Replacement Leafs

[JIMMYRIG]

I'm looking into ordering new leaf packs from general spring. Does anyone have experience with either of the options for weight capacity? There's a 1250lb and 1700lb option. I'm curious if i might gain lift out of the 1700 and if it will be suboptimal for suspension articulation if the bed isnt loaded

[89 MJ]

There are a few on here that have done new springs from GS. Seems the consensus is that it lifts about 3” I believe @watchamakalit is one of the people that has new springs.  

[JIMMYRIG]

11 minutes ago, 89 MJ said:

There are a few on here that have done new springs from GS. Seems the consensus is that it lifts about 3” I believe @watchamakalit is one of the people that has new springs.  

Ok sweet. Just to confirm thats roughly 3 in of lift on the 1700lb spring correct?

[watchamakalit]

2 minutes ago, 89 MJ said:

There are a few on here that have done new springs from GS. Seems the consensus is that it lifts about 3” I believe @watchamakalit is one of the people that has new springs.  

You are correct.  They seem to settle right around 3-3.5" of lift. I went with re 4" front coils and it leveled my truck.

[JIMMYRIG]

1 minute ago, watchamakalit said:

You are correct.  They seem to settle right around 3-3.5" of lift. I went with re 4" front coils and it leveled my truck.

Awesome, thanks for the punctual responses. 

[Eagle_SX4]

I got the 1250lb springs expecting to get lift and was very disappointed not to get any lift. After they settled they were about 1 inch lower than stock. I have since added an extra leaf and some slightly longer shackles only to see about .5 above stock height. 

 

My experience says hope for lift but don't expect it. Someone said they may have changed the design because so many were reporting lift on a spring that was supposed to be a stock replacement. 

 

Not sure what your truck is but height also may vary based on short or long bed. Long beds have some extra weight and won't see as much lift as the same springs on a short bed.

[ghetdjc320]

My experience was just the opposite, gained a solid 2.5” lift with the 1250 springs. But this was on springs from 2019. Keep in mind, the spring rate doesn’t ultimately determine lift. 1700lb springs simply have a 1700lb rated load capacity. The free arch is another factor on the lift. When last I saw, the free arch of the 1250 and 1700 were the same. But perhaps they have updated that since. General Spring posts on here once in a blue moon and it’s been difficult to nail down the exact springs that are currently available for our trucks. So far the spring packs that have been reported on are:

 

General spring

4 leaf 1250 spring 

5 leaf 1700 spring

5 leaf “military wrap” metric tons

 

Hells Creek

lift spring pack for sua

 

Rustys

lift spring pack for sua 

 

& various add a leaf setups and designs from other manufacturers mostly based around XJ leafs. 

 

 

 

 

[coheed]

I bought the 1700# ones for my truck almost exactly a year ago and can confirm I also gained 3" over stock with them.

[Whitaker717]

Anyone have any pictures of what the 1700 look like on a stock truck? Just curious

[JIMMYRIG]

So does anyone have negative feedback with the 1700 as far as performance unloaded? I am trying to determine what will be the best option for matching my current 4.5 in lift. I have a long bed and typically carry about 100-200 lbs of gear in the bed. I don’t want poor articulation and the springs to be uncomfortable for driving on the road

[aris_garage_builds]

^ Curious on this as well. Interested in the 1700lb springs for occasional hauling, however I've heard they can be too stiff when unloaded.

[89 MJ]

I don’t know the answer, but if it rides stiff, you can always pull a leaf. Likewise, if you want more lift, you can add a leaf to your stock spring pack and save money as long as your stock springs are in good shape. 

[watchamakalit]

I have general spring "metric ton" packs. They are stiffer than stock but ride way better than my 2013 2500 Silverado. I think it feels more like a truck than a car but it's definitely not horrible. Just don't expect Cadillac like ride.

[ghetdjc320]

Run the 1250 springs . Even those are a higher spring rate than most MJ’s came with. 

[coheed]

Mine are a little stiff with nothing in the bed, but I've had more than one none car person friend say it just rides like a truck and that it's not a rough ride. With the camper top on the truck it smoothes out the ride considerably. 

[DesertRat1991]

 

On 2/12/2025 at 8:42 PM, JIMMYRIG said:

I'm looking into ordering new leaf packs from general spring. Does anyone have experience with either of the options for weight capacity? There's a 1250lb and 1700lb option. I'm curious if i might gain lift out of the 1700 and if it will be suboptimal for suspension articulation if the bed isnt loaded

 

Full disclosure for new members. In the past, GS has offered 3 different part numbers to the CC community.

 

P/N 97-555: Direct replacement for the OEM 3+1 pack. Rated at 1200lbs.  You can order these on their website.

 

P/N 97-571: Direct replacement for the OEM 3+2 pack. Rated at 1700lbs. Same free arch as 97-555. You can order these on their websote.

 

P/N GSC-571: Modified 3+2 pack that included military wrap on the front eye and an extra 1/2" of free arch. Rated at 1700lbs. These were never publicly listed on the GS website. They were offered in 2 different group buys to CC members in 2013 and again 2017 so quite a few of us have them.  You could also call and special order them.  These are the springs that could provide *up to* 3" of lift over a clapped out OEM 3+1 pack. 

