Wheel Articulation with AHC vs. KDSS

[bloc]

I don't disagree. The same trades with a traditional lift would be true. Fortunately with AHC, one does have a choice on the fly with how best to optimize the system. Including the potential use of AHC Low which may RTI even higher.

Sort of.. if the traditional lift increases down travel without limiting up (this includes spring rate), RTI should only increase. I haven’t had mine on the ramp yet post-lift to verify my suspicions, but do plan on it. Even in low mode stock AHC dampers can only allow the wheels to move up to the bump stop and down to the shock limit, plus in low mode dragging the bumper may be an issue initially.

I can’t remember.. did you put the 10mm OE spacer on yours? You probably know it but for the OP that should net about an inch of down travel in front with no sacrifice in up travel. I just don’t know what it does to your AHC pressures.

Another consideration is that traditional lift is also going to impact center of gravity 100% of the time, whereas with AHC you not only have normal mode to get you back to stock height, low can be used to bring the chassis even further down if needed.

 

[supercarrera]

I've put the AHC in low a couple of times on the trail; I was off camber and there was a tree or other obstacle threatening my roof line on the low side. It gave me another inch or so of wiggle room to get by.

 

[TeCKis300]

Sort of.. if the traditional lift increases down travel without limiting up (this includes spring rate), RTI should only increase. I haven’t had mine on the ramp yet post-lift to verify my suspicions, but do plan on it. Even in low mode stock AHC dampers can only allow the wheels to move up to the bump stop and down to the shock limit, plus in low mode dragging the bumper may be an issue initially.

I can’t remember.. did you put the 10mm OE spacer on yours? You probably know it but for the OP that should net about an inch of down travel in front with no sacrifice in up travel. I just don’t know what it does to your AHC pressures.

Another consideration is that traditional lift is also going to impact center of gravity 100% of the time, whereas with AHC you not only have normal mode to get you back to stock height, low can be used to bring the chassis even further down if needed.

Agreed that there are other variables and trades.

It would be arguable whether any aftermarket static lift wouldn't limit compression on a ramp. Almost all of them have increased sprint rate and increased free length, both potentially conspiring to limit up travel similar to AHC high. Though many have also increased vehicle weight with other mods moderating the impact.

You're absolutely right that some aftermarket suspensions make large increases to stroke. So while compressions may be impacted, the added droop may easily make up for that.

Yes, I do have the OE front spacer that gives an additional 1" measured droop at the front axle. Rear axle remains stock stroke.

I'd love to know how much more droop you've gained. The Kings do seem to be an awesome long travel setup. I'll make some time this weekend to measure my suspensions full droop. Maybe others with various suspensions can do the same.

 

[GordJ]

the bumper may be an issue initially.

In my opinion the main restriction to articulation is the bumpers and running boards. Without modifications to these first the articulation numbers are irrelevant.

 

[bloc]

Agreed that there are other variables and trades.

It would be arguable whether any aftermarket static lift wouldn't limit compression on a ramp. Almost all of them have increased sprint rate and increased free length, both potentially conspiring to limit up travel similar to AHC high. Though many have also increased vehicle weight with other mods moderating the impact.

You're absolutely right that some aftermarket suspensions make large increases to stroke. So while compressions may be impacted, the added droop may easily make up for that.

Yes, I do have the OE front spacer that gives an additional 1" measured droop at the front axle. Rear axle remains stock stroke.

I'd love to know how much more droop you've gained. The Kings do seem to be an awesome long travel setup. I'll make some time this weekend to measure my suspensions full droop. Maybe others with various suspensions can do the same.

I am very curious whether the 20% increase in my front spring rate while near stock weight will limit up travel. I couldn’t get a solid answer on this here but Ben at Filthy Motorsports said it shouldn’t be a problem.

That is exactly why I want to get it on a ramp when I can find time.

If they do restrict travel, I will just change front springs to something that won’t.

 

[Jurwin]

LC has KDSS. No AHC.

LX has AHC. No KDSS.

Two different system.

If you’re just concern about articulation, either system will give you superb wheel travel. Even at just 580 on LX HI mode, it is still better than your bro’s 4runner.

Only North American market though. Elsewhere you can choose between KDSS or AHC.

 

[ga12r1]

I am very curious whether the 20% increase in my front spring rate while near stock weight will limit up travel. I couldn’t get a solid answer on this here but Ben at Filthy Motorsports said it shouldn’t be a problem.

That is exactly why I want to get it on a ramp when I can find time.

If they do restrict travel, I will just change front springs to something that won’t.

I would say that if you have to get it on a ramp to find out, then it doesn't matter anyways. Not IRL. Just Sayin.

 

[bloc]

I would say that if you have to get it on a ramp to find out, then it doesn't matter anyways. Not IRL. Just Sayin.

There aren’t any decent trails around me and the one trip I took after the suspension went great.. but I didn’t have much in the way of obstacles to push the suspension.
And, I’m a numbers guy. That 20% is a mystery to me. I know I gained significant travel in the front at least. If that results in increased fake-world articulation, I’m considering that a win even if you don’t think it applies.

 

[ga12r1]

There aren’t any decent trails around me and the one trip I took after the suspension went great.. but I didn’t have much in the way of obstacles to push the suspension.
And, I’m a numbers guy. That 20% is a mystery to me. I know I gained significant travel in the front at least. If that results in increased fake-world articulation, I’m considering that a win even if you don’t think it applies.

I gotcha. I think controlled experiments and numbers are great, they should just be taken with a grain of salt. Some people (Im not saying you) obsess way too much over even the smallest delta. I am firm believer that iif something doesn't have a real world consequence then its not worth worrying over too much, because, well, its doesn't really matter.

 

[bloc]

I gotcha. I think controlled experiments and numbers are great, they should just be taken with a grain of salt. Some people (Im not saying you) obsess way too much over even the smallest delta. I am firm believer that iif something doesn't have a real world consequence then its not worth worrying over too much, because, well, its doesn't really matter.

That’s yet another unfortunate thing about living 900 miles from the trails I like to spend time on... less time to test things in the real world.
What I did know is the stock dampers struggled to stay consistent when I’d test them. Extra travel, and the theoretical added stability and traction over obstacles should be icing on the cake.

 

[UZJ100LC]

is there an answer of why this guy got lower numbers on articulation than what the original IG post is claiming?
would the 2013 with better front bumper clearance have given more articulation in N ?