Foxes are on!

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by calamaridog

My next question is why not run 2.5" shocks in the rear

And you thought you were done... It's never done.

That's an idea...wonder how it would be with 2" in front and 2.5" in rear?

[hoser]

Originally Posted by spressomon

The pinion and t-case flanges are not parallel...although probably at borderline range of being acceptable (the pinion points directly at the t-case output...which it should be rotated down...which would put it back to stock #1 and take care of the spring perch issue #2).

Oh got it, so you want the two U-joints to be "in phase" with eachother by putting both at the same angle. Btw, my driveline vibration seemed to 'self-heal' after 2-3 months post gears. None whatsoever up to 80 mph.

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by hoser

Oh got it, so you want the two U-joints to be "in phase" with eachother by putting both at the same angle. Btw, my driveline vibration seemed to 'self-heal' after 2-3 months post gears. None whatsoever up to 80 mph.

Yes...would like both flanges parallel to each other since I am running u-joints. FYI: I installed the OME 864's about 6-weeks ago...so the arse end is up a little higher now...it sits perfect all loaded with the trailer.

Mine is weird...it feels just like a bad u-joint at times...then smooths out...then back to the vibe thing. I had our local drive line experts take a look at it...and they made sure I wouldn't take my rig there anymore .

[calamaridog]

Originally Posted by spressomon

That's an idea...wonder how it would be with 2" in front and 2.5" in rear?

I don't see how it would matter if you had different sizes front a rear as long as the valving is matched. The benefit of the 2.5" diameter shock is about 50% more oil capacity. I don't think the cost is that much more per shock. At this point it may be pointless since you already have the 2".

Sorry, just thinking out loud...

[Augie]

Nice Dan.
I been researching this myself but leaning more toward Bilstein 7100 AK7112SB09 due to the short body availability that match N74L collapsed dimension but with 12" travel instead. This shock seem to be really popular on the 80 lately. With my closed to stock weight I could special order them with BE5-2740 stock valving to reduce guesswork.

As for oil capacity I would not even worry unless you cycle your suspension at high speed a lot. In fact I liked ATS 4x4 bilstein due to its simplicity. The only drawback is cost for 4 unit because of the custom valving. If I use 7100 with BE5-2740 valving I could use stock front bilstein BE5-2739 and come out about $300 less. I am not interested with increased front travel due concerns with steering rack and upper ball joint.

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by calamaridog

I don't see how it would matter if you had different sizes front a rear as long as the valving is matched. The benefit of the 2.5" diameter shock is about 50% more oil capacity. I don't think the cost is that much more per shock. At this point it may be pointless since you already have the 2".

Sorry, just thinking out loud...

Agreed...I think, based upon conversations with Sam, the 2.5" is a better choice. If we are going to redo the rears I might opt for the 2.5" if clearance allows...for my uses especially when pulling the trailer it might be prudent. We do a fair amount of 50mph gravel/dirt/washboard roads and I was already concerned about cooking the 2"...

[calamaridog]

Originally Posted by Augie

As for oil capacity I would not even worry unless you cycle your suspension at high speed a lot. In fact I liked ATS 4x4 bilstein due to its simplicity. The only drawback is cost for 4 unit because of the custom valving. If I use 7100 with BE5-2740 valving I could use stock front bilstein BE5-2739 and come out about $300 less. I am not interested with increased front travel due concerns with steering rack and upper ball joint.

Dan is pretty much maxing out the use of the 100 series regarding severe duty with a heavy load and aggressive multi day trips. If there is room for the 2.5" shock back there it certainly wouldn't hurt. They are not much more expensive than 2" diameter ones.

[calamaridog]

Originally Posted by spressomon

Agreed...I think, based upon conversations with Sam, the 2.5" is a better choice. If we are going to redo the rears I might opt for the 2.5" if clearance allows...for my uses especially when pulling the trailer it might be prudent. We do a fair amount of 50mph gravel/dirt/washboard roads and I was already concerned about cooking the 2"...

Whatever you do, hurry up and dirt-road test those suckers

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by calamaridog

Whatever you do, hurry up and dirt-road test those suckers

Didn't do any high speed off-road today...but rocks and general travel through the hills...and they are much better than my OME's. More compliant and more controlled...and the suspension/truck felt like it was articulating better/more effectively.

[24HOURSOFNEVADA]

Off topic, but you mentioned a local drive shaft shop...I bet it's the same one I called 411 and asked for Tom Woods drive shafts from their lobby. It amazes me how they will sell driveshafts for lifted vehicles and get mad at you when you go back in with questions/concerns...

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by 24HOURSOFNEVADA

Off topic, but you mentioned a local drive shaft shop...I bet it's the same one I called 411 and asked for Tom Woods drive shafts from their lobby. It amazes me how they will sell driveshafts for lifted vehicles and get mad at you when you go back in with questions/concerns...

Exactly: Arrogant...expensive...and they don't know their sh*t!

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by spressomon

I'm fairly certain they are the 6.5" and 10"...however Sam's wife takes care of the receipts and she was packing for a camping vacation...and the Fox boxes, which I have, don't list part #'s. I should have the part #'s sometime next week.

Lift up the little bump rubbers and get the No's engraved in the top of the shaft end mounts, these are the part No's and if they come with not out of the box valving, the other No's are the valving set up.

PM

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by spressomon

hoser: The other thing (OK...it's a thread buster but it's MY thread so what the heck huh?!) I have been wanting to take care of but after staring at the issue again last night under the rig...it's going to the top of the list. Have you either shortened your upper OR lengthened your lower link rods in back? Since the taller springs (particularly the 864's of recent addition) it has rotated the rear axle/housing clockwise...thereby forcing the coil springs to sorta arch...instead of being straight/perpendicular between the perches.


