Entry level vs. top tier suspension kits

[NoClue]

I have 80k on my icons 2.5s no issues (abused them as much as possible on the street) but havent done any major offroading adventures. Did race it through a corn field once trying to pretend i was driving the baja. Icons are nice on cybermonday but the blisteins have me jealous for $1200. Not sure if that included adjusters. For me adjusters are a must have. Also coil overs are a must, car drives better than new. Im sold on digressive shocks-great for aggressive drivers.

For me its either kings or icons for top tier suspension based on personality type.

No adjusters on the bilsteins, but the rears are remote reservoir with a boot covering the rod, which I liked compared to other aftermarket offerings

 

[Cruisin911]

so you don’t know the OME shocks and springs you used yet you conclude OME being 75%-85% performance as incorrect. do you realize that Spring rate and damping are important to suspension?

it can be installed improperly if kdss procedure isn’t followed, the wrong springs or shocks are chosen, appropriate UCAs aren’t picked, bad alignment. Etc

Well, look at you up there on your soapbox.

To answer your question directly, yes. I do realize the impact of spring rates and damping. Sorry I didn't grab the part numbers off of them for you before I threw them in the trash. It had stock UCAs and an acceptable alignment. Maybe the previous owner ran a LOT of weight in the back or towed a house with it. It rode like a dump truck.

Clearly you know how my truck was set up better than I do. Please, Sir, tell me why OME is superior to all others.

Being the suspension expert that you claim, you can easily deduce that even the basic volumetric fluid differences between a monotube and a remote reservoir setup addresses total heat sink available for dissipation to address fade, not to mention the fact that the Kings were properly valved and setup for my specific vehicle to include every piece of gear I typically carry and my use case as addressing the performance difference. This is just scratching the surface of the differences. I am sure it more than eclipses the 15% performance increase on my previous OME setup.

Many people are happy with their OMEs. I wasn't. Its not personal. They only way I can see that you arrived at a 75-85% solution with OMEs is that you've never had or tried anything else.

So I put the question back to you. What other suspensions have you run on your 200 that makes you think the OME is a 85% capability solution as compared to the higher end systems?

I am offering only first hand experience. What have you?

 

[04UZJ100]

 

[40Man]

are better than .

 

[A10Driver]

are better than .

Only on a wash board road

 

[04UZJ100]

Only on a wash board road

At what tire psi?

 

[Crush 4]

At what tire psi.

Only on a wash board road

I can’t find the popcorn icon

 

[Itsky]

Well, look at you up there on your soapbox.

To answer your question directly, yes. I do realize the impact of spring rates and damping. Sorry I didn't grab the part numbers off of them for you before I threw them in the trash. It had stock UCAs and an acceptable alignment. Maybe the previous owner ran a LOT of weight in the back or towed a house with it. It rode like a dump truck.

Clearly you know how my truck was set up better than I do. Please, Sir, tell me why OME is superior to all others.

Being the suspension expert that you claim, you can easily deduce that even the basic volumetric fluid differences between a monotube and a remote reservoir setup addresses total heat sink available for dissipation to address fade, not to mention the fact that the Kings were properly valved and setup for my specific vehicle to include every piece of gear I typically carry and my use case as addressing the performance difference. This is just scratching the surface of the differences. I am sure it more than eclipses the 15% performance increase on my previous OME setup.

Many people are happy with their OMEs. I wasn't. Its not personal. They only way I can see that you arrived at a 75-85% solution with OMEs is that you've never had or tried anything else.

So I put the question back to you. What other suspensions have you run on your 200 that makes you think the OME is a 85% capability solution as compared to the higher end systems?

I am offering only first hand experience. What have you?

OME makes 4 different front springs and 6 rear. They make two different rear shocks. Why do you think that is?

So your commenting on a setup you knew nothing about except the brand. And you had stock ucas.

the value of your opinion is adding up

in the last 15 years I’ve had OME twice for about 7 years and icon for 8 years. Done the installs, traded springs as necessary and dealt with rebuilds etcs. Many of my bro’s have 4runner taco lc200s lc100s gxs with various setups

Having the right setup is more important than the brand.

I said you didn’t know what your talking about, and it seems I was right

 

[Cruisin911]

OME makes 4 different front springs and 6 rear. They make two different rear shocks. Why do you think that is?

