Anyone running shims on top of coils?

[OregonLC]

43136-60020 is an aluminum spacer that fits above the strut. Just curious how well they work. Obviously would need longer strut top bolts.

Advantage: retain spring rate while increasing lift.

Disadvantage: increased moment arm on strut tower top. I'm running ICON CDCV with aluminum tops and am concerned that this could cause the aluminum top to strip or crack.

 

[bloc]

Do your icons increase down travel?

The big risk here is these spacers move the whole top hat down. If your shocks already increase down travel, you can put the CV into bad places when you add another 10mm at the strut, which is roughly 20mm at the wheel. Also since these add to the total length of the strut assembly, you'll have to carefully determine whether that assembly will run out of up travel before the bump stops work.

As for cracking the top mounts that wouldn't be a primary concern of mine. This is just a solid spacer between that and the spring bucket, everything is supported. But if you bottom your shocks out before the bump stops can do their job, the top hat would be only one of your worries.

They do work well, with stock struts, and that's the setup I'm happily running now. But for example when I had kings they had nearly an extra inch of extended length, resulting in almost 2" at the wheel of down travel, which I would consider the limit of acceptable CV travel. These spacers on top would definitely have hurt my CVs.

 

[TeCKis300]

This is likely a no go for most every aftermarket coilover for the reason @bloc mentioned. It'll achieve what you want but will increase downtravel beyond what the CVs are capable of.

CVs have a hard limit, but the also are weaker as they approach that operating limit. It would be a recipe for destroying them.

I'm not familiar with the CDCVs. Do they have adjustable perches? Or can you find in coilover spacers to increase preload?

Body lift might be an alternative solution?

 

[OregonLC]

Do your icons increase down travel?

The big risk here is these spacers move the whole top hat down. If your shocks already increase down travel, you can put the CV into bad places when you add another 10mm at the strut, which is roughly 20mm at the wheel. Also since these add to the total length of the strut assembly, you'll have to carefully determine whether that assembly will run out of up travel before the bump stops work.

As for cracking the top mounts that wouldn't be a primary concern of mine. This is just a solid spacer between that and the spring bucket, everything is supported. But if you bottom your shocks out before the bump stops can do their job, the top hat would be only one of your worries.

They do work well, with stock struts, and that's the setup I'm happily running now. But for example when I had kings they had nearly an extra inch of extended length, resulting in almost 2" at the wheel of down travel, which I would consider the limit of acceptable CV travel. These spacers on top would definitely have hurt my CVs.

This is likely a no go for most every aftermarket coilover for the reason @bloc mentioned. It'll achieve what you want but will increase downtravel beyond what the CVs are capable of.

CVs have a hard limit, but the also are weaker as they approach that operating limit. It would be a recipe for destroying them.

I'm not familiar with the CDCVs. Do they have adjustable perches? Or can you find in coilover spacers to increase preload?

Body lift might be an alternative solution?

Great points. Hadn't considered the travel limit aspect, only the static height and preload. They're just a coilover, so setting height by adjusting the threaded top perch is easy, it just increases preload in doing so. But you're 100% correct and I'll stick with this.

As far as the aluminum top, those things are a bit glass. 14mm steel into aluminum isn't a recipe for strength. I'm not sure you could torque them high enough to eliminate stretch from rebound. I've experienced a warranty issue before where the rears pulled out, though that was a larger singular thread for the top.

 

[bloc]

As far as the aluminum top, those things are a bit glass. 14mm steel into aluminum isn't a recipe for strength. I'm not sure you could torque them high enough to eliminate stretch from rebound. I've experienced a warranty issue before where the rears pulled out, though that was a larger singular thread for the top.

Good point on stretch and rebound, I was only considering the compression aspect. And yes your story and others with the rears is why I generally don't recommend Icon suspension to people, though that doesn't mean they aren't nice in other ways.

 

[Argilb852]

I think the point is 43136-60020 is OEM parts in LC200 , so it would not have big problems on working with other parts?
btw I remember the OEM spacer is like steel more than aluminum, I brought pair of them before and installed on my LC200 because factory just missing it.(for model before 2015 from japan)

 

[OregonLC]

Good point on stretch and rebound, I was only considering the compression aspect. And yes your story and others with the rears is why I generally don't recommend Icon suspension to people, though that doesn't mean they aren't nice in other ways.

I think they went through some problems with growth that are behind them. Best riding shocks I've tried so didn't want to mess with a good thing. And I get it's a sponsorship thing, but XO made it through Africa with nary a problem on the Icons while other bits tore themselves up. The bigger issue I have is with the service life, figure around 50K. But that's about on par with other performance/racing high end shocks. Thought about going with the 6112/5160, have those on the 100 and they're a bit too 'German' for my taste. The CDCV at a mid setting is the Goldilocks comfort zone for my taste.

I think the point is 43136-60020 is OEM parts in LC200 , so it would not have big problems on working with other parts?
btw I remember the OEM spacer is like steel more than aluminum, I brought pair of them before and installed on my LC200 because factory just missing it.(for model before 2015 from japan)

The part is definitely powder coated aluminum. Just tried a magnet on it and yes, it is steel. Surprisingly light. I think the issue is that other aftermarket shocks may have extended throw and the spacer would aggravate the CV angle at droop. Though I suppose even with the strut spacers the CV angle with a diff drop wouldn't be worse than a lifted 200 without one?

 

[TeCKis300]

I think they went through some problems with growth that are behind them. Best riding shocks I've tried so didn't want to mess with a good thing. And I get it's a sponsorship thing, but XO made it through Africa with nary a problem on the Icons while other bits tore themselves up. The bigger issue I have is with the service life, figure around 50K. But that's about on par with other performance/racing high end shocks. Thought about going with the 6112/5160, have those on the 100 and they're a bit too 'German' for my taste. The CDCV at a mid setting is the Goldilocks comfort zone for my taste.

The part is definitely powder coated aluminum. Just tried a magnet on it and yes, it is steel. Surprisingly light. I think the issue is that other aftermarket shocks may have extended throw and the spacer would aggravate the CV angle at droop. Though I suppose even with the strut spacers the CV angle with a diff drop wouldn't be worse than a lifted 200 without one?

I watched the Africa series of XO too. Curious they had to tighten so many things including shock hardware. I'm sure other aftermarket suspensions would have had similar issues, but that's another detail that OEMs get right.

Regarding the CV angle, you can try measuring. Diff drop can definitely help. Probably don't want more than something like 26° down angle as there needs to be some margin for steering and alignment too.