Front Shock Dimensions

[fishsticks]

I would personally just look into making a mount or finding another aftermarket shock for another application that'd allow us a longer spring/shock assembly. I don't see why you'd mod the assembly when you can just substitute in another shock/spring combo.

\

A puck that fit into our existing lower mount with a provision to firmly mount another type of strut would accomplish that.

Think Roadie's Icons except with the body pointing down instead of the shaft.

[Philberto]

A puck that fit into our existing lower mount with a provision to firmly mount another type of strut would accomplish that.

Think Roadie's Icons except with the body pointing down instead of the shaft.

Exactly. And it'd open up our options to things like remote reservoir shocks, dual shocks, etc. I also imagine it'd be cheaper.

[MrSmithsTB]

From another angle.... what about lengthening the lower strut mount? DJM make one 2" shorter. Why not make one 2" longer? Maybe get the DJM mounts and add 4" to them. For that matter, buy the entire 2wd front kit, lengthen the lower mounts, shorten the upper arms, and be done with it without having to use and spacers at all.

[fishsticks]

From another angle.... what about lengthening the lower strut mount? DJM make one 2" shorter. Why not make one 2" longer? Maybe get the DJM mounts and add 4" to them. For that matter, buy the entire 2wd front kit, lengthen the lower mounts, shorten the upper arms, and be done with it without having to use and spacers at all.

I've looked at the DJM lower in the past. Frankly, the way it's made looks weak to me, especially if it was lengthened 4". I have zero evidence to back up my claim... but yeah, that's my feeling.

[Philberto]

The entire thing about using spacers is that I don't think we're getting any extra articulation, just lift by spacing the shocks or lower struts. I.E. lengthen the strut assembly, lose that upper travel you had stock, don't gain any downward travel. Ideal setup would involve a strut assembly and control arms that would extend downward to the limits of whatever high-angle CV joints we could get in there, and extend upward as far as possible (might require fender rolling/cutting). Total cost if we can make an adapter a la the Icon coilovers, use off-the-shelf shocks, and get a decent deal on control arms, ~$1800 for adapter, springs, shocks, control arms, and either high-angle CV joints or differential/oil pan moddage. Alternatively, such a kit could be made as a long-arm IFS kit too, with a little work to figure out geometry.

[fishsticks]

Extending the strut assembly gives us a little extra articulation. It allows us to droop a bit farther and lets us use the upward articulation that would normally put oversized tires into the fenders.

Inside the strut assembly spacers don't give us any extra articulation. Droop is limited by the length of the strut, and adding an inside spacer puts the assembly into coil bind sooner when compressed.


But yeah, our current setups are hardly ideal.

[KE7WOX]

I believe our struts are a metric thread... 10mm perhaps.

Wouldn't count on that. I'm pretty sure the shock hardware seemed is SAE (IIRC, the hex key used to hold the strut bolt was a 3/16", the metric stuff was either too small or too big, same goes for that nut, 5/8s or something like that)

I've looked at the DJM lower in the past. Frankly, the way it's made looks weak to me, especially if it was lengthened 4". I have zero evidence to back up my claim... but yeah, that's my feeling.

I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't trust a strut mount designed for lowered trucks, I'd be concerned about their structural integrity due to offroading abuse

[MrSmithsTB]

Understandable concerns, but what would stop anybody from strengthening it when adding the length? Any concerns of integrity could be remedied with more structural support that is very easily added once the modifying is started. I would trust that before trusting strut extensions.

[fishsticks]

Understandable concerns, but what would stop anybody from strengthening it when adding the length? Any concerns of integrity could be remedied with more structural support that is very easily added once the modifying is started. I would trust that before trusting strut extensions.

Strut extensions don't bear the entire weight of the front end. The lowers do.



I'm not trying to be a contrarion... just saying. I suppose they could be strengthened.

[Trail X]

Wow, you guys are all over the place! I like the enthusiasm! Lets see if I can hit some of the main points.

