Obsession over rear shock travel and options - really???

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

ShottsUZJ100 said:
NICE TRY! :D

Not going to work on the UZJ (IFS). Cannot lift as high as a 105. That height is what enables using a shock and spring like that. N74L still the IFS king.
Click to expand...

I call BS. Quit slinging this crap around to the newbies John. There are plenty of BETTER options than that junk OME cobbles together. I would encourage others to do the research on this site and look at credible information from guys like Christo Slee and Darren Mcrae, among others.

BTW, I see no reason why this won't work. The pic shows rear articulation, not front. The front isn't even flexed out that much, but that rear puts the N74L to shame. As you always say John, trust the pictures...
 
Mxndrnks said:
Am I missing all the threads where Shotts system fails?????? I see him post the pics... and everyone else say it is wrong... but no back-up. What is the real deal??? Not trying to start a flame thread. But just not getting all the hate. Please enlighten me. I want to know the facts here.
Click to expand...

No one says it fails, it's just not the panacea that he claims. It's a tired old argument that we don't want to rehash here. Do a search.

Plus, I'll back up (with receipts) the fact that OME builds crap, and I've blown two of their shocks over the years. Yes, some folks never experience a problem, but that record should be spotless (as other makes like Bilstein pretty much are). Then there are the high-end makers like Fox, etc. IMHO, forget OME. I will never go back myself.
 
dclee said:
There are plenty of BETTER options than that junk OME cobbles together.
Click to expand...

"Was at my local ARB store today looking at the Nitrocharger shocks for my GQ. (I want some softly valved shocks for a better ride, with some extra travel). I've looked at a lot of shocks lately and something about the OME's looked familiar. They are identical in appearance to the Monroe gas Magnum 4 x4 shocks which are sold at most automotive outlets for a lot less than the OME Nitrocharger. I mentioned this to the ARB salesman and he said yes, they are made in the same Australian Monroe factory but 'in a different part of the factory' The shocks feel about the same (to compress by hand) as the Monroes, so its got me wondering, is there any difference? Monroe talk about the 35mm piston, chrome steel rod, 1.6mm walls etc in their literature, just like OME. The OME's are apparently available in two firmness ratings (comfort and firm). Both the Monroes and OME's have a two year warranty, EXCEPT the OME 'L' series shock which is appx 65mm longer than standard has no warranty from ARB whatsoever as they are regarded as a 'competiion shock'. Monroe also make an 'L' series shock for my GQ which does have the same two year warranty as the standard length shock.
So, are the OME's worth the extra money or am I just as well off with the Monroes?"


OME shocks - restickered Monroes? @ ExplorOz


OME stinks, I'm not a fan of OME, only have there coils, and even though sqeak like a biotch.
 
At the end of the day you still get what you pay for. OME = inexpensive (relatively) shocks. They might just be OK for some...while failing to meet higher performance expectations of others. Although I didn't have any failure issues they just aren't valved for much more than a stock weight rig (assuming you want/need a shock to dissipate heat and provide good damping in a variety of conditions including miles and miles of washboard, etc.). I found them to be woefully over valved for the smaller bumps and falling very short of good damping for the higher speed stuff...with my modded '99. Shocks are a very vehicle and person specific component of the suspension system. Ideally having a shock system one can tune for their individual needs is the end-goal.

When Christo gets his shocks to market it will be, more than likely, a slam dunk for those wanting a direct bolt-on higher performance shock for the 100s.
 
Mxndrnks said:
Am I missing all the threads where Shotts system fails?????? I see him post the pics... and everyone else say it is wrong... but no back-up. What is the real deal??? Not trying to start a flame thread. But just not getting all the hate. Please enlighten me. I want to know the facts here.
Click to expand...

No worries. Different folks use their Cruisers differently. For many trails an extended length shock isn't a "must have". For some, they want better control at high speeds in the dirt. For others they want better on-road handling.

For me...I want articulation at it's best because the 100 is a "wheel lifter" for two reasons:

*IFS
*Tall lift kits not available that will accomodate longer shocks (like on the 80-Series) and therefore better travel

So it's OK Mxndrnks id folks flame my opinion. What's funny though are the folks who "say they crawl through difficult technical trails and they don't need or want a shock like the N74L". The 100's I've gone with are amazed at the difference. I'd like to see pics from Bilstein owners and non-L owners crawling technical trails here in the US and compare them to this. Maybe they can post up and show us their results (UZJ/IFS)?

616075061_qSQif-XL.jpg


132979916_kU9GP-XL.jpg
 
Surely you are not suggesting that those pics are of a "difficult technical trail"?


ShottsUZJ100 said:
What's funny though are the folks who "say they crawl through difficult technical trails and they don't need or want a shock like the N74L". The 100's I've gone with are amazed at the difference. I'd like to see pics from Bilstein owners and non-L owners crawling technical trails here in the US and compare them to this. Maybe they can post up and show us their results (UZJ/IFS)?

