Rack and pinion needs drop on Superlift

[Omelet]

I can see from the photos that the SL knuckles have the same attachment position for the tie rod and understand the reasoning why the geometry should not have changed. The UCA is mounted on the stock attachment holes but the LCA was dropped 4". The JBA UCAs do appear to drop the ball joint below where the OEM ball joint would be positioned but I'm not sure how much (1"?). The SL knuckles don't appear to be 4" longer than the OEM. Is it?

You are looking at it wrong. I guess I should have lines up the LCA and unit bearing location instead. If you look at the location between where the unit bearing/axle would be and the tie rod mount on the OEM one compared to the SL, you will see they moved the tie rod mount up a few inches. They also extended the mounting location for the UCA. Since they dropped the diff and LCA mounts on the Jeep they had to extend the length between the upper and lower control arm mounts to match the new suspension geometry. Since the rack did not move they raised the tie rod mount up farther on the spindle to realign the steering with the new suspension geometry. So even though the rack was not lowered, the steering is still aligned because of the new spindles. Moving the rack would not be a fix but only serve to screw up the geometry. Does that make sense? It does in my head at least

[07JeepXK]

Well, just a reminder ill be there on the 17th. Still unknown who's coming with me so not positive on the level of trails.... but RC is set up nicely to accommodate all levels without drastically splitting up.

Yea your right. That's why I love Rausch Creek! Well we might be meeting on the 17th....

[07JeepXK]

You are looking at it wrong. I guess I should have lines up the LCA and unit bearing location instead. If you look at the location between where the unit bearing/axle would be and the tie rod mount on the OEM one compared to the SL, you will see they moved the tie rod mount up a few inches. They also extended the mounting location for the UCA. Since they dropped the diff and LCA mounts on the Jeep they had to extend the length between the upper and lower control arm mounts to match the new suspension geometry. Since the rack did not move they raised the tie rod mount up farther on the spindle to realign the steering with the new suspension geometry. So even though the rack was not lowered, the steering is still aligned because of the new spindles. Moving the rack would not be a fix but only serve to screw up the geometry. Does that make sense? It does in my head at least

Exactly... What he said!

[Matt]

lmao that is a wild explanation of what i was eluding to in my original post.... im cracking up that i can a) understand it and b) understand how it sounds like an alien language to some!

[Omelet]

Haha! Sorry sometimes I explain and word things in a weird way. My English teachers always enjoyed it Me and words aren't so goodly!!!

[TrialByFire]

Haha! Sorry sometimes I explain and word things in a weird way. My English teachers always enjoyed it Me and words aren't so goodly!!!

No. It's clear to me. The question then is whether I have interference problems because of the JBA UCA. Does it drop the knuckle more/less than the OEM UCA or does it just have a better angle on the ball joint?
Maybe that is why AEV and Superlift don't see the rubbing on the wheel or bent tie rods. There must be something unique about my setup that is causing the interference.

[Omelet]

Well if AEV doesn't have the problem running their wheels and lift normally then I would have to guess it is the UCAs that are screwing you. If you still have an OEM arm sitting around you could swap it in on one side and go to full drop then see if the problem remains.

[Matt]

Are you running additional lift in addition to the SL? I recall another member having issues with JBA arms and the SL..... JBA told him he needs to add a spacer up front because their arms are designed for 2" lifts.

Although the UCA is a floating link that does not impact ride height or the LCA/tie-rod/CV angles, I could see it causing issues. Not sure how exactly that correlates to tie rod interference since both the tie rod and wheel are bolted to the knuckle, so their relationship to one another shouldn't be affected. But if that's the only difference, and if you're only running the SL without any additional lift, then I agree with the above- try some OEM arms to see if that helps.

[07JeepXK]

No. It's clear to me. The question then is whether I have interference problems because of the JBA UCA. Does it drop the knuckle more/less than the OEM UCA or does it just have a better angle on the ball joint?
Maybe that is why AEV and Superlift don't see the rubbing on the wheel or bent tie rods. There must be something unique about my setup that is causing the interference.

If It makes you feel any better, after I installed my JBA UCA's my front end measures between 1/4 - 1/2 inch higher. I wonder if it is somehow pushing down on the steering knuckle/LCA causing more lift?

[07JeepXK]

Are you running additional lift in addition to the SL? I recall another member having issues with JBA arms and the SL..... JBA told him he needs to add a spacer up front because their arms are designed for 2" lifts.

Although the UCA is a floating link that does not impact ride height or the LCA/tie-rod/CV angles, I could see it causing issues. Not sure how exactly that correlates to tie rod interference since both the tie rod and wheel are bolted to the knuckle, so their relationship to one another shouldn't be affected. But if that's the only difference, and if you're only running the SL without any additional lift, then I agree with the above- try some OEM arms to see if that helps.

I think if he added more lift it would make his issue with the tie rods worse because of the added angle.