Excessive wear, diminished travel, additional camber.
2" OME Ride Quality
- Thread starter Evoking
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Excessive wear, diminished travel, additional camber.
So on the very topic of UCAs -
I just had a very interesting discussion with a respected suspension tuner that himself has a LC - and his (strong) assertion was that for a lift that isn't seeing the most extreme abuse you can throw at it, so long as you can put your 200 into OE-appropriate caster specs post-lift - we don't need aftermarket UCAs. Moreover his other issue with the UCAs out there that many folks are running is that they're frequently using bushings that allow for little or no deflection, and are thusly transmitting forces elsewhere in the suspension setup that are otherwise undesirable, and that the OE UCAs are more than strong enough to put up with most abuse and won't articulate in a meaningfully different amount than an aftermarket UCA anyway since you're still limited by the lower ball joint.
Really interesting conversation overall. For my purposes the best suggestion I received was for now - summer 2017 - using Icon's digressive valving monotubes, a heavier OME spring in the rear, and calling it good so long as the car can be aligned as-such.
Are any of you running the setup described above? Would love to get your feedback.
I just had a very interesting discussion with a respected suspension tuner that himself has a LC - and his (strong) assertion was that for a lift that isn't seeing the most extreme abuse you can throw at it, so long as you can put your 200 into OE-appropriate caster specs post-lift - we don't need aftermarket UCAs. Moreover his other issue with the UCAs out there that many folks are running is that they're frequently using bushings that allow for little or no deflection, and are thusly transmitting forces elsewhere in the suspension setup that are otherwise undesirable, and that the OE UCAs are more than strong enough to put up with most abuse and won't articulate in a meaningfully different amount than an aftermarket UCA anyway since you're still limited by the lower ball joint.
Really interesting conversation overall. For my purposes the best suggestion I received was for now - summer 2017 - using Icon's digressive valving monotubes, a heavier OME spring in the rear, and calling it good so long as the car can be aligned as-such.
Are any of you running the setup described above? Would love to get your feedback.
This is a tricky balance to strike. Part of the problem when lifting the suspension is that it puts the geometry outside of designed in parameters for anti-squat and anti-roll. With a higher center of gravity, it's more important to control these motions for stability. The natural way to solve this is to increase the spring rate - which is the biggest factor for ride quality. Dampening is the other major variable for ride quality. But with increased spring rate, increased dampening is needed to match, so dialing in less dampening can only go so far.
Anti-dive geometry only goes so far. Springs do the rest but spring rates have to balance the dual need for body control and ride quality.
Not really relevant, but it's useful to know this is why Toyota/Lexus implemented active suspension (AHC) on the LX. It actively resists squat, dive, and roll via several mechanisms. From closing down valves in cross axle fashion much like KDSS on steroids, increasing dampening on the fly, but also by having multiple spring rates within the hydropneumatic system to choose from. All while retaining pillowy soft spring rates and shock valving for cruising.
I'm running TC UCAs which utilize poly bushings and a uniball. Poly bushings are certainly harder than OEM but still deflect at bind, and are used to stiffen and improve handling (random deflection from rubber bushings may provide a more comfortable ride, but no deflection in that sense is good for handling). Uniball does allow for more angle/articulation (no clue if meaningful), but also requires replacement at 2x cost of ball joint (if the ball joint is even replaceable). Also have to replace the poly bushings but not sure how often, and grease them via zerk fittings from time to time. Other option are heim joints which also still deflect, but from what I understand take even more maintenance than the polys. What components would take more abuse from having firmer bushings? And how much more abuse are we talking?
I know when I'm at speed in the desert or on forest roads I'm thankful knowing the UCAs are strong, not like these OEMs... Which... You cant repair and have to replace when they get like the pic below anyway. Plenty of reports of shredded bushings and broken UCAs on the trail, just depends on how you use the truck I guess (though I've seen these same reports with the SPC UCAs that use OEM style bushings and ball joints).