Two concerns:

1. Will lengthening just the shaft of the strut cause the strut to excessively bottom out under compression?

2. Should we be looking at sourcing longer springs to compliment this, instead of stiffer springs with the same uncompressed height

1. Interesting observation, but we currently have that scenario because we never lengthened the stock bumpstop. I beleive this is why many of us are seeing spring sag - over-compression of the springs brings them into a yield stress zone.

2. Longer springs would have the same issue as the stock springs when over-compressed. It's all about adjusting the internal bump stop along with the lift.

Those shock extensions would have made life so much easier when installing the heavier springs on Kyle's truck last week. It was a huge pain in the a** to get them compressed enough to get the upper mounts re-installed.

I believe it, you're cramming a very heavy spring into a very small area (due to the inside-the-spacer lift puck).

I understand what you are trying to do, but is this actually safe to do? I mean sure you will be biting quite a few threads, but quality of material used in those extenders would be my main concern.

I agree that there are material concerns. My idea was/is a homemade version of what you saw linked before. It should theoretically surpass the strength of the shock piston rod.

I would personally just look into making a mount or finding another aftermarket shock for another application that'd allow us a longer spring/shock assembly. I don't see why you'd mod the assembly when you can just substitute in another shock/spring combo.

Sure, ideally that'd be great, but you're completely changing the game now and making it hugely complicated. I'm going for simple and robust here.

A puck that fit into our existing lower mount with a provision to firmly mount another type of strut would accomplish that.

Think Roadie's Icons except with the body pointing down instead of the shaft.

So you need to draw up this puck idea and have a machine shop turn it for you! Again though, you're only making things more complicated... your new shock now must withstand the same loads that our stock design handles - have a spring perch at the same location - and be compatible to mount to our upper perch. Unless you're willing to change the whole strut, I fear you're looking for a miracle.

Understandable concerns, but what would stop anybody from strengthening it when adding the length? Any concerns of integrity could be remedied with more structural support that is very easily added once the modifying is started. I would trust that before trusting strut extensions.

Why not just modify the stock lower strut mount?

Still, however, you're not accomplishing the goal here. The goal here is to be able to better accommodate the heavier springs for lift as opposed to just adding spacer pucks. Your proposition of cutting, lengthening, and rewelding the lower shock dogleg is far more complicated than adding pucks, but serves the same purpose. Sounds like a lot of work with minimal return.

Strut extensions don't bear the entire weight of the front end. The lowers do.

Very valid point - the loads on the top of the shock piston, while high, are nowhere near the loads on the lower shock mount. Modifying the lower shock mount is just asking for trouble.

Lengthening the upper shock shaft with the right components along with a heavier spring would solve a few problems at once. Allow higher front weight capacities (winch, etc), decrease the frame slamming when on rocky terrain (due to the soft stock springs), and allow us to reach higher articulation levels with more inside the strut lift (ie springs in this case).

Maybe this helps to clear up where I was headed with the original inquiry... I was going to keep it to myself, but you guys are just too darn good at reading minds and taking an idea and running with it.

I still haven't gotten what I set out for... upper shock thread and shoulder dimensions.

[johnburgelin]

I would personally just look into making a mount or finding another aftermarket shock for another application that'd allow us a longer spring/shock assembly. I don't see why you'd mod the assembly when you can just substitute in another shock/spring combo.

because it's quite a bit cheaper to slightly modify your existing parts than it is to buy all new ones. I'm hoping to stick 87's on my struts and one of those stock extenders, knowing that with the bigger tires I'm not going to need everything I had before for upward travel this will hopefully add a little bit of lower travel without binding the CV tripod. I might have to remove my upper shims to do so, however. I would like to know what the shock threads are on the Bilstein HD's, I know they are some kind of relatively coarse thread.

[Trail X]

I took my hardware gauge out to the truck and it appears to be an M10, not 3/8.

I'll try to verify later with an M10 nut - I've got about 1/2" of thread sticking up.

[Regulator1175]

Here is the best I can come up with, without having it in front of me and able to measure myself. I hope these are accurate.

