA angles. There is nothing wrong with having additional articulation with smaller tires along with a better ride quality.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you can do whatever you want. To me, it doesn't make sense to spend the time, money, and effort to upgrade to LAs if you plan on staying at 31"s. The improvement in ride quality on that low of a lift is marginal, the improvement in articulation will remain somewhat unusable since your tires and breakover angle will not allow you much better performance on the trail, and you will look somewhat silly on LAs with little donuts on the wheels.


No, there is nothing "wrong" with it, it just seems a waste.

I plan on moving up to 35's this summer or fall after I get the new front axle built which is still sitting on my work bench (sleeved and trussed D30). Tires are about the last thing I want to do. Tires come after the axles, after the gears, after the brakes and after the suspension. What troubled me about the Claytons once I got a good pic of them is how far down the control arm mount seems to hang. I had heard so much good about them I ASS U MEd that the brackets were recessed up and inside the frame rails. Seems pointless going up to 35's to gain 2" of clearance and some traction just to throw it away by installing a low hanging bracket near the center of the rig. I can slide on my frame rails now. With the Claytons (or Rock Krawlers for that matter) I wont be able too. I like being low, well armored and clean underneath. Low CG and good sliding makes up for a lot of lift.

Anyhow I am going over to look at them tonight and if I think I can live with it or rework them I will bring them home.

John

Sorry about the bump but its too long since the last post to edit.

I just got back from looking at the Claytons. They are beautiful and really well made. No wonder everyone who has them loves them. The chassis end Johnny Joint brackets are inside the frame rails but they hang under them with the bottom being 3-1/4 inches lower than the bottom of the frame rail. The bottom of the cross member hangs about as low as stock. It would have been so simple to move the bracket to the top though the mounts would have had to been beefier and tie into the inside of the frame rail up high to take the torque that would be applied to them. This would also require moving all the driver side plumbing on the inside of the frame rail. I can see why they didnt do it for a mass market suspension, it would have doubled the install time real fast.

Modifying them would be as much work as building a set yourself so I guess thats what I will do. That will let me 3 link it using the pax side as the third link (new axle has a TNT truss with the much beefier pax side mount on the axle).

Guess I am done with this thread. Next installment when I get to it will be in adv fab after I get started building my own system. The Claytons sure are nice.

John

I've had the Clayton's for going on two years now, and I've never dragged the mounts on anything. This is on 35"s, with their 6.5" kit (settled to just under 6") The on-road ride is very nice, the off-road flex is excellent, and the only problem I had with the kit was unrelated to the arms. The Rock Krawler leafs that used to come with the kit were garbage, toasted on me after only a year of moderate/hard wheeling. The arms themselves have been flawless.

You could have just said you were going to 35"s and saved us both some online douchery.

You will love them.

agreed... I ran 4.5" of lift and 34" LTBs with my Clayton arms for awhile, and sure, the mounts/arms touched rocks, slammed rocks, got dragged over rocks....but never once have they held the Jeep up... just my $0.02

Good luck and be sure to make a thread when you build your 3-link, I always enjoy threads with fabrication :thumbup:

Building a mid arm 3 link is the answer,lca brackets just behind oem brackets,about 20-21"s long. when i do mine i am installing uca on passenger frame rail side and reinforcing the axle end bracket.no lines in the way, on L/A systems not only are the lca brackets a problem,but they really unload when climbing..guys we wheel with have them and it is a real problem.why someone hasnt offered a true 3 link mid arm on the suspension market is beyond me.

I imagine no one offers a mid arm 3 link thats tucked up is because you have no place to bolt it too. I cant imagine a vendor offering something that was all weld on, few buyers, and most would end up suing because the cant weld worth crap (at least my welds are worth crap, guess I can sue myself). Best I have seen so far is "Opies", XJ Ranger.

I'd rather run drop brackets and short welded in braces with 35's on 5.5" than give up an inch at the transfer case. I made a clocking ring and have cut all the stock to build a flush mount cross member. I picked up a Rubicon 4:1 tranfer case a few months ago, its huge so I will have to cut the floor to tuck it up.

John

nosigma said:

I found some pics on the Clayton site. The brackets hang down a couple inches below the frame rails. As badly as I need to replace my worn out short arms (acme threads are shot and very loose) the idea of giving up 2" of ground clearance is just too much. I am on 31's with everything tucked up nice and tight with good skids to slide on. With the Claytons I would need to be on 35's to get the same ground clearance I have right now with 31"s.

The Claytons are only $500 (cross member and arms). I guess I could buy it, install it and them build my own cross member raising the arms and moving them inboard at the cross member end like the BDS long arm cross member. I already have the steel stock for the cross member (BSFAB style) or I could use the Clayton cross member (its removable) and move the mounts in board and up to get the clearance back.

Well I will at least go look at it tomorrow night and see if I can modify it to get some ground clearance back.

John

Click to expand...

Where is the $500 clayton kit?

muddeprived said:

Where is the $500 clayton kit?

Click to expand...

nosigma said:

They are used with about 1500 miles on them

Click to expand...

Ahh missed that. Thanks!