And the LCAs are so much longer and ball joint so much larger than the UCAs that I wouldnt think it would not be the limiting factor in the articulation equation, all of the suspension components were designed to maximize articulation without going to extreme.
But mainly, with the Tundra lift I was going for A. I knew I was going to get more than 2" of lift and B. I wanted the geometries to be correct on all of the front components so UCAs were a must for me. It was just a decision around brand and bushing/ball types, not a decision of yes/no. I knew the TC UCAs on a Tundra were built for the size lift I was going for, and lots of reports from 35s owners that gained clearence/rubbed less and had an easy time getting alignment specs right. In all the research I did (specific to Tundra setups) the most issues I saw with UCAs were on Camburgs due to the extreme caster numbers (ie the arms are designed for agressively high caster numbers, +5 to +6 degrees) - really hard on tires and bad low speed turning characteristics).
"IF" you can get your alignment specs back to spec after lift that's great, def wouldn't need aftermarket UCAs. You should be good with OEM 2" and under?
Difficulty is a relative term. Baking a pineapple upside down cake is like rocket science to me but to the layperson cook, it's simple.
With a few basic tools, some mechanical knowledge, the ability to follow directions, and some common sense, it can be done very easily. I'm pretty dumb (but with decent mechanical knowledge) and I was able to install my suspension. Especially with your 200 being so new, the KDSS valves will be nice and non-rusted.
Of course any questions you may have, there's this wonderful forum to help you through it.
- Thread starter
- #27
Thank you. Do we know roughly how long the job is - by the book?
The better part of a day to be on the safe side. It can be done in a few hours if everything goes smoothly and a few of the hard to reach bolts aren't seized up. Since your 200 is new, it might just go that smoothly.
With the Tundra setup and the Icons in soft the ride is certainly softer then OEM yet very secure feeling at the limits..... but for highway runs I tend to run 8 front - 6 rear and it's very stable and composed - much like a coilovered Merc or Audi ( Albeit a 7k lb one ...).....I just tried 10 all the way around for a 100 mile trip and it's very smooth over 70 but a bit crisp at lower speeds. going back to the 8/ 6 setting this afternoon for my Dallas trip tomorrow.
the BP's and Kings likely are similar - the BP's are intriguing with the dual ability on rebound, but they do have some kinks still getting worked thru I gather...
Congrats on the new rig !
the BP's and Kings likely are similar - the BP's are intriguing with the dual ability on rebound, but they do have some kinks still getting worked thru I gather...
Congrats on the new rig !
Are you asking about the difference between the low-end ~$1000 OME kit compared to the ~$3000 BP-51s?
I think you probably know that most setups are also going to suggest you include upper control arms (UCAs) in whatever you do to get caster back into spec, so that's another ~$600 on top of whatever lift you select.
Starting with the lower-end stuff: I think the $1k kits (OME, Ironman, etc) are non-adjustable, non-rebuildable monotube gas or foam-filled shocks; I don't think they will have any fancy valving and are about as sophisticated as your basic $50 Bilstein or Koni off the shelf. When they wear out, you'll need to replace the dampeners themselves. From a comfort perspective I believe many in the community believe them to be relatively harsh.
What I don't feel is talked a lot about are that there's sort of a mid-tier option (which is what I'm going with) between the low-end stuff and the full-tilt desert racing setups, both in terms of price and capability.
Originally I wanted to go down this path with Bilstein parts and parts-bin a solution together, but got stymied by a lack of properly-valved rear dampeners in their catalog for the 200 series. They're working on some solutions right now, and once they hit the market they'll probably blow the OME setup away on performance at a very similar price (I would expect their 6112/5160 to retail right around what their Tundra kit costs today, with is right at $1k, but remember you'll also need to go buy rear springs and UCAs.)