 

This is why you are getting mixed feedback on lift.  It depends on which PN the member purchased and the type/condition of ther old springs. The other important note is that neither currently listed offering is actually designed to provide lift.

 

As for performance, GSC-571 rides and hauls well, but it doesn't flex worth a damn offroad.  If articulation is a main concern then 97-555 would be a better bet.  Your choice of shocks will also have a huge impact on your ride quality.

 

 

 

 

[coheed]

3 hours ago, DesertRat1991 said:

 

 

Full disclosure for new members. In the past, GS has offered 3 different part numbers to the CC community.

 

P/N 97-555: Direct replacement for the OEM 3+1 pack. Rated at 1200lbs.  You can order these on their website.

 

P/N 97-571: Direct replacement for the OEM 3+2 pack. Rated at 1700lbs. Same free arch as 97-555. You can order these on their websote.

 

P/N GSC-571: Modified 3+2 pack that included military wrap on the front eye and an extra 1/2" of free arch. Rated at 1700lbs. These were never publicly listed on the GS website. They were offered in 2 different group buys to CC members in 2013 and again 2017 so quite a few of us have them.  You could also call and special order them.  These are the springs that could provide *up to* 3" of lift over a clapped out OEM 3+1 pack. 

 

This is why you are getting mixed feedback on lift.  It depends on which PN the member purchased and the type/condition of ther old springs. The other important note is that neither currently listed offering is actually designed to provide lift.

 

As for performance, GSC-571 rides and hauls well, but it doesn't flex worth a damn offroad.  If articulation is a main concern then 97-555 would be a better bet.  Your choice of shocks will also have a huge impact on your ride quality.

 

 

 

 

No, I spoke with general multiple times and was told every time that the lift pack with military wrap isn't in their system anymore. I purchased the 97-571s directly off their website and the springs ride more than 3" higher than factory measuring how the FSM details how to measure ride height.

 

The discrepancy between reported lift is due to their manufacturing. 

[Eagle]

Personally, I would b royally pissed off if I bought a set of "factory replacement" springs and they sat 3 inches higher than stock ride height.

[ghetdjc320]

I went through 4 pairs of springs to compare the lift given. The 97-551 provide a consistent 2” of lift over within spec’d 4wheel drive 4 leaf packs. I tried swapping the packs left and right. The oe 4wheel packs all netted the same ride height. The GS 551 springs have a much higher free arch. Again, they said they got their specs from some oe spring catalog. All in all, they were still good springs for a truck. They aren’t great for wheeling. Shocks definitely account for a lot of the ride quality. 

[DesertRat1991]

Just about everything that I relayed here regarding GSC-571 was communicated to this community directly by General Springs. They had a membership account and made several posts in the group buy thread. Anyone is welcomed to perform their own research.  There is no discrepancy in what the specs were.

 

Anyone claiming that 97-555 or -571 are designed to provide lift is also suggesting that they are being misrepresented by General Springs on their website which indicates direct replacement, stock height. Can you provide anything in writing from GS to back that up?  That is very important for buyers to know.

 

 

We can agree that if you go from 35y/o sagging OEM leafs to a brand new pair of 97-571 that you will likely see a lift compared to where you started due to the extra leaf, thicker pads and fresh arch.  I have no info on current availability of GSC-571.

[ghetdjc320]

Not saying they were designed to provide lift, they just do for many. Someone around here should have the factory springs specs for the common springs found on our MJ's. I suspect General Spring got their info from a spring pack setup that was not a commonly used part number. Perhaps some accessory pack or optional pack for special builds ?? They certainly didn't get it from reverse engineering a common 4 or 5 leaf pack. Just look at the thickness of the leaves on the oe vs the GS ones. The GS are substantially thicker. The results obviously will vary depending on which factory pack you had and what kind of life they had. GS did state that they went with the higher listed rates and free arch from their reference source when designing their regular 4 and 5 leaf MJ springs, therefore, they can list them as OE replacements. I think the question is whether the specs they based them on are actually what were commonly installed in our rigs. I still don't see how this is an issue though for most installations. I'm glad they provide a mild lift, though running them SOA nets quite a hefty lift 

 

Edit: Here is the SRI chart GS posted last year. Can anyone confirm which part numbers were the most common to find in MJ build sheets. This list ranges from 7-5/8 to 10-1/4. Depending on which springs you started with, that would provide a substantial lift over stock - and I suspect that is the reason that many are seeing lift from these springs. Couple that with a slight loss of original free arch and you got a recipe for a decent lift spring. 

Comanche_SRI.pdf

[coheed]

I wasn't trying to imply they are designed to lift the truck. I'm saying that I purchased what was advertised as an OEM replacement for the metric ton spring that lifted my truck over 3 inches compared to what the 86 FSM has indicated for ride height range. 

 

Like @ghetdjc320 I bought them hoping for a lift, but I was also prepard to get none. I was happily surprised that I got the amount of lift I wanted from what was supposed to be a factory replacement.