So your commenting on a setup you knew nothing about except the brand. And you had stock ucas.

the value of your opinion is adding up

in the last 15 years I’ve had OME twice for about 7 years and icon for 8 years. Done the installs, traded springs as necessary and dealt with rebuilds etcs. Many of my bro’s have 4runner taco lc200s lc100s gxs with various setups

Having the right setup is more important than the brand.

I said you didn’t know what your talking about, and it seems I was right

This is funny. I already said I was running OME rear coils. Calm down.

I’m done. This is why I dumped all my social media years ago. I’ll take a cue from Twain and exit stage left.

 

[Angelo1]

I think Icons are overhyped. Between the member with the Icon wheels that are flaking and the numerous complete failures that XOverland has had across a number of its trucks they do not instill confidence in me as a consumer

Just curious who said they were having Icon failures. Clay just wrote to me and said they are very happy with Icons. They do test the prototypes however and give feedback on the issues they’ve had. Other then that, they use them on all XO builds because they are reliable and can take the constant abuse.
I have to absolutely agree with Clay because my 3.0 are abused on corrugated ranch roads and the lack of vibration is why I appreciate the design of them. I think people might have issues using the 2.5s on loaded down rigs. I’m not expert by any means and have to think the 3.0 is the better setup for the 200. That’s what XO uses on the 200 and Tundras.

 

[Angelo1]

 

[bloc]

Just curious who said they were having Icon failures. Clay just wrote to me and said they are very happy with Icons. They do test the prototypes however and give feedback on the issues they’ve had. Other then that, they use them on all XO builds because they are reliable and can take the constant abuse.
I have to absolutely agree with Clay because my 3.0 are abused on corrugated ranch roads and the lack of vibration is why I appreciate the design of them. I think people might have issues using the 2.5s on loaded down rigs. I’m not expert by any means and have to think the 3.0 is the better setup for the 200. That’s what XO uses on the 200 and Tundras.

It may not necessarily be the failure rate, but the types of failures that do happen that speak to the engineering here.

I remember at least one posted here, possibly two or three, where the upper pin mount on the rear shock simply pulled out of the shock body. And when it did come out, it looked like maybe 1x the thread diameter of engagement, into aluminum.

Stuff like that just shouldn’t happen. The threaded (or otherwise) connection for something that simple (meaning doesn’t have a complex role to play) should be designed in such a way that multiple times the expected loads can be applied before failure.

I won’t claim to be an expert on icons stuff, but I have been paying attention to this section long enough to be wary of them based on the failures I’ve seen. It says a lot that BP-51s are much more common in this section, and yet failures of those appear to be much more rare.

 

[Itsky]

Just curious who said they were having Icon failures. Clay just wrote to me and said they are very happy with Icons. They do test the prototypes however and give feedback on the issues they’ve had. Other then that, they use them on all XO builds because they are reliable and can take the constant abuse.
I have to absolutely agree with Clay because my 3.0 are abused on corrugated ranch roads and the lack of vibration is why I appreciate the design of them. I think people might have issues using the 2.5s on loaded down rigs. I’m not expert by any means and have to think the 3.0 is the better setup for the 200. That’s what XO uses on the 200 and Tundras.

It’s in their videos actually, if I recall the rear shock on a 100 series broke in half. They are a quality product, but they are sponsored. Look at their seasons before they were sponsored, if I recall they ran ome and bfgs

 

[Angelo1]

It may not necessarily be the failure rate, but the types of failures that do happen that speak to the engineering here.

I remember at least one posted here, possibly two or three, where the upper pin mount on the rear shock simply pulled out of the shock body. And when it did come out, it looked like maybe 1x the thread diameter of engagement, into aluminum.

Stuff like that just shouldn’t happen. The threaded (or otherwise) connection for something that simple (meaning doesn’t have a complex role to play) should be designed in such a way that multiple times the expected loads can be applied before failure.

I won’t claim to be an expert on icons stuff, but I have been paying attention to this section long enough to be wary of them based on the failures I’ve seen. It says a lot that BP-51s are much more common in this section, and yet failures of those appear to be much more rare.

Based on a couple is very anecdotal evidence.