27 3/4"• Overall max extended length
15"• Distance from lower spring perch to top of threads
• Piston rod thread size (where the bushing mounts)
2 1/2"• Length from piston rod shoulder to end of threads (length of the bushing mount zone)
1 1/2"• Length of the threaded portion at the tip.
1 3/4"• Lower mount diameter

[Trail X]

Can you confirm M10? Mine was a Bilstein, so it may be different.

[glfredrick]

About the most "possible" travel possible with the IFS A-arm suspension like ours is 8" and that would require new A-arms with a uni-ball instead of a ball joint and also a new CV axle joint capable of sustaining that travel while applying power. 6" is probably more like the practical level of travel without going hard-core big buck parts. I'm not sure what the factory TB front travel is, but it is probably in the 4-5" range. Lots of money spent to gain what?

Check out these Toyota parts from Total Chaos:
http://www.chaosfab.com/96504.html

Camburg is also an inovator with the CV IFS style front end.
http://www.camburg.com/?p=1406
http://www.camburg.com/?p=426

May stimulate some design ideas. First, notice that Toyota mounts the shocks and A-arms radically different than does the TB. But what is to stop us from adapting their upper and lower A-arm style? It still retains the factory-style axle and steering setup, and gains travel. Camburg's Toyota Titan stuff is more similar to the stock TB and they feature some beefy extended strut mounts that might be adaptable to our platform.

Another way to gain articulation is to make the A-arms longer, as in extend farther from the shock body toward the outside of the vehicle. As you lengthen the distance from the mounting point of the A-arm to the ball joint, you automatically gain movement at the outermost end. Imagine a 12" ruler pinned on one end so it can travel up and down. Limit travel at the outer edge to 6". That's what you get at the end, 6". Now, instead of a ruler, use a yard stick. Limit travel at the 12" mark to the same 6" up and down. How far does the end of the yard stick move? While we can't move the ball joint ends of the A-arms 3 feet, we can move them a couple of inches, and that would both create tire clearance internal to the frame and suspension and also involk more travel.

Then, we can go all the way wild and do the trophy truck style A-arm... That would be a VERY good look for a TB! With a modified rear suspension that gets some travel, we could actually build a Trailblazer that would work and be rather impressive. I'd say that a TT could run trails and rocks as good as many a rock crawler out there, and I'm incorporating some of the TT technology into my Ranger truggy suspension.

http://www.fstmotorsports.com/

Carrying a front tire over obstacles is going to be a fact of life as long as the stock-type suspension design is in place.

[Regulator1175]

Can you confirm M10? Mine was a Bilstein, so it may be different.

Sorry, I can't without having my buddy take it into Lowe's and check it out there. I am pretty sure he would laugh at me if I asked.

For what its worth, I am fairly certain that it is an M10.

[Trail X]

I found a M10 nut hanging around here, confirmed, the Bilstein HDs are M10.

[fishsticks]

Carrying a front tire over obstacles is going to be a fact of life as long as the stock-type suspension design is in place.

Which is why this is on my list. http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetail ... ProdID=869

I made the decision that at this point my mission doesn't warrant a SAS or heavily redesigned control arms.

My truck isn't in toy status quite yet. It's still my DD. I need to sell my existing toy before I promote the truck, and I'm struggling with that decision.


Anyway, carry on.

[Trail X]

Since this topic has gotten so off topic, I posted the results to the original question in the original post.

Carry on.

[johnburgelin]

Carrying a front tire over obstacles is going to be a fact of life as long as the stock-type suspension design is in place.

Which is why this is on my list. http://www.ringpinion.com/ProductDetail ... ProdID=869

I made the decision that at this point my mission doesn't warrant a SAS or heavily redesigned control arms.

My truck isn't in toy status quite yet. It's still my DD. I need to sell my existing toy before I promote the truck, and I'm struggling with that decision.


Anyway, carry on.

Does that locker somehow go into the front differential? Or is it one of those, switch all these parts out and then you can put it in? Or do you have to have the SAS to use it?