So what's available today? There are rebuildable and adjustable coilover monotubes made by a couple manufacturers like Icon, King, and Fox - these are typically going to have wider shock bodies with more oil volume and therefore have more ability to put up with abuse versus the low-end dampeners, adjustable height settings, fancier valving, and maybe even have some settings for adjusting ride quality. Keep in mind that while these will also have a finite service life, most of these should be rebuildable, and while that process is probably more expensive than simply replacing bog-standard monotubes their ride quality and capability should offset that.
Then there's the higher-end options, getting into the OME BP-51s, the Icons, King, and Fox stuff with remote reservoirs on all 4 corners, etc. I see these kits (including UCAs) starting around $3000 and going well north of $5k just for parts. They're going to be even fancier than the mid-tier, have the ability to put up with more heat and abuse during intense driving (whoops, dunes, etc) and may also afford (like in the case of the BP-51s) both adjustable rebound and dampening. They will also be rebuildable.
A side note: I think some people might see the Lambo in your sig and think this dude may be a cost-is-no-object sort of person, but conversely I suspect most people with cash to spend on fun stuff try to spend it wisely, lest they no longer have that cash. In my estimation for many people these high-end kits may be overkill; I myself am not going to be racing our truck in the Baja anytime soon, and wanted both quality and increased capability, but without significant ride quality sacrifice, so went with the mid-tier level. My total outlay before install is about $2400 in parts for an Icon V.S. 2.5" series kit and SPC UCAs. I have heard some guys say you may NOT need the UCAs, but I don't want to mess around with nervous steering due to poor caster angles (especially with my wife driving the truck about half the time) so I'm just going to do it all at once.
With all that said, I don't have it yet and it's not installed yet, so we'll see if I regret not going with the 'overkill' options.
I think you probably know that most setups are also going to suggest you include upper control arms (UCAs) in whatever you do to get caster back into spec, so that's another ~$600 on top of whatever lift you select.
Starting with the lower-end stuff: I think the $1k kits (OME, Ironman, etc) are non-adjustable, non-rebuildable monotube gas or foam-filled shocks; I don't think they will have any fancy valving and are about as sophisticated as your basic $50 Bilstein or Koni off the shelf. When they wear out, you'll need to replace the dampeners themselves. From a comfort perspective I believe many in the community believe them to be relatively harsh.
What I don't feel is talked a lot about are that there's sort of a mid-tier option (which is what I'm going with) between the low-end stuff and the full-tilt desert racing setups, both in terms of price and capability.
Originally I wanted to go down this path with Bilstein parts and parts-bin a solution together, but got stymied by a lack of properly-valved rear dampeners in their catalog for the 200 series. They're working on some solutions right now, and once they hit the market they'll probably blow the OME setup away on performance at a very similar price (I would expect their 6112/5160 to retail right around what their Tundra kit costs today, with is right at $1k, but remember you'll also need to go buy rear springs and UCAs.)
So what's available today? There are rebuildable and adjustable coilover monotubes made by a couple manufacturers like Icon, King, and Fox - these are typically going to have wider shock bodies with more oil volume and therefore have more ability to put up with abuse versus the low-end dampeners, adjustable height settings, fancier valving, and maybe even have some settings for adjusting ride quality. Keep in mind that while these will also have a finite service life, most of these should be rebuildable, and while that process is probably more expensive than simply replacing bog-standard monotubes their ride quality and capability should offset that.
Then there's the higher-end options, getting into the OME BP-51s, the Icons, King, and Fox stuff with remote reservoirs on all 4 corners, etc. I see these kits (including UCAs) starting around $3000 and going well north of $5k just for parts. They're going to be even fancier than the mid-tier, have the ability to put up with more heat and abuse during intense driving (whoops, dunes, etc) and may also afford (like in the case of the BP-51s) both adjustable rebound and dampening. They will also be rebuildable.
