So, at what point do you need to go with L shocks (1 Viewer)

[Romer]

Thank you. Nice benefit of those spacers is that they lower the bumpstop also.

For comparison in all this, I had the 850/863 springs on my truck and OME LTR shocks (same extension lengths as the std. shocks). I replaced the springs with the J springs and noticed immediately that the shocks were going to be a problem. They were fully extended out with just the spring in place. I took off the lower shock bolt and the truck lifted about an inch.

I swapped over to the L shocks and haven't had any problems.

Cory, what kind of weight did you have on the front? Unweighted, J springs are about 3.5 to 4" of lift (right?), I am expecting to get about 2.5" to 3" of weight with what I have.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

And something else to throw into this. At SEMA one of the ARB reps mentioned that they had 3,4, and 5" OME "competition" springs available. He said you'd use the L shocks with any of them.

I looked in the FAQ you're compiling on lifts Ken and saw Beowulf's list of OME shock length. When I was asking ARB about continuing to use the LTR shocks with my J springs, I swear they said the L shocks were 200mm longer. Looking on B's info, it looks like they're 50mm longer, which seems like such a negligible amount (~2 inches).

 

[FirstToy]

I replaced the springs with the J springs and noticed immediately that the shocks were going to be a problem. They were fully extended out with just the spring in place. I took off the lower shock bolt and the truck lifted about an inch.

I swapped over to the L shocks and haven't had any problems.

That answers my questions, thanks

Romer, thanks. You are saying you want to go taller springs (by using spacer) w/ 35's. Thus the need for L shocks at that time. (added lift not neccesary to fit 35's but your preference)

Right now, you plan J/863 w/ no change to shocks.

If what FZJFillmore says is true, won't the J spring front now be limited by your (now) too short shocks? At full droop, won't you pull the shock apart?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Cory, what kind of weight did you have on the front?

ARB, 9k winch, supercharger, dual batts. I had about 2" of lift with the std. springs, 3" with the J's. To get the truck to sit level I had to add the 1.5" spacers in the front.

I've since added a 12k winch and would need a 2" spacer to sit level.

 

[cruiserdan]

Cdan - don't L Shocks provide more range extended but not compressed?

The L shock extends 2 inces farther than the "standard" OME shock which is about 1.5 inches longer than a factory shock. The L shock is about 1.5 inches longer than the Standard OME shock when it is fully compressed. That is why you must lower the bump stops when using L shocks. Lowering prevents the shocks from being damaged when you stuff a tire.

L shocks do not give you any more travel to speak of, they allow a taller stance.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

If what FZJFillmore says is true, won't the J spring front now be limited by your (now) too short shocks? At full droop, won't you pull the shock apart?

Keep in mind, in my case this was with LTR shocks. I was told by ARB that they have the same compression/extension as the std. Nitrochargers. Which was a whole 'nuther beef I had. Why the hell are they called Long Travel shocks if they're the same travel as the normal shocks.

 

[cruiserdan]

In a recent conversation with Christo he indicated that he would like to see around 5 inches of upward travel to be available on a solid axle truck so that you do not "lift" a tire when you corner on the hiway. It is easy to imagine that much body roll with an 80. I want to find a stock truck with factory shocks and do the "lift test" to see how much travel they have.

 

[Cruiserhead05]

Ken,

Correct me if I'm wrong but last I read/heard was you were running OME mediums up front to keep driveline noises down. I know you had some good luck with replacing U-joints but do you have any fear of more noises and caster issues when jumping to J's up front?

I currently am running heavies all the way around and have a full set of 1.5" coil spacers front and rear sitting in my garage. The only reason i havent put them in is b/c I'm afraid of getting more issues with caster and dealing with my lack of L shocks.

FWIW though, i think beno is running heavies and coil spacers(1.25 or 1.5) with std. shocks without any issue.

 

[FJBen]

*IF* you are possibly maybe someday planning on going to 35's...;p I would seriously look into Christo's 4" spring. Better spring rate than the J's and those that have converted said they ride much better than the J's did.

I'm running the 4" springs but can't directly compare 4" vs J's as I never had the J's...I can say I do LOVE the ride ride now. Firm but how it should be. Not soft and squishy in corners.

 

[Beowulf]

If what FZJFillmore says is true, won't the J spring front now be limited by your (now) too short shocks? At full droop, won't you pull the shock apart?

You won't pull the shock apart and the suspension droop is primarily (by design) limited by the length of the shocks. The sway bars will also tend to limit droop but the shocks are there to limit the axle travel.

More likely, you could stuff an L-shock and damage it if the axle bump stops are not lowered. As Dan mentioned, the OME L-shocks are also longer when compressed.

200mm would be 8" longer than a standard OME shock. You would have some serious droop problems with that long of a shock including springs falling out, not to mention brake lines, diff breathers, ABS sensors, and other dangling bits.

-B-

 

[Trunk Monkey]

200mm would be 8" longer

I know it's absurb, but 50mm didn't seem like much either.

