Maybe email ARB and see if they can provide some engineering info for you… optimal neutral position, whether your extra compression might cause an issue, etc
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I’ll try to call them. Thought about calling Slee too.Maybe email ARB and see if they can provide some engineering info for you… optimal neutral position, whether your extra compression might cause an issue, etc
I’m confused (which is pretty easy for me). I’m thinking about raising the lower attachment point, not making it lower. The thing that isn’t getting through my skull is that, I think the bump stops currently prevent the shocks from ever getting to the theoretical max compression point. The marks on the shafts imply I am only using 6.5” of the available 8.6” of travel. If that is true, I don’t understand what difference it makes where the shock starts within its available travel.
What TeCKis300 is saying is that you may need to lower the bumpstop to limit the compression travel of your axle since you are raising the lower shock mount. Effectively, limiting compression so you don't bottom out your shock before the bumpstop fully compresses and stops the axle from upward movement.
I had the Timbren bumpstops on my tacoma years ago and they seems to be very stiff and limited up travel compared to the stock small bump stop, so you may already be limiting uptravel compared to the stock bumpstop and you may be ok (if the LC timbrens are similar to the tacoma).
Thanks. I get that and agree that I need to make sure the axle stops before the shock bottoms out. I believe I’ve done that. All I’m trying to say is that since these are existing shocks that were previously correctly set up to limit compression to prevent the shock from bottoming out, changing the normal ride height position, doesn’t change the total travel and the bump stops will still limit the compression travel to the same spot as they did before.What TeCKis300 is saying is that you may need to lower the bumpstop to limit the compression travel of your axle since you are raising the lower shock mount. Effectively, limiting compression so you don't bottom out your shock before the bumpstop fully compresses and stops the axle from upward movement.
I had the Timbren bumpstops on my tacoma years ago and they seems to be very stiff and limited up travel compared to the stock small bump stop, so you may already be limiting uptravel compared to the stock bumpstop and you may be ok (if the LC timbrens are similar to the tacoma).
Good job.I’m wondering if I should grind down the OEM filet weld down the the repad so the washer has a full mating surface.
View attachment 4143816
View attachment 4143817View attachment 4143818
Agree. I’ll measure the other side and either bring to or add washers to adjust placement.Good job.
It is best to retain the shock in its original OEM position. If you grind down the weld is, you will still need to add a spacer to the flat surface to ensure the shock body clears the mount/axle properly.
Yep. Both have occurred to me. I think statically speaking, what I have right now is probably the same strength as OEM but in the dynamic situation of real driving and associated vibrations, it is just a clamping force preventing the bolt from wiggling. It is a three-quarter inch bolt and a three-quarter inch hole so it’s fairly snug.Might want to consider how the original stud was welded and that relying on clamping force may not be sufficient long term. There are challenges to rewelding. Also avoid threads as they are stress risers that will fail. Perhaps modifying for double shear might be an easier solution
So what I currently have is pretty close the position of the other side that still has the OEM pin.Good job.
It is best to retain the shock in its original OEM position. If you grind down the weld is, you will still need to add a spacer to the flat surface to ensure the shock body clears the mount/axle properly.
I thought about having a bushing made to put into there. Didn’t think there might be special wall pipe that would work. It would be pretty difficult to get in there to weld it. maybe get tack on the bottom but you’re not getting all the way around it unless you cut the backside off for access.I was hoping you would weld (as best as possinle) a 1" od .120 wall tube between the 2 mounting surfaces.View attachment 4144003
Yeah, you might have to go all the way through. This should be more than strong enough and allow removal of the bolt. This is something I might do on mine as I hate taking the rear shocks off the oem pins.I thought about having a bushing made to put into there. Didn’t think there might be special wall pipe that would work. It would be pretty difficult to get in there to weld it. maybe get tack on the bottom but you’re not getting all the way around it unless you cut the backside off for access.
Maybe the better way would have been to drill it out at 1” and insert the 1” pipe/bushing then weld it into place.
I like the DOM tube idea and agree 1” DOM tube with a 3/4” bolt in it would make the shock tower stronger than the OEM 16mm (0.63”) bolt/pin that is in the stock configuration. What I don’t see is how adding a sleeve to the inside of the shock tower affects the actual cantilevered 3/4” (19mm) shock mount. The OEM pin is welded and, as I and others have proven, will bend if hit with enough force. If the part of the pin that is inside the shock tower was bigger diameter, I don’t think it would make any difference wrt the bolt/pin the shock mounts to. The cantilevered part would still have bent.Yeah, you might have to go all the way through. This should be more than strong enough and allow removal of the bolt. This is something I might do on mine as I hate taking the rear shocks off the oem pins.