Icon Progressive Springs vs OME 2724: effective lift height?

[OregonLC]

I'm running the Icon Progressives and really like the ride quality (also running 2.5 RR CDCV), but the ride height is a bit low with my weight. I'm 3,700 lbs front and 4,400 lbs rear. I'm trying to compare the Icon's against the OME's, however IVD doesn't publish a spring rate for their springs. Further complicating the decision is that OME shows the 2724 rating at a 3/4" lift.

So... is there any MUD knowledge of what type of gain I should expect if I were to change to the 2724s? Or should I go to the 2725s? At some point the big boy will have another 200lbs of rear bumper and possibly the aux tank.

I know that XO is running the IVD springs with a similarly laden vehicle. They have 33s on theirs and have a rear wheel well gap similar to mine but appear to have leveled the vehicle by lowering the front coilovers. I'd rather keep the front height if I could.

Or what about 30mm coil spacers? Are such available from the 200? I'm not bottoming out the suspension so the rate is probably OK (at 4,400 lbs at least), I just want to increase the rear height an inch or so.

 

[TexAZ]

I'm running 30mm spacers on top of OME 2721s, with very little load in the back (fridge/slides, no bumper or RTT). No issues so far running spacers.
@RS6tofj80 has been running spacers as well, with no issues either.

from other threads on this subject, it seems the Icon springs are a similar spring rate to the 2721, but an inch and a half taller.
OME list the lift height VERY conservatively. Given the heavy load you have now, 2724s will ride nicely. @Roy Park was running Icon rear springs with similar load, and the guys at OutdoorX4 just built up a 200 with icon rear springs and are going to OME 2724.


New Springs, ARB 2724s, right?

 

[Roy Park]

I'm running 30mm spacers on top of OME 2721s, with very little load in the back (fridge/slides, no bumper or RTT). No issues so far running spacers.
@RS6tofj80 has been running spacers as well, with no issues either.

from other threads on this subject, it seems the Icon springs are a similar spring rate to the 2721, but an inch and a half taller.
OME list the lift height VERY conservatively. Given the heavy load you have now, 2724s will ride nicely. @Roy Park was running Icon rear springs with similar load, and the guys at OutdoorX4 just built up a 200 with icon rear springs and are going to OME 2724.


New Springs, ARB 2724s, right?

I’m scheduled to have bumpers and drawers installed next week. We’ll see how she sits after that. Then I’ll have a long drive home to see how she handles on road. If the Icons feel ok on road, I may try to wheel them before replacing them with the 2724. But I have a feeling they will be too soft even on road.

 

[mpho]

I have the privilege to work with both companies (ARB and ICON) and with full disclosure, I am sponsored by both of them. My LC 200 has a rear bumper, jerry cans, drawers, fridge, and roof top tent. The ICON springs are an awesome ride, however, they could not handle the weight. I had to move to ARB's 24 springs. I gained 2-3 inches of height in rear and the springs can carry the weight. The ride is fabulous. I have the ICON 2.5s in the rear and the 3.0s in the front. The rear springs support the weight and the ride is supportive, responsive, and my back end doesn't sag as much.

 

[Willy beamin]

Man your truck needs to go on a diet. My axle weights are 3600 front and 3280 rear. I run Icon stage 4 / revalved. OME 2723's with 10mm rear trim packers. The fronts are Eibach #700 coils and 3/8's OE, shock tower, spacers up front. I replaced the icon front coils due to being to soft. It rides extremely nice now. I have a stock interior with an armored exterior.
Currently you're 1220 lbs heavier than my truck. and unless I calculated this wrong the free height difference between a 2724 and a 2725 is
2724 - 15.74" - 400 lb rate
2725 - 17.51" - 445 lb rate - I'm betting the 2725's will sag out even after a month or so in height gains with the 2724

 

[TeCKis300]

I'm sure you're aware, but wow, that's some serious weight! With more armor to be added still.

Looks like you're well over the GVWR of the vehicle at 8100lbs (rated 7385lbs). But then again, it's a LC, and will cope.

