i wouldnt consider it a good idea, for one your messing with the suspension geometry, 2 your making the frame mounted hanger weaker by going closer to the edge of the bracket, your also decreasing seperation of the control arms, putting more stress on the brackets.
Why didnt the owner of this jeep trim up the axle side mounts? that looks silly hanging down like that, but if it were me, i would put it all back to the stock holes.
From how it looks there it seems like the output from the pinion is pointing down quite a bit more.
[CENTER]"When i die, bury me with my jeep. Its never been in a hole it can't get out of"
Black Jeep Society
My JEEP helped win a War > Your Honda mows my grass!!
Mechanical Engineers Build weapons Civil Engineers build targets[/CENTER]
[QUOTE=cyberpyrot;19873929]is it a plink plink kerrrrdunk? or more of a brrrrrconk doc doc miiiidge pang!!!? or is it a badonk ka donk? if it is the latter its just the normal fat *** of the JK[/QUOTE]
I did that with mine as an experiment. Yes it screwed with the geometry... correctly. It reduced the unbelievable amount of antisquat you get with a TJ short arm lift, and put it in line with where a properly setup suspension should be. It litterally made the difference between easily climbing obstacles and nearly flipping over backwards. Also the TJ tire-pick trick (lifting the left front off the ground when accelerating around a corner) is totally gone.
It does stress the mounts and does very little to control wrap. Even with all new bushings and good rod ends, the axle wraps a few degrees. It was a good proof of concept test to see what problems the excessive antisquat was causing, but the tradeoffs are not totally worth it. Now I'm splitting the difference and using the lower hole on the frame end, and the stock hole on the axle end. This helps the geometry a bit without killing the vertical separation of the links.