sleeoffroad said:Dan, I think we need to call it down travel, ie, droop. 5" is a very rough estimate.
Agreed, "down travel". Also agreed 5 inches as a rough guess. I still need to check out what a stocker has for this mesurement.
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.
sleeoffroad said:Dan, I think we need to call it down travel, ie, droop. 5" is a very rough estimate.
Nay said: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
Nay said: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
sleeoffroad said:Nay, how much bumpstop are you running to keep the tires out of the rear mudflap and flares? I agree that you can fit and run 315's with 2.5" of lift, but I also believe it is a compromise since the uptravel is so restricted. .
sleeoffroad said:I spoke to a bunch of people at Cruise Moab that ran larger tires (or even 285's) with lots of bumpstops and they all complained that their trucks bottomed out when heavily loaded and doing high speed dirt road driving. I believe one has to add the disclaimer when you say what tire size fits.
sleeoffroad said:Nay, how much bumpstop are you running to keep the tires out of the rear mudflap and flares? I agree that you can fit and run 315's with 2.5" of lift, but I also believe it is a compromise since the uptravel is so restricted.
I spoke to a bunch of people at Cruise Moab that ran larger tires (or even 285's) with lots of bumpstops and they all complained that their trucks bottomed out when heavily loaded and doing high speed dirt road driving. I believe one has to add the disclaimer when you say what tire size fits.
Nay said: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.
Walking Eagle said:I'd say that's more an issue of soft shocks. At least if they had lift that was more than what the bump stop drop was. Easy test, find someone with RS9000's, have them run a section w/ them at 1 and re-run at 9, I'll guarantee alot more bottoming at 1 than at 9.
Gumby said:In my ever so humble opinion I wouldn't go to L shocks unless it was a dedicated, or mostly so trail rig.
I did. I regret it.
Nay said:. The adjustability of RS9000's as I understood a few years ago was in rebound valving.
Walking Eagle said:from another thread:
I can think of 3 reasons for lowering bump stops.
1. Longer springs that would over compress.
2. Longer shocks that would bottom out.
3. Larger tires that you want to keep from rubbing.