It’s in their videos actually, if I recall the rear shock on a 100 series broke in half. They are a quality product, but they are sponsored. Look at their seasons before they were sponsored, if I recall they ran ome and bfgs on now,

Come on now, name a company with a perfect track record and yet you still bought a 200. Not saying icon is the best but they make a pretty amazing suspension system, and i would say probably the best UCA and LCA available tor the 200. I’ve tried most other UCA including TC and they all made noise and getting the alignment almost stock was difficult. Icon UCA, no problem at all Abs 31k miles later, zero issues with alignment and zero noise. The suspension has been whisper quiet. Again, not saying they are the best suspension company as I would love to give kings and Bp-51 a try. If anything else, maybe I and a couple members on here who’ve gotten twice the miles as me on ICONs without rebuilding are the lucky ones

Now I talked up ICOnS, my suspension is literally going to fall off my truck

 

[bloc]

Based on a couple is very anecdotal evidence.

You asked who said “they” were having failures. UZJ listed an XO specific one, and I recalled failures posted here. Significantly more than the BP-51 failures I’ve noticed, which is relevant.

So yes, anecdotal, but also one of the best ways we have to gather information about these systems before dropping the money on them.

 

[linuxgod]

Just curious who said they were having Icon failures. Clay just wrote to me and said they are very happy with Icons. They do test the prototypes however and give feedback on the issues they’ve had. Other then that, they use them on all XO builds because they are reliable and can take the constant abuse.
I have to absolutely agree with Clay because my 3.0 are abused on corrugated ranch roads and the lack of vibration is why I appreciate the design of them. I think people might have issues using the 2.5s on loaded down rigs. I’m not expert by any means and have to think the 3.0 is the better setup for the 200. That’s what XO uses on the 200 and Tundras.

I've seen several folks on the forum have issues with theirs. @laserturbo91 had a rear snap at the top. I've seen at least one other like that in the forum. I've not run Icons so it certainly could be a bad batch.

 

[04UZJ100]

Yeah...... so they’re overhyped products. Clay is paid by them and gets free products. Of course he’s going to sugar coat it.

 

[afgman786]

Just curious who said they were having Icon failures. Clay just wrote to me and said they are very happy with Icons. They do test the prototypes however and give feedback on the issues they’ve had. Other then that, they use them on all XO builds because they are reliable and can take the constant abuse.
I have to absolutely agree with Clay because my 3.0 are abused on corrugated ranch roads and the lack of vibration is why I appreciate the design of them. I think people might have issues using the 2.5s on loaded down rigs. I’m not expert by any means and have to think the 3.0 is the better setup for the 200. That’s what XO uses on the 200 and Tundras.

Clay is not a reliable source to ask about icon.. they're sponsorship gets the free products not just discounted. They don't pay for anything they put on those rigs is how their sponsorships work if what I have seen is true. So do you really think he's going to bad mouth icon suspension?

Icon set ups cost thousands, and have a smaller amount of people running them yet we see stuff about their failures. OME sells probably 10x as much and I don't see 10x the failures about OME..

 

[CharlieS]

Still waiting to see a King failure.

 

[Angelo1]

I agree that Clay is being sponsored and would not bad mouth them to keep the sponsorship. I guess Equip, CBI,Redarc,Tundras, 4runners and Land Cruisers they use for Overlanding should be put into question as well. They didn’t have to use ICON as a Sponsor. You don’t think he could have been sponsored by OME, FOX,Ironman, etc.? More so now that XO has become more popular. Shoot, i bet they could get hooked by KING. If they have thought ICON was nothing but problems, I would have to believe they would have ditched them for a better company. Maybe they used ICON products because they actually like them The same reason they use Toyota’s and other top of the line products. If you see Clays build outs, he goes all out. Maybe, the Patriot campers he likes are actually trash but sense Patriot sponsors him, he’s all good with it. You will hear more bad reviews then good ones about any product. ICONs and Kings are high maintenance equipment. If you don’t take care of them, you will shorten the lifespan. I’m not fanboy of any product, but if it hasn’t failed me and provides the best of what I want, I’m a fan. Until then, I disagree that ICON is a lessor product. If you’ve nerved owned a Stage 6 3.0, you might be missing out. The ICON 2.5 might be the mistake 200 owners go with if they actually off-road past creeping and crawling. The 3.0 is incredible if you like to catch even a tiny bit of air. Tundra owners appear to agree. Check out a couple videos in this link. Icon Vehicle Dynamics 3.0 Series Remote Reservoir CDCV Coilover - https://www.tundras.com/threads/icon-vehicle-dynamics-3-0-series-remote-reservoir-cdcv-coilover.21879/