Just when I thought the "list" was getting shorter .

Slot the seat mounts on the diff and tils the spring seats closer to horizontal at ride height, then weld them back up, works a treat.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by FirstToy

that is a clever upper eye mount,

generally moving it inboard like that reduces the effectiveness of the shocks- is it minor so it doesn't affect it much? or is there a way to keep it more centered-in line with the orig. mounting.

you need aprox 10% more valving for every 10 deg of angle you intoduce on the shock to 45 deg.

[ats4x4dotcom]

Originally Posted by spressomon

Agreed...I think, based upon conversations with Sam, the 2.5" is a better choice. If we are going to redo the rears I might opt for the 2.5" if clearance allows...for my uses especially when pulling the trailer it might be prudent. We do a fair amount of 50mph gravel/dirt/washboard roads and I was already concerned about cooking the 2"...

With remote cans you wont overheat the 2".

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by ats4x4dotcom

Lift up the little bump rubbers and get the No's engraved in the top of the shaft end mounts, these are the part No's and if they come with not out of the box valving, the other No's are the valving set up.

PM

6.5" front 40/60 valving
10" rear 40/60 valving

[Campfire]

Looks great Dan, I'll come up and you can show me how good they work on one of those nice trails.

No rubbing problem with the front resevoir on the frame there?

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by Campfire

No rubbing problem with the front resevoir on the frame there?

No.

[spressomon]

Ok...Sam just learned, from one of his Taco customers, that Fox offers a nice easy to adjust click stop compression adjuster wheel that sits atop the reservoir [the customer found it on a Fox reseller's website...NOT from Fox directly (!)]. Apparently Fox doesn't list it...but if you know the part # it can be ordered. He is going to order just the adjustable compression valve 'cap/tops' and install them on my Fox shocks. I can't wait to feel how the different settings effect the tune.

I can certainly see why Fox wouldn't want to tell anyone about this cool and useful feature...jeez they might actually sell some .

[justimaginejack]

Spressomon,
help me to understand what the main benefits was over the Bilstein set up? I belive it is travel and valving correct?
What did all this cost and and if I wanted to do it, what should I look out for?
Thanks for the pics!

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by justimaginejack

Spressomon,
help me to understand what the main benefits was over the Bilstein set up? I belive it is travel and valving correct?
What did all this cost and and if I wanted to do it, what should I look out for?
Thanks for the pics!

I assume you are referring to the Bilstein 5100 or similar and not the 7100/9100 correct?

The Fox shocks are completely tunable and rebuildable. Having said that they are a mono tube design. From what I gathered from Christo a twin tube shock design (OME, Bilstein non-7100/9100) maybe better for street use. However my desire is to focus the performance for more off-road. The Fox shocks as I have them set right now work very very well off-road. However they need additional dampening for ideal street use. I am hoping the easy to adjust manual clicker compression valve adjuster will allow me to firm it up for on-road use and when I am pulling the trailer. The other benefit from this shock design with the remote can is no fade when blasting over washboard!

Not cheap...the shocks w/o the adjusters are $180-$200 each. Don't yet know how much the adjustable compression tops will add (will know within the next few days). Then custom upper front mounts (these are actually fairly easy to fab). And custom upper and lower rear mounts.

Additonally...it appears some shock warehouses actually order Fox shocks as sort of a custom stocked item that you can't normally obtain directly from Fox...or at least Fox doesn't provide much assistance unless you have their part numbers. For instance Fox apparently offers a 2" non-coilover, remote res shock for a Jeep model that features a beefy post type upper mount like the stock LC...I just haven't had time to do the research to see if they offer this set-up in a 6.5" front travel and 10" rear travel (my shocks feature the more traditional eye mount for upper and lower mounts).

As soon as the rear mounts are redone and I have the body lift installed I plan to provide all the details.

[FirstToy]

Originally Posted by spressomon

For instance Fox apparently offers a 2" non-coilover, remote res shock for a Jeep model that features a beefy post type upper mount like the stock LC...I just haven't had time to do the research to see if they offer this set-up in a 6.5" front travel and 10" rear travel (my shocks feature the more traditional eye mount for upper and lower mounts).

that would be the 2.0 Challenger series - maybe a good fit for the front of the 100.

fox, bil 7100 remote resv shocks are not emulsion shocks. That's worth it right there.
so, you are getting an internal design that is best suited for fade-resistant performance (washboard, high suspension travel roads-like whoopdee's, etc)

tuning the valving for your exact preferences and weight/terrain/handling.

rebuildable


The OME shocks are great for the price tho. I like the design and they are direct bolt-ons.

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by FirstToy

that would be the 2.0 Challenger series - maybe a good fit for the front of the 100.

fox, bil 7100 remote resv shocks are not emulsion shocks. That's worth it right there.
so, you are getting an internal design that is best suited for fade-resistant performance (washboard, high suspension travel roads-like whoopdee's, etc)

tuning the valving for your exact preferences and weight/terrain/handling.

rebuildable


The OME shocks are great for the price tho. I like the design and they are direct bolt-ons.

Nope...not the Challenger shock...here's the link

http://www.offroadwarehouse.com/prod...6/productID/95

[calamaridog]

The diameter of the top post on the 100 series is wider than other brands so I doubt that would help. I think you upgraded when you switched to the eye mount.

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by calamaridog

The diameter of the top post on the 100 series is wider than other brands so I doubt that would help. I think you upgraded when you switched to the eye mount.

The Fox shocks Sam had with the stud upper mount looked pretty darn beefy but I don't know the actual diameter of the LC or these. However they're going on a Toyota Taco(?). Yep...I'm glad to be done with the post/stud type mount anyway.