 

[semlin]

good discussion. a few questions here..

first off, so am i correct that filmore's experience in putting J's on and finding he lost 1 inch of lift when he bolted his LTR shocks up to do had to do with the valving of the LTR shocks? surely it was the valving that was compressing the j springs by one inch at level rest not a shock being at maximum extension or compression?

also, coming back to dan's experience with j springs of having 3" of upward shock travel on the front using regular ome shocks. Unless i misunderstand him, there is thus lots of upward and downward movement on ome regular shocks on J springs up front with the kind of load he and filmore are carrying. The only time the regular shocks would max out would be at a very hard stuff/compression of over 3 inches. they won't do it full droop although L's might.

Also, do we know if Ls have the same valving as regulars? If they do, they would have the same upward travel of 3" in the same situation. If they add more upward travel then if one wanted to run 35s maybe you are better off with regulars with only 3 inches of upward travel so you don't stuff them.

 

[Romer]

Ken,

Correct me if I'm wrong but last I read/heard was you were running OME mediums up front to keep driveline noises down. I know you had some good luck with replacing U-joints but do you have any fear of more noises and caster issues when jumping to J's up front?
quote]

I was running mediums to start with and added the bumper and then added Mr. Gaskets to compensate. I then ran into drive line problems. At this point, I rebuilt and rebalanced both drive shafts and no more drive line problems. Put the Mr. Gaskets back in and no issues. However, the Mr. Gaskets seem to be getting a little squished and I dragged both bumpers in Moab over obstacles I did not last year (Less weight, more lift last year). So my drivetrain issues are gone. There is the potential something will happen when I put the J's on, but I doubt it. If I put the J's and spacers on, then I would face some issues with Castor and other issues.

What I wanted to do is get the lift back with the minimal collateral impacts. I talked to Christo about all the options and he and I concluded the 850J's and 863s would be best for me now.

The nice things about OME springs, is you can buy 4 for $300 and turn around in a year or so and sell them for not too bad a markdown. Besides ROD (Romers other Daughter) says she wants an 80 and not a 4ruuner like DOR (daughterofromer), so I will be looking for an inexpensive 93-95 with lockers and could easily use these springs there. Good thing I have 6 months to find one!

 

[Nay]

In a recent conversation with Christo he indicated that he would like to see around 5 inches of upward travel to be available on a solid axle truck so that you do not "lift" a tire when you corner on the hiway. It is easy to imagine that much body roll with an 80. I want to find a stock truck with factory shocks and do the "lift test" to see how much travel they have.

Are you telling me that you are going to compress a suspension 5" cornerning on the highway???? I can't get my front end to compress that much rock crawling

I'd like to understand how 5" of shock travel in the form of lean to the outside tires keeps the tires to the inside corner on the ground in highway cornering. That is just flat out scary, and if true, you should turn your swaybars into a modern art piece, and be thinking about a serious spring/shock upgrade so you don't have such enormous lean. I just cannot imagine that kind of suspension motion on the highway @ 75 mph.

Romer - you don't ever need L shocks for 35" tires, and you don't need much more lift than you have now. These are Bilstein 5100's on a 3" lift running 35" trxus MT's using shock adapters for an eye to eye mount. Forgetting how much better Bilstein 5100's are than OME shocks for the moment, with proper bumpstop extensions there is 5" of up travel and 5" down. Virtually none of this is the wasted up travel you get with pin mount shocks when you want to run the larger tires, although the front end cannot accomodate 10" of travel or anything close to it anyway.

This is with a completely unloaded vehicle with stock bumpers, so with a more typical load on about 2.5" of lift we are looking at 4.5" up and 5.5" down. Pretty damn good for a suspension that cannot realistically use more than 10" of travel anyway without other mods. I did not need 4"-5" of lift to achieve this.

Bottom line: you don't need more than 3" of lift for 35's in terms of suspension design unless you believe that your suspension must somehow be designed on OME principles using some OME parts. I would not be looking at L shocks just to keep a pin style mount, as this is the least desirable shock mounting system...just look at how much bushing you have on OME shocks....ever wonder if 2" of bushings might let the shock itself move?

Nay

 

[FJBen]

good discussion. a few questions here..

first off, so am i correct that filmore's experience in putting J's on and finding he lost 1 inch of lift when he bolted his LTR shocks up to do had to do with the valving of the LTR shocks? surely it was the valving that was compressing the j springs by one inch at level rest not a shock being at maximum extension or compression?

also, coming back to dan's experience with j springs of having 3" of upward shock travel on the front using regular ome shocks. Unless i misunderstand him, there is thus lots of upward and downward movement on ome regular shocks on J springs up front with the kind of load he and filmore are carrying. The only time the regular shocks would max out would be at a very hard stuff/compression of over 3 inches. they won't do it full droop although L's might.

Also, do we know if Ls have the same valving as regulars? If they do, they would have the same upward travel of 3" in the same situation. If they add more upward travel then if one wanted to run 35s maybe you are better off with regulars with only 3 inches of upward travel so you don't stuff them.

I"m slightly confused by the wordings we are using on here...maybe I'm too blonde...if I am, I'll delete this post...