And over on axle ratings GAWR: Front - 3700lbs (rated 3595lbs), Rear 4400lbs (rated 4300lbs)

 

[OregonLC]

I have the privilege to work with both companies (ARB and ICON) and with full disclosure, I am sponsored by both of them. My LC 200 has a rear bumper, jerry cans, drawers, fridge, and roof top tent. The ICON springs are an awesome ride, however, they could not handle the weight. I had to move to ARB's 24 springs. I gained 2-3 inches of height in rear and the springs can carry the weight. The ride is fabulous. I have the ICON 2.5s in the rear and the 3.0s in the front. The rear springs support the weight and the ride is supportive, responsive, and my back end doesn't sag as much.

Great feedback, exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

 

[OregonLC]

Man your truck needs to go on a diet.

I'm sure you're aware, but wow, that's some serious weight! With more armor to be added still.

Looks like you're well over the GVWR of the vehicle at 8100lbs (rated 7385lbs). But then again, it's a LC, and will cope.

And over on axle ratings GAWR: Front - 3700lbs (rated 3595lbs), Rear 4400lbs (rated 4300lbs)

Yeah, he's a heavy stud. I'm not too worried about the GVWR or GAWR, those are DOT certification numbers not structural limits.

I think this illustrates the difference between an trail build and an overland build. I'm setup to be fully self-supportive for extended travel. When you have RTT, water, full tools, full camp gear, etc, etc, it all adds up. Heck, 225 lbs of that is water. At this weight, I'm able to support two vehicles (four people) for at least four days remote. I could probably mitigate some of that with a trailer... but then I'd be pulling my trailer and lose some trail capability.

I remember when I first got my 100 and saw all of the posts of people running north of 8,000# and I couldn't figure out how that could be. Now it's very clear!

 

[OregonLC]

and the guys at OutdoorX4 just built up a 200 with icon rear springs and are going to OME 2724.

Interesting... that specific (the XO) truck was discussed with IVD yesterday and their response was that it was handling the load. I talked with Jeff for quite a while at Expo but the topic of spring rate didn't come up. I should have asked!

Scratch that. You said Ox4 and I was thinking XO. XO is running the Icons and they have a heavy build too, granted a lighter tent and the luxury of spreading other gear across vehicles in their team.

 

[OregonLC]

OME 2724's are on order... thanks again for the feedback this morning!

 

[Romer]

I have no experience with Icons. I am running OME springs and have no issues and it isnt sagging. I think I am just below 8000 pounds when both tanks are full

I have front and rear bumpers
Steele skid plates
Sliders
Gamiviti Rack
A 13 Gal Aux tank
I run two spares, one on the tire carrier and one below
ARB drawers full of tools and spare parts
and an ARB Fridge

The GWR spec is probably for stock springs and shocks as that is what takes the weight

Edit: Here are my suspension details
OME 2723 - REAR COIL - 3/4" Lift - 440lbs
OME 61029 NITROCHARGER SPORT SHOCK - REAR
N91005-S 91005 OME Nitrocharger Sport - Strut - FRONT
OME 2703 - FRONT COIL - Medium 2" Lift -
OME 661 -Rear Shock Guard
SPC-25465 SPC Adjustable Upper Control Arms - 08+ Land Cruiser - Pair
SPC Rear lower control arms

 

[OregonLC]

The GWR spec is probably for stock springs and shocks as that is what takes the weight

That and as I understand it, it's largely certification value. At those posted weights, Toyota has proven to meet the DOT safety and performance requirements. Above that you're operating outside of the DOT envelope. But not necessarily above the engineered component capacity.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

That and as I understand it, it's largely certification value. At those posted weights, Toyota has proven to meet the DOT safety and performance requirements. Above that you're operating outside of the DOT envelope. But not necessarily above the engineered component capacity.

GVWR, how much can a 200 safely carry?

That’s also what the Australian government thinks about the 200 when it comes to their GVM upgrades and certifications.