A side note: I think some people might see the Lambo in your sig and think this dude may be a cost-is-no-object sort of person, but conversely I suspect most people with cash to spend on fun stuff try to spend it wisely, lest they no longer have that cash. In my estimation for many people these high-end kits may be overkill; I myself am not going to be racing our truck in the Baja anytime soon, and wanted both quality and increased capability, but without significant ride quality sacrifice, so went with the mid-tier level. My total outlay before install is about $2400 in parts for an Icon V.S. 2.5" series kit and SPC UCAs. I have heard some guys say you may NOT need the UCAs, but I don't want to mess around with nervous steering due to poor caster angles (especially with my wife driving the truck about half the time) so I'm just going to do it all at once.
With all that said, I don't have it yet and it's not installed yet, so we'll see if I regret not going with the 'overkill' options.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #32
I was looking at a OME kit with UCA's for $1585. See link. The BP-51 with UCA's is $3405 which is why I said $2k difference. Are you saying the shocks that come with the $1500 kit are inferior than stock?
This truck will predominately be driven by the wife and me when we are together. We will hit trails here and there but nothing that even the stock suspension cannot handle. This is why I was leaning toward keeping the stock ride but just getting more height.
Slee - Toyota 200 Series Land Cruiser Suspension
This truck will predominately be driven by the wife and me when we are together. We will hit trails here and there but nothing that even the stock suspension cannot handle. This is why I was leaning toward keeping the stock ride but just getting more height.
Slee - Toyota 200 Series Land Cruiser Suspension
So then you'd prob only make the switch if you feel you need a couple extra inches of lift for the trails you run. You may not get improved ride quality w/ the lower end setups over stock, though they may last longer if you plan to beat on them which it doesn't sound like you are. If you want a lift and retain/improve the ride quality you probably need to look mid-tier to upper tier. Agree with @Tremek that most of us won't maximize the high end "race/baja" kits, even though I fully entered the scene expecting to land on a high end/baja type setup. "Settled" on Tundra conversion w/ a non-rebuildable shock (Bilstein 6112s), but could only match w/ lower end shocks for the rear since as he pointed out the 5160s aren't easily applied. But in the end, I got almost 3" lift in front, 1" in rear, truck is level and rides MUCH better than stock both on and off-road.
If I had all the cash in the world would I go full on race setup? Probably. Would it be a waste? Probably.
There's got to be someone in your area w/ the basic OME setup from Slee that could take you for a spin, it's very common and I don't know of many who complain/regret this setup?
If I had all the cash in the world would I go full on race setup? Probably. Would it be a waste? Probably.
There's got to be someone in your area w/ the basic OME setup from Slee that could take you for a spin, it's very common and I don't know of many who complain/regret this setup?
Ride quality is a pretty subjective thing, and what those of us who think of our LCs as "trucks" are willing to put up with versus what (for example, my wife) will put up with are fairly different levels of NVH.
I frankly don't think our '13 with 65k miles on it rides well at all with what I imagine are the factory dampeners and srpings - lots of dive and wallow, a large amount of impact transference to the occupants, etc. Maybe that's a function of 5 years and 65k miles on the road, maybe it's my individual sensitivity to a good ride (by comparison to ANYTHING my Cadillac's magnetic shocks are pretty amazing) - but I certainly wouldn't want to make my wife's primary vehicle both 2"+ taller, making it harder to get in and out of, AND make it ride substantially worse.
If I was in your position @Evoking I would definitely try and make a subjective evaluation of someone else's OMEs before going the low-end OME route blindly.
I frankly don't think our '13 with 65k miles on it rides well at all with what I imagine are the factory dampeners and srpings - lots of dive and wallow, a large amount of impact transference to the occupants, etc. Maybe that's a function of 5 years and 65k miles on the road, maybe it's my individual sensitivity to a good ride (by comparison to ANYTHING my Cadillac's magnetic shocks are pretty amazing) - but I certainly wouldn't want to make my wife's primary vehicle both 2"+ taller, making it harder to get in and out of, AND make it ride substantially worse.
