Clayton Off-road 2.5 Overland + Questions/Rant/first impressions

[Adrianbrewster33]

Like many of you, I went back and forth between metalcloak and Clayton for my lift. I’ve read nothing but good things about both and after spending way too much time reading threads online about both, it came down to better articulation (metalcloak) or a lift that would handle more weight in the bed (Clayton). I love the gold components on the metalcloak but my jeep is firecracker red and I thought it might clash a bit. Combined with being a Connecticut native, I opted for Clayton.

I ended up with the 2.5 lift because I have read everywhere that Clayton publishes lower numbers than the actual net gain of the lift and takes their measurements from the back of the truck, not the front. They also build their kits to remove some of the factor rake, so the front is lifted more than the rear.

The more I’ve sat with this, the more it’s frustrated me. From what I understand, a 2.5 in overland kit yields 3 inches of lift in the rear and 4 inches in the front. The MC game changer kit lifts 3.5 in the front and 2.5 to 3 in the back. So the Clayton 2.5 is a taller lift than the MC 3.5. Can anyone validate this?

I bought the performance pack from Clayton which comes with Currie steering and falcon shocks. The falcon shocks come in 2 to 3 inch of lift and 3 to 4 inch of lift options. Even though the kit yields close to 4 inches of lift in the front, I was instructed to get the 2-3 inch option because I was told most manufactures anticipate the lift to be taller than the published heights. Why would a company do that? I feel like I’m trying to hit a moving target here. The MC kit comes with extended brake lines, the Clayton doesn’t. But the Clayton lift is taller. It’s confusing!

all of that said, the kit arrived and is incredibly high quality. The control arms are beefier than I imagined they would be and you can tell they pay a lot of attention to detail when putting these kits together. I will report back when it’s installed this week and let everyone know how it rides.

I also have some experiences to share regarding my ordering experience but will wait to hear back from the owner, Adam, mid next week before I weigh in on this.

Sponsored

 

[Chunky White]

I am actually looking for a comparison of these two brands at the moment

I notice Metalcloak recommends a new front driveshaft but I have not heard a driveshaft being needed with Clayton. Clayton has been the front runner for me but now that I am getting closer to purchasing a lift I am not so sure.

I hope you are happy once the lift is installed and I am sorry I am no help to your thread

 

[bleda2002]

• Clayton is taller than MC as Clayton is a higher spring rate and measure in the rear vs mc measuring in the front.
• You will want longer brake lines in the rear, the front are fine
• Shock saying 2-3" doesn't matter, what matters is extended and collapsed length. Falcon 2-3 are not directly comparable to fox 2-3, icon 2-3 etc since they all have different actual lengths.
• Front drive shaft is dependent on shock length. If you go over 30 inches extended you need a front drive shaft. The fox 2.0s for 3.5-4 are the max length before you need a drive shaft. That's a 30.5 extended length.
• In the rear your max length with out a coil spring retainer on Clayton 2.5s is going to be fox 2.0 2-3s or again 30 inches

 

[Hootbro]

Yeah, it can be confusing. It was my understanding that unless a company stated otherwise, advertised lift dimensions were all based on a stock Rubicon factory height. This left others installing said lift kits on other non Rubicon models finding more lift than they anticipated.

 

[Kristian13]

Like many of you, I went back and forth between metalcloak and Clayton for my lift. I’ve read nothing but good things about both and after spending way too much time reading threads online about both, it came down to better articulation (metalcloak) or a lift that would handle more weight in the bed (Clayton). I love the gold components on the metalcloak but my jeep is firecracker red and I thought it might clash a bit. Combined with being a Connecticut native, I opted for Clayton.

I ended up with the 2.5 lift because I have read everywhere that Clayton publishes lower numbers than the actual net gain of the lift and takes their measurements from the back of the truck, not the front. They also build their kits to remove some of the factor rake, so the front is lifted more than the rear.

The more I’ve sat with this, the more it’s frustrated me. From what I understand, a 2.5 in overland kit yields 3 inches of lift in the rear and 4 inches in the front. The MC game changer kit lifts 3.5 in the front and 2.5 to 3 in the back. So the Clayton 2.5 is a taller lift than the MC 3.5. Can anyone validate this?

I bought the performance pack from Clayton which comes with Currie steering and falcon shocks. The falcon shocks come in 2 to 3 inch of lift and 3 to 4 inch of lift options. Even though the kit yields close to 4 inches of lift in the front, I was instructed to get the 2-3 inch option because I was told most manufactures anticipate the lift to be taller than the published heights. Why would a company do that? I feel like I’m trying to hit a moving target here. The MC kit comes with extended brake lines, the Clayton doesn’t. But the Clayton lift is taller. It’s confusing!

all of that said, the kit arrived and is incredibly high quality. The control arms are beefier than I imagined they would be and you can tell they pay a lot of attention to detail when putting these kits together. I will report back when it’s installed this week and let everyone know how it rides.

I also have some experiences to share regarding my ordering experience but will wait to hear back from the owner, Adam, mid next week before I weigh in on this.

I’m in the battle, what did you go with? Any advice to offer

Sponsored