Clayton Overland Plus 2.5 or 3.5

[Brentalight]

I'm having a hard time deciding whether to get the 2.5 or 3.5 version of the Clayton Overland Plus lift for my 2020 JT Rubicon. I plan to go with 37s and understand they will fit and work perfectly with the 2.5 lift. I dont have plans for bigger wheels. I like the idea of the additional ground clearance of the 3.5 but understand Clayton's lifts are a bit higher than others. Worry 3.5 might be overkill. Can anyone speak to their experiences with either kit and 37s on a Rubicon? Pics would be great too so I can get a visual of how big a difference there is.

Brent

Sponsored

 

[deadbug]

yea, there a bunch of us having the same thoughts, I decided on the 2.5 and when talking to Clayton they said the 2.5 will be more like 3" so with 37's and extra close to 2" figured was good enough for my needs. That should net me around 5" overall. Going 3.5 is recommend to replace front drive shaft and possible brake lines in the rear which I didn't want to get into.
Probably going to need a regear in the future myself so there's that expense coming!

 

[KurtP]

Depends. If your goal is getting down the trail, the 2.5” and 35-37” tires should do nicely.

If your goal is flexin’ the ‘gram...well, 3.5” plus a spacer and 42’s with pro photography. 37’s wont get you the social media status or meet-up cred a lot of people are looking for

 

[Brentalight]

Lol. Definitely just looking for functionality.

Thanks for the replies. A local shop recommended the 3.5 but the 2.5 is where I was leaning. Just wanted to hear some opinions and make sure I wasn’t missing something.

 

[KurtP]

Joking aside, most people report the 2.5” gives them 3”; and closer to 4” on the 3.5”. Easily clears a 35-37” tire with the 2.5.

My philosophy is usually to use as little of lift as possible to fully articulate my desired tire size. Keep the COG as low as possible and still be able to do normal life shit. Like park in garages. Haha

 

[robd1438]

i went back and forth between the two a bunch and settled on the 3.5" to have extra clearance. I am regearing and doing driveshafts at the same time.

 

[KurtP]

i went back and forth between the two a bunch and settled on the 3.5" to have extra clearance. I am regearing and doing driveshafts at the same time.

Pics when done.

 

[KurtP]

Lol. Definitely just looking for functionality.

Thanks for the replies. A local shop recommended the 3.5 but the 2.5 is where I was leaning. Just wanted to hear some opinions and make sure I wasn’t missing something.

In thinking more, im reversing my opinion. if you dont have height interference issues going to the larger lift and youre hppy with the look of the 3.5 and 37, just do that. The breakover angle on these things is rough, and if you really plan to wheel it, the extra lift will come in handy.

 

[robd1438]

In thinking more, im reversing my opinion. if you dont have height interference issues going to the larger lift and youre hppy with the look of the 3.5 and 37, just do that. The breakover angle on these things is rough, and if you really plan to wheel it, the extra lift will come in handy.

This is basically the same discussion I had with my shop owner, breakover angle compared to my JL makes the 3.5" better if you're going to wheel. BUT you have to think about driveshafts too; i am doing adams 1350 front and rear

 

[KurtP]

This is basically the same discussion I had with my shop owner, breakover angle compared to my JL makes the 3.5" better if you're going to wheel. BUT you have to think about driveshafts too; i am doing adams 1350 front and rear

Yeah. Ill be up 3” from a rubicon with my lift; doing a rear carrier bearing drop for the rear and see where that gets me. No getting around doing the front eventually.

 

[Jaydebe]

If this helps, I've been running 37's on the factory suspension & fenders for 16k miles now.

I've done some local off roading, as well as trails like Broken Arrow and trails in Bulldog Canyon.

I had a few mild rubs at Broken Arrow, but not bad at all.

If I could, I'd totally go 1.5" lift to make sure of proper clearance while keeping as low of C.o.G. as possible an hopefully keeping a few mpgs also.

Mind you, my rig was also loaded down with rack, RTT, gear, bikes, molle panels, winch, bumper and recovery gear and still had only minor rubbing.

Again, I'm not rock crawling (max flexing), but I feel really good about how well the JTR did off road.

I personally have my sights set on a Clayton 2.5 kit. (Also important to note, my understanding is that they actually are closer to 3") or Rock Crawler's kit because they have triple rate front and quad rate rear springs!

 

[Shoebox]

If this helps, I've been running 37's on the factory suspension & fenders for 16k miles now.

I've done some local off roading, as well as trails like Broken Arrow and trails in Bulldog Canyon.

I had a few mild rubs at Broken Arrow, but not bad at all.

If I could, I'd totally go 1.5" lift to make sure of proper clearance while keeping as low of C.o.G. as possible an hopefully keeping a few mpgs also.

Mind you, my rig was also loaded down with rack, RTT, gear, bikes, molle panels, winch, bumper and recovery gear and still had only minor rubbing.

Again, I'm not rock crawling (max flexing), but I feel really good about how well the JTR did off road.

I personally have my sights set on a Clayton 2.5 kit. (Also important to note, my understanding is that they actually are closer to 3") or Rock Crawler's kit because they have triple rate front and quad rate rear springs!

Any more pics of that setup?

 

[Jaydebe]

Any more pics of that setup?

 

[VA Gladiator]

Clayton 2.5 measures more like 3 with 37 Nittos. Has falcon shocks now and I think it rides better than stock.

 

[KurtP]

Clayton 2.5 measures more like 3 with 37 Nittos. Has falcon shocks now and I think it rides better than stock.

That looks perfect, imo. Nice.

Sponsored