 

[OregonLC]

That the Aussie government has regulations in place and that there is sound engineering behind those regulations are two different things. They also don't allow front recovery points due to pedestrian safety. I supposed that could be viewed as good if you're on the receiving end of an accident. Or viewed as bad if you're in need of a front recovery. Regardless, I'm not confident that either the Aussie or US 'gubment' has a clue what the limits of our Land Cruiser really are.

I do respect the post, however, as it caused me to do a bit of reading. It seems that up until 2008 the GCWR was substantially an arbitrary number on the part of the manufacturer. They simply had to state that the vehicle would perform at the stated weight as well as comply with all other DOT mandates. The weight rating was more driven by marketing than component engineering. Then came SAE J2807 which specified minimum performance criteria. This has now been (apparently voluntarily?) adopted by all manufacturers. But still, it is a performance metric and not a structural metric. I would wager that at 8,100 lbs my 200, though over GVWR, will out perform a cab-over at 15,000 lbs (2,000 lbs under it's GVWR). So is it unsafe on the highway? Or just lower performance than the book shows?

This is a good theoretical debate. At least its a good debate until the lawyers get involved. I just read through my entire insurance policy (Progressive) and can't find any reference to GVWR. The only weight reference I can find is a limitation of 12,000 lbs GVWR. I have found posts elsewhere that theorize that operating over GVWR will nullify your coverage, but I don't read that in mine. Any hard evidence out there of denial of claims?

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Then came SAE J2807 which specified minimum performance criteria. This has now been (apparently voluntarily?) adopted by all manufacturers.

Nope. Ford and Chrysler (Fiat) don’t adheare to it. Which is why they fail the towing part of the test with the F-150 and Ram 1500, but ah... who cares, people don’t look into things that much. Whatever the specs on the websites say is fine. (Being sarcastic)

 

[TeCKis300]

All good comments. I'll add that structural capacities are also dependent on the dynamic forces the vehicle is subjected to and the expected durability. In other words, nothing holds up forever. At some point, with enough stress, structures and components including bearings/bushings/links will fail.

I get that building a vehicle is going to add weight. Sometimes there's no way around it. Sometimes there is by taking the simpler, less "built-in" option which is not a cool or fun. But I constantly remind myself to "add lightness", because that always makes sense, even for a bruiser like the 200-series.

I'm not being productive with my comments. Just thinking out loud.

BTW, we need more pics of your rig @OregonLC

Carry on...

 

[OregonLC]

BTW, we need more pics of your rig @OregonLC
.

Yes, I really need to do a build thread. Although by now it's mostly built. On my 100, I spent the better part of 7 years building bit by bit. With the 200, I've done everything in the last five months. Spare time has been behind a wrench (or steering wheel) and not behind a keyboard. By the end of June I'll have 20 nights in tent for 2018. Not a bad start to the season...

 

[Markuson]

Personally, I didn’t feel that my LC handled even its own stock weight all that well on the squishy, bouncy stock suspension. Given the fact that the original GVWR was determined under the condition of the relatively crappy stock springs and struts...it is not much of a logical leap to propose that stiffer, heavier, more stable suspension substantially contributes to safer handling of the weight increase. Even the stingy, Australian regulators agree...and they have perhaps the highest percentage of MASSIVELY built LCs on the planet.

As a lowly layman...(hehe ) ...but one with a pretty strong sense of basic physics...that’s good enough for me.

*If I die because my truck was too heavy, y’all can come to my funeral and say I told you so. hehe

What’s ironic to me is... -We all drool over the crazy Aussie builds we see...but Then it winds up in the same old debate about whether they are too heavy/dangerous to approve of. In that spirit...here’s one such Aussie beast...

 

[OregonLC]

Boom!

Herc is a bit tail proud right now, but that should settle down to near perfect with a bumper and fuel.

 

[Roy Park]

Boom!View attachment 1720175
View attachment 1720170 View attachment 1720173 View attachment 1720174 Herc is a bit tail proud right now, but that should settle down to near perfect with a bumper and fuel.

How’s the ride? I’m gonna be ordering tomorrow.