I have a set of readylift 0.5" spacers that I put on the rear of my truck that I would sell. Originally bought two sets after I upgraded to 275/65/20 on my leveled truck to help with rubbing on the sway bar. Which they helped with the rubbing in front but when I put the ones on the back they were too wide. I never ran them on the back so spacers are brand new. Let me know.
what are your fender measurements now that the shocks are on? I forget to get any when I was installing. Currently sitting at 38.5 front and 40 in the rear. I also had a 2.25" ready lift on before. I think the 1.5" of rake seems high.
Mine has been doing it more frequently since I switched to 275/65/20 tires. I can't see any kind of rub except for on the wheel liner at full lock. I just finished installing fox 2.0 shocks after getting rid of my leveling kit. Going to be doing an alignment Next Week and see if the issue subsides.
Mine are set to arrive today as well. Talked to Rob at MRT before they shipped and he said it was a delay from Fox on there shipments. The 2.0s are in pretty hot demand. As a former suspension engineer I would install the shocks as they are currently set. The shock body is more than likely a part used in a wide variety of setups. The spring, overall length, rate and pre-load applied are all going to factor into how much lift is achieved. If I new the motion rate of the suspension, spring rate, and load applied I could calculate if the pre-load is correct but that's more work than its worth at this point. I've got issues with my stabilitrak tripping under sharp turns with even moderate speed and a clunk that I'm not sure of the exact cause just yet that I think I'm going to have the dealer look at before I install my shocks. The clunk could be related to the leveling kit and oversized tires overpowering the rebound on my worn out Rancho shocks. Let me know how the new shocks ride?
I ordered a full set of the Fox 2.0 shocks from MRT on May 8th and I'm still waiting on the fronts to ship as well. They were good about responding to messages regarding status at first and I scheduled my appointment at a shop to have them installed based on the shipping info I received. I broke my back last October and am still going through physical therapy or I would be doing the install myself. I had to cancel when the front coilovers didn't arrive in time. Now I can't get a hold of anyone at MRT through email, text or phone. I live in an apartment so I was worried that they had arrived and gotten stolen. Not sure what the deal is but the lack of communication concerns me.
Of course the MPG is going to get worse because of the reasons you stated. The calculation is merely to convert the DIC MPG readout for a situation where the tire size was increased but the computer wasn't reset for the larger tires. There are two pieces to the equation, fuel consumption (computer known/predicted) and distance traveled. If you converted to a 37" tire that's about 1.15 times the original 32's but the fuel consumption goes up by 25% then the net result is a decrease in MPG of 8% (1.15/1.25 = 0.92).
I'm up in Fort Collins. I ride at IMI and watkins mostly and get out to Burthoud or Thunder Valley every now and then.
What did they same about you not being in California?
Electronic speedometers of today work of a rotary encoder or similar sensor that sends a once per revolution pulse to the ECM. The ECM converts tire rotation frequency into velocity and distance by multiplying the signal by the tire circumference, which is programmed with the factory tire size. The programmed tire size is utilize to calculate both the MPG and odometer change. The only thing required to convert the mileage driven and MPG for an increase in tire size is to multiply the odometer and DIC outputs by (D_new/D_old). Let's look at an example: Suppose the DIC on the OP's truck is reporting 160 miles traveled for the last 10 gallons (16MPG). Let's convert that to the total tire revolutions required. 160 miles = 10137600 in and 10137600/(3.14*31.91) = 101125 is how many revolutions the tires made. taking that many revolutions and finding the new distance traveled with the larger tires. (33.21*3.14)*101125 = 10550603 in = 166.52 miles and because the fuel consumption is still 10 gallons the new MPG=16.65. or to simplify things (33.21/31.91)*16 = 16.65 MPG
Most OnlineNewest Member
Who's Online 93 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,247 Guests (See full list)
- peter peralta
- Eugene Walsworth
- Dean Sterling
- Ithan Henry
- Jody H
- Phil Murray
- Julie Patterson
- Ken Clifton