I think you are backwards in your post...


Compression/Upward travel/stuffing a tire= the same thing (tire coming up towards body

Extension//downward travel/droop=same thing (tire going away from body)

Valving has no effect on the amount of up or down travel available.


So in SERIOUS laymens terms:
say the OME standard shock has 10" of travel (we know it's much...just an easy statement)

With the 2.5" heavy lift the ride height of the vehicle allows 5" of up and down travel.

With the J springs 3.5" the the ride height (now raised) of the vehicle allows for 6" up travel, 4" down travel as it has now extended the shock.

With the J's and standard shocks, you lose down travel, gain up travel (in terms of shock room) So by getting a taller spring you are "technically" getting more limited by a shorter shock. The L shock is 2" longer so you have gained back your lost downtravel at the expense of a little up travel "stuff" So you would need 1" bumpstop spacer so that the "longer" shock doesn't bottom out when you fully compress.

I would see WAY more issues with this on the rear rather than the front. I can't get my front to compress fully yet, but the rear is using every bit of the up/down travel on the L shocks.

 

[FirstToy]

ok wait a minute Semiln. let's not confuse things here.

L shocks are longer than reg. OME Nitrochargers. With NO other changes, that means you loose compression and gain droop.

A longer shock means you must lower the bumpstop (or else use the shock as a bumpstop) So you must add a lower bumpstop to stop the shock from compressing before it crushes it. larger sketch left below

With a shorter shock, you have to worry about the opposite problem. It will fully compress fine but will overextend w/ a longer spring. Thus wanting to pull apartsmaller sketch to the right

quick doodle of the potential problem
L=longer shock
N=shorter shock
Red=bottom half of shock
Green="open space" inside shock

 

[Trunk Monkey]

first off, so am i correct that filmore's experience in putting J's on and finding he lost 1 inch of lift when he bolted his LTR shocks up to do had to do with the valving of the LTR shocks?

I don't think it's the valving, isn't that what regulates how the shock cycles? It would be the overall length of the shaft in the shock cylinder. When I did the J's, I had left the LTRs on and was using spring compressors. I put in the J's, took the compressors off, and noticed the spring had pushed the shock out quite a bit. That's when I unbolted it and the axle dropped another inch, so this was at full droop. To get the shock reattached I had to compress the spring again. I bolted the LTR back up and ran it this way for a week until the L's arrived. With the full weight of the truck on the LTR's maxing the shock out wasn't a concern driving around town, but wouldn't have been good off road.

 

[Nay]

So in SERIOUS laymens terms:
say the OME standard shock has 10" of travel (we know it's much...just an easy statement)

With the 2.5" heavy lift the ride height of the vehicle allows 5" of up and down travel.

With the J springs 3.5" the the ride height (now raised) of the vehicle allows for 6" up travel, 4" down travel as it has now extended the shock.

With the J's and standard shocks, you lose down travel, gain up travel (in terms of shock room) So by getting a taller spring you are "technically" getting more limited by a shorter shock. The L shock is 2" longer so you have gained back your lost downtravel at the expense of a little up travel "stuff" So you would need 1" bumpstop spacer so that the "longer" shock doesn't bottom out when you fully compress.

I would see WAY more issues with this on the rear rather than the front. I can't get my front to compress fully yet, but the rear is using every bit of the up/down travel on the L shocks.

That is correct. If you keep the same shocks mounted in the same position and lift your vehicle, then you have simply extended the shock at static ride height, and shifted available shock travel upwards. You have also maintained the exact same limitations you had on tire size. L shocks will shift travel back down (as will eye to eye adapters).

To use a real world example, the OME shocks for the stock replacement suspension are the exact same shocks as the 2.5" lift. So you can run 33" tires either way, and you simply have more up travel with the lift and less down travel.

If you want to know why OME did this, and believe it is something more than just suckering all of us, then it would be because you cannot increase front down travel without creating contact issues between the driveshaft and swaybar when both sides are extended at the same time such as on a ledge climb (the suspension can always drop fully on both sides at the same time without restriction...that is why you drop both sides of an 80's front end at the same time to change coils). That is, IMHO, the single issue that has created all of this up travel bias on 80 suspensions and has kept tires small for the lift.j

See my post above. 35's are clean on a 2.5" - 3" lift. This isn't guesswork or subjecture...it's real measurements. But OME isn't going to design for this, and I think it is purely because of the potential liability issues of relocating the swaybar.

Nay

 

[cruiserdan]

Are you telling me that you are going to compress a suspension 5" cornerning on the highway???? I can't get my front end to compress that much rock crawling

Not compression, extention.

 

[sleeoffroad]

In a recent conversation with Christo he indicated that he would like to see around 5 inches of upward travel to be available on a solid axle truck so that you do not "lift" a tire when you corner on the hiway. It is easy to imagine that much body roll with an 80. I want to find a stock truck with factory shocks and do the "lift test" to see how much travel they have.

Dan, I think we need to call it down travel, ie, droop. 5" is a very rough estimate.