If I was in your position @Evoking I would definitely try and make a subjective evaluation of someone else's OMEs before going the low-end OME route blindly.
Keep in mind: stiff does not necessarily mean harsh. My M4 in Sport+ was stiff but not harsh. Just more composed. My current setup in my 200 is somewhat stiff (while unloaded) but its not necessarily harsh. Just more composed and doesn't nosedive under hard braking.
Truth. My ride is firm too good point.
My 2cents. I bought my 2013 used with 62,000mi. Mint condition, appeared to have never been off road. Scottsdale dealer. KDSS valves like new. I was never a fan of the stock ride, I was hoping it could be more like my 3rd Gen 4Runner LTD with factory Bilsteins...The ride was more bouncy, even though the 200 is much heavier, it is a big profile vehicle that winds can impact, especially out in WYO. I needed more armor for wild animals so I added the ARB front bumper, sliders and rear non-swing out. I decided on the basic OME medium lift and BFG KO's. The ride is a bit more stiff, no real issues around town but on the highway doing 80 with some wind this vehicle needs your full attention. I went with the after market UCA's. I may go with a wider size tire next time around for more stability, even spacers are not ruled out or someday taking it to Slee and doing something completely different....
Taco2Cruiser
Crazy American Off Road
I don't want to open a can of worms... buuutttt.
I adjust the internal pressures and some valves of my Icons and BP-51s. You can get a 200 to ride like a Cadillac with a 2-3" lift. The service parts are not that expensive, about $300, then you just need to keep your nitrogen tank topped off.
I adjust the internal pressures and some valves of my Icons and BP-51s. You can get a 200 to ride like a Cadillac with a 2-3" lift. The service parts are not that expensive, about $300, then you just need to keep your nitrogen tank topped off.
- Thread starter
- #39
Are you saying you have to buy service parts to adjust a $3500 suspension to ride soft? And you also have to keep topping off???
Taco2Cruiser
Crazy American Off Road
Partial yes to first question, no to second question.
It's like with anything, you can go down a road of DIY and make it really expensive or not that much.
Though I'd be the first to say that top end shock companies do a great job of finding that balance of planted feel, ride comfort, and knowing the typical ride style of someone who wants to spend a lot of money on aftermarket suspension.
But in my never ending struggle to try and learn new things by experimenting, I thought "what if I valved and pressurized a aftermarket shock to be as close as I could get to the stock shock?" Then to find if I didn't totally messed it up, I built a little extension adapter to make stock shocks work with aftermarket lifted springs and see if it felt the same.
And, yes, it was pretty close, really bang for your buck is to simply adjust the nitrogen psi, and not even get into more stuff than that. But that soft, kinda bouncy feel of stock suspension once up higher, feels kinda uneasy, not bad, but not right. So I kept bringing the pressure up to where I felt it was still soft, but didn't bounce more than two times from general road driving. And that's where I found that I was only 10% off of where I started.
One thing I have noticed over the years, every shock I was around that was new or rebuilt, I checked the pressure, and I never found a pair that were equal, and even 5 psi, I think I could feel.
My BPs came with 290 front left, 255 front right, that made a harsh, because of the hard sway back and forth, that I think happens to a lot of people. My icons after a rebuild were all 200 with one at 140! I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.
Jerry's final thought, $3500 for suspension is a lot of money to us, but like everything, money doesn't mean it's good, a proper setup means it's good, it needs to be tuned, and that costs money. I personally like BPs myself, but I recommend Icons to people because they are easier to set up. And I know it can be frustrating when a company says "this exact kit is for your truck" yes it bolts in, it feel better than before, but it was tuned to someone else, not you, just as similar vehicle model.
I think somewhere we confused how much something costs, with initial quality, I don't feel that is the case. A race motor is expensive and awesome, but it's not that good until it's tunned.