616075061_qSQif-XL.jpg


132979916_kU9GP-XL.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Those spots...not whatsoever. They are just places on the trail where the suspension gets flexed out.

Here is an optional line on the same trail however that no other 100's anybody knows of has ever tried. I know of only 3 80-series owners to take this option. Does this qualify as "diffcult and technical"?

97623587_SuiyJ-L.jpg


97623780_fbt54-L.jpg


97623850_wKAcq-L.jpg


97623931_y7J7d-L.jpg
 
Hey, pighead's FJ55 front, solid-axle pic was new - though not terribly relevant... :lol:

The problem I'm having in my mind is this - What is the practical limit of droop on a "stockish" truck? It seems to me that you have 2 choices.

1) run a longer lift spring with a longer shock that allows for down travel, but have to load the crap out of your truck to avoid the stink-bug look due to inability to lift the front.

2) Use shorter springs than in 1), but risk having your springs unseat during articulation.

Am I underthinking this? The inability to play with the front end really limits what your practical droop in the rear can be.
 
re_guderian said:
The problem I'm having in my mind is this - What is the practical limit of droop on a "stockish" truck? It seems to me that you have 2 choices.

1) run a longer lift spring with a longer shock that allows for down travel, but have to load the crap out of your truck to avoid the stink-bug look due to inability to lift the front.

2) Use shorter springs than in 1), but risk having your springs unseat during articulation.

Am I underthinking this? The inability to play with the front end really limits what your practical droop in the rear can be.
Click to expand...

100% correct. That's why the lift height options are so limited. This is also what limits shock options (room for the shock, room for the shock travel, etc).

So with the front being limited to 2.75" lift, you'd want to keep the rear close to that same amount or ya...stinkypoo bug.

Shock-wise to run Billy's or regular OME you simply bolt on and go. They work with the available spring combos however you do not gain travel.

If you want to increase travel (up, down, whatever...travel is travel) you have few options.

*The rear is the easier way IF you are willing to lift your 100 to 2.75 front and 3.00 rear. In fact, look how many have their 100's at this height. A lot these days. So instead of bolting in a standard length shock you can easily bolt in a 80-series L-shock and gain 3-inches travel at the wheel. This will be far better on technical trails as the pics show.

If somebody can forego the aded travel because they need another type of performance increase then another shock might be better.

NOTE: At a recent show Slee mentioned his new shocks will have longer travel (droop) than regular OME though a bit less than the L. Overall it might make for a great shock for many users. For me...I will wait for the new L-series 80-series sport shock. I want every inch for the trails and don't need a reservoir.
 
John, as previously pointed out your theory works as long as you can obtain a longer travel shock without increasing the length of the compressed dimension/length. However, to the best of my knowledge and generally speaking, the longer the travel the longer the compressed length of a given shock. You do not get an extra 3" of travel by going with the 74L shock compared to the standard N101 OME shock: Period. Its simple math.

The best way to determine the proper or max length a given rig can accept is to cycle the suspension...measuring both extremes. Bump stops prevent the shock from bottoming...and must be used if the shock's compressed length is longer than the space it must occupy when compressed.

Its kind of like saying a 10-story building, that has the first 3 'stories' built below grade is a taller building above grade than an 8-story building where all the floors/stories are above grade.

I don't doubt you get a little more total shock travel but it can't be 3" more comparing the N101 OME to the 74L OME shock. Its just misleading to those that don't know...
 
Measurements have been taken to prove the travel increase at the wheel (where it counts).

The most damning evidence to the L's merits are simply the pictures. They do not lie. They make the same improvements on the 80-series setups though people don't argue about it. :)

So post up a picture of a non-L'd 100's rear-end articulation to compare. It can't...and it's that simple...not even "tech". Anybody can see it in a picture and on the trail.
 
You should post your pictures here Phil where you said your articulation matched an L-series rear-end. We can all then compare. You know, those ones on the CSC site?
 
ShottsUZJ100 said:
You should post your pictures here Phil where you said your articulation matched an L-series rear-end. We can all then compare. You know, those ones on the CSC site?
Click to expand...

Never said that:confused:

Wait I did post picture where AHC front articulated better then OME
2006 Front flex.webp
 
For the record the total travel difference (extended dimension minus compressed dimension) between an OME N101 shock and the OME N74L shock is exactly 1". This assumes the published shock dimensions by OME are accurate:

N101 (the typical 100-series rear shock from OME): 24.0" extended x 14.2" compressed = 9.8" max extension.
N74L: 26.4" extended x 15.6" compressed = 10.8" max extension.

The 1" does not take into consideration any additional bump stop that is required on the compressed side of the equation.

So where again do you get "3 additional travel"? I'm just trying to understand your math.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom