Great info Carl,
Do you find that the droop limit with other UCA's is the UCA hitting the shock body, the CV angle, or the lower ball joint bind? (assuming the Unibal UCA's don't run out of range in this application)
Thanks,
Shock Length Thread
- Thread starter madmaskbass
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Great info Carl,
Do you find that the droop limit with other UCA's is the UCA hitting the shock body, the CV angle, or the lower ball joint bind? (assuming the Unibal UCA's don't run out of range in this application)
Thanks,
shock length
The droop limit is the shock. if you unbolt the shock, the next limit is the OEM uca, either on the shock body, or at the joint itself.
Beyond that the tie rod ends, then the CV, maybe the LCA, but if you get that far, you've got other problems.
To answer your question about the picture shown. The tube on our uca's intersects at the top of the bushing cup to offset it upward to prevent hitting the upper uca mount. I the case of the picture show, the interfering area could simply be ground to allow more clearance. then you would need to be sure that arm didnt hit the shock body and the angle on the joint was ok.
The droop limit is the shock. if you unbolt the shock, the next limit is the OEM uca, either on the shock body, or at the joint itself.
Beyond that the tie rod ends, then the CV, maybe the LCA, but if you get that far, you've got other problems.
To answer your question about the picture shown. The tube on our uca's intersects at the top of the bushing cup to offset it upward to prevent hitting the upper uca mount. I the case of the picture show, the interfering area could simply be ground to allow more clearance. then you would need to be sure that arm didnt hit the shock body and the angle on the joint was ok.
Teaser pics.... Got them today! Review to follow in my build thread.....
Wanted to put some thoughts out there for dissection from the team!
For me personally, I'm more concerned with added travel in the rear of the truck. IMO, and based on experience on outings, hang-ups, etc.... rear suspension could bring more benefits.
I revisited the chart and threw into excel to sort by criteria to narrow options:
The top 5 with longest extension are:
Manf F/R PN EXT
Bilstein Rear BE5-2740 21.71"
Fox Rear 985-24-067 22.95"
OME Rear n101 24.02"
OME Rear 60002 24.1"
King Rear 25.11"
Icon Rear 56510: 25.67”
Fox Rear 985-24-009 26.15"
Icon Rear 57802 26.3”
Icon Rear 57802C 26.3”
OME Rear 60071L 26.50"
This represents nearly 5 full inches in spread among these options - pretty wild - but may explain why I stripped a Bilstein shaft on my rear passenger.
I'm already running Fox, and love the ride. At nearly 1/4 the price of Icons, the 985-24-009 seems to be the best fit for my set-up.
Who is running the 985-24-009?
After speaking with Fox, they charge $25 for re-valving, and move in % increments to re-valve based on user specs. Turnaround time is generally 3-5 days to do so.
Anyone else traveling down this rabbit hole?
For me personally, I'm more concerned with added travel in the rear of the truck. IMO, and based on experience on outings, hang-ups, etc.... rear suspension could bring more benefits.
I revisited the chart and threw into excel to sort by criteria to narrow options:
The top 5 with longest extension are:
Manf F/R PN EXT
Bilstein Rear BE5-2740 21.71"
Fox Rear 985-24-067 22.95"
OME Rear n101 24.02"
OME Rear 60002 24.1"
King Rear 25.11"
Icon Rear 56510: 25.67”
Fox Rear 985-24-009 26.15"
Icon Rear 57802 26.3”
Icon Rear 57802C 26.3”
OME Rear 60071L 26.50"
This represents nearly 5 full inches in spread among these options - pretty wild - but may explain why I stripped a Bilstein shaft on my rear passenger.
I'm already running Fox, and love the ride. At nearly 1/4 the price of Icons, the 985-24-009 seems to be the best fit for my set-up.
Who is running the 985-24-009?
After speaking with Fox, they charge $25 for re-valving, and move in % increments to re-valve based on user specs. Turnaround time is generally 3-5 days to do so.
Anyone else traveling down this rabbit hole?
I'm lurking on the edge of the rabbit hole, waiting on someone else to travel all the way down it first...
I really want to kill my AHC before the 100s ride in Aug, but with all the options out there I have info paralysis.
My plan now is to go OME springs and TBs, and either Fox or Icon shocks. Hopefully we'll (you guys) have some sort of consensus before I have to take the leap.
I really want to kill my AHC before the 100s ride in Aug, but with all the options out there I have info paralysis.
My plan now is to go OME springs and TBs, and either Fox or Icon shocks. Hopefully we'll (you guys) have some sort of consensus before I have to take the leap.
- Thread starter
- #48
If your already running the fox's and love them then why would you change? Don't think that the benefit is there unless you are not happy with the shock. I can't see the benefit for the considerable outlay IMO..unless:
That being said along with my original queries in this thread I did ask Dylan what he thought the benefit of the CDC adjusters on the ICON's would achieve and he highly recommended them specifically for the rear so adjustments can be dialled in to be able to handle the load through the suspensions range. (as far as I understand) Which to me means that I can dial in the shock (to an extent) based on the load I am carrying
I really like this idea because feasibly my rear load could go from fully loaded towing a boat offroad to unloaded day trip. both of which I am still expecting the same performance from the suspension within reason but the variation could be up to 400kg all up . as long as the right spring can handle this of course... Up the front the load definitely stays more consistent so I won't worry about them for that...
I am already floundering in the Rabbit hole but my wallet just needs to catch up with me
My goal would just be to increase travel in the rear. Going to the universals with revalve to suit my needs adds about 3" of travel.
To note: My experience with the compression adjusters on my Fox shock remotes were less than satisfactory. These adjusters just constrict fluid flow to and from the remote canister. For high speed desert runs the shock, with this "restrictor" aka compression adjuster, would sacrifice the shocks ability to move fluid to/from the canister. And then you end up with additional heat...and more than once I ended up with cavitation.
And after a couple years the adjusters became difficult to rotate...and prone to leakage. On the surface they seem like a plausible way to mimic a bypass shock...but in reality they seem more like a marketing gimmic than anything else...otherwise you'd see them on all desert racer trucks
So eventually I removed them without regret.
As always YMMV.
And after a couple years the adjusters became difficult to rotate...and prone to leakage. On the surface they seem like a plausible way to mimic a bypass shock...but in reality they seem more like a marketing gimmic than anything else...otherwise you'd see them on all desert racer trucks
So eventually I removed them without regret.
As always YMMV.
Wonder how much longer Carl's extended rear Bilsteins are?
Great info here!
I did my own experiments when I removed the AHC. I found that with the TJM XGS torsion bars in the front and 21" ride height, a rear 80 Series stock shock gave me a little over 2" up and 2" down travel.
With 80 series stock rear coils and 60mm spacers I sat at 22" ride height. I am running Jeep YJ Wrangler 4" lift application front shocks back there. I have plenty of shock before the bump stops bottom out, and without the swaybar there is 4" plus of droop. Very happy with the flex capability.
I have recommended to other folks to just buy a suspension kit haha. This was a case of necessity being the mother of invention. I was shipped 80 series shocks by mistake, and had the Wrangler shocks waiting to go on my Jeep...
The LX has been riding great since last fall with this setup. I have towed my Jeep on trips and taken road trips and am very happy with the great ride and amount of travel.
I did my own experiments when I removed the AHC. I found that with the TJM XGS torsion bars in the front and 21" ride height, a rear 80 Series stock shock gave me a little over 2" up and 2" down travel.
With 80 series stock rear coils and 60mm spacers I sat at 22" ride height. I am running Jeep YJ Wrangler 4" lift application front shocks back there. I have plenty of shock before the bump stops bottom out, and without the swaybar there is 4" plus of droop. Very happy with the flex capability.
I have recommended to other folks to just buy a suspension kit haha. This was a case of necessity being the mother of invention. I was shipped 80 series shocks by mistake, and had the Wrangler shocks waiting to go on my Jeep...
The LX has been riding great since last fall with this setup. I have towed my Jeep on trips and taken road trips and am very happy with the great ride and amount of travel.
Spresso et. al. :This is all very new to me and I thank you for an amazing tutorial. My question is this - Dan when you say full droop and full compression what/where is the datum or reference dim? I take it to be the overall at droop and compression relative to (between) the upper and lowered CA's. Is this correct? And if so wouldn't you need to know the CA values before determining shock length?
Thanks again you guys are awesome. I'm looking for the tip jar but can't seem to find it
I could be wrong but I'd wager if you don't want to live with an inch of unused travel at either end of the suspension travel spectrum you'd best be served to cycle your suspension to fully know exactly where the limits of both are. I think there probably is enough mfg variance on Toyota's part to unequivocally state within a 1/4"-1/2" (shock travel...wheel travel will be approximately 2x shock travel for the fronts) all our rigs will not be identical nor predictable.
You will also need to fully account for the compression over-travel of the rubber bump stops whether OEM, Timbren, etc. to know where your suspension fully compresses/stops traveling. Also need to be cognizant of the OEM style upper pin mount's rubber bumper compression.
For droop, relative to our front suspension, you need to stop the down travel before the UCA spherical bearing/ball joint reaches its travel limit. These joints are not tolerant nor designed to take the bind. Ditto for compression of course...
And, once again, moving to mono-tube style nitrogen charged shocks can, depending on valve tune, get you higher performance but everyone needs to fully understand the increased PM work associated with these shocks. Rebuilding them isn't a big deal for basic mechanic skills but you'll need a few shock overhaul specific tools, 5-6" vise, rebuild kits, spherical bearings (for the mounts if applicable), shock oil and of course a nitrogen tank. Frequency of service will vary depending upon the type of use, the conditions used in (dust, water, etc.,) and mileage in between. But generally you can plan on doing this once a year or every other year...as I have been doing.
You will also need to fully account for the compression over-travel of the rubber bump stops whether OEM, Timbren, etc. to know where your suspension fully compresses/stops traveling. Also need to be cognizant of the OEM style upper pin mount's rubber bumper compression.
For droop, relative to our front suspension, you need to stop the down travel before the UCA spherical bearing/ball joint reaches its travel limit. These joints are not tolerant nor designed to take the bind. Ditto for compression of course...
And, once again, moving to mono-tube style nitrogen charged shocks can, depending on valve tune, get you higher performance but everyone needs to fully understand the increased PM work associated with these shocks. Rebuilding them isn't a big deal for basic mechanic skills but you'll need a few shock overhaul specific tools, 5-6" vise, rebuild kits, spherical bearings (for the mounts if applicable), shock oil and of course a nitrogen tank. Frequency of service will vary depending upon the type of use, the conditions used in (dust, water, etc.,) and mileage in between. But generally you can plan on doing this once a year or every other year...as I have been doing.
Last edited:
Anyone else played with the Icons yet? Considering the Icons in the rear (non-resi) to pick up almost 4" travel over Fox.
No word yet on Fox 2.5 for LC100 yet either...
No word yet on Fox 2.5 for LC100 yet either...
^ what Fox are you saying is -4" compared to Icon? I can only assume the Fox shock is not the correct model length for 100-Series LC...if so then that would make it a ~7" travel shock; not likely. And not likely the Icon is a 14" travel shock.
I was able to do a data check on Fox... The Fox 985-24-067 is the model designed to fit the 100LC Rear. Per the Fox guide on their site (http://www.ridefox.com/dl/truck/truck-appguide-2014.pdf) the total extended length is 22.95 as Andy noted in the original post, and I data sorted above.
Dylan from Icon posted their specs as well, (post 27 above, also found here https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/shock-length-thread.794385/#post-9063792) which I double checked and are spot on to what Andy collected and I data sorted.
Slee does mention that the method in which you measure could have a variance, however, 26.3-22.95=3.35. Total travel is 10.07 with Icon, vs 8.6 with Fox, so this seems to line up.
This doesn't take into account the full compression of the shocks (Advantage = Fox), but when it comes to letting the rear get some drop, it looks like Icon has the advantage by 3.35". Lets assume that they are measuring from end to end, and not eyelet to eyelet like Slee mentions... even so, we're still talking about 2". I can think of a few times that a rear wheel was 1-2" off the ground and not able to grab earth.
Fox is also recommended for up to 1.5" lift, whereas Icon runs from 0-3".
I love my Fox, even with a fully loaded truck (which is one of the biggest complaints), but until Fox comes out with a redesign, I'm eyeing the Icon VS IFP 57802.
Dylan from Icon posted their specs as well, (post 27 above, also found here https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/shock-length-thread.794385/#post-9063792) which I double checked and are spot on to what Andy collected and I data sorted.
Slee does mention that the method in which you measure could have a variance, however, 26.3-22.95=3.35. Total travel is 10.07 with Icon, vs 8.6 with Fox, so this seems to line up.
This doesn't take into account the full compression of the shocks (Advantage = Fox), but when it comes to letting the rear get some drop, it looks like Icon has the advantage by 3.35". Lets assume that they are measuring from end to end, and not eyelet to eyelet like Slee mentions... even so, we're still talking about 2". I can think of a few times that a rear wheel was 1-2" off the ground and not able to grab earth.
Fox is also recommended for up to 1.5" lift, whereas Icon runs from 0-3".
I love my Fox, even with a fully loaded truck (which is one of the biggest complaints), but until Fox comes out with a redesign, I'm eyeing the Icon VS IFP 57802.
Any insight on radflo shocks? Just differential stocks them for the landcruiser.
