Jump to content

2014+ Leveling Kits

bcazier

By bcazier
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

6TEEN5.3 Enthusiast

6TEEN5.3

Posted
Posted

Truck_2 resize final.png

 

 

Sorry for the delay. I tried posting last week using the tapatalk app, but it said my pictures were too big. I have since shrunk the photo. Here they are. I must say, what a huge and awesome change. Makes a nice luxury truck (SLT model) feel like a real truck after having the 2" level and new tires.

 

I had the 2" "Zone" level put on the front. For the tires, I put 285/55/20 BF Goodrich A/T KO2.

 

Pros

-Truck looks 10x better with the level. (Even with factory tires still on before I put new tired on it looked better)

-New BF Goodrich A/T K02 tires look great on the truck. Not over the top aggressive, but not boring either.

-No rubbing at all.

- Perfect height for what I was looking for.

 

 

Cons

-looks about like 1.5-2mpg difference - But I have mostly only driven city miles. With gas $1.80 it's no biggie.

-Noise is not an issue, but the tires are louder than factory. With radio on, you barely can even hear them.

-Slightly rougher ride when going over potholes or traintracks, but not much difference at all.

 

Overall, without a doubt I'd do this same setup again. It's not too high, not too big tires, just perfect for what I was looking for. I didn't even tell my wife I was doing it. She even said, "Man look at those tires, that looks really good...." she doesn't even pay much attention to my vehicle either. So she noticed. :)

 

 

 

That looks really sharp! That's the look I'm going for, nothing too aggressive but will catch your eye once you take a second look. Nice work

  • Like 1
  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Saleenpowr
Saleenpowr

So i put my RC 2" level kit and Toyo 295/55/20's on this weekend. Install was simple, just like on my 2011. It definitely helps to have an extra set of hands when wedging that spacer in there. 295/

Saleenpowr
Saleenpowr

Thanks. Here is one more from yesterday. Considering we're getting 8-10 inches of rain the next two days, I won't be taking any better pics soon.  

FH212
FH212

Mine is finally done! After months of research I went with the RC 2.5" level kit front only, stock rear block. 20"x9" Fuel Nutz w/ +1 offset, 33x12.50x20 Toyo M/T tires. No rubbing, No trimming, yet a

Posted Images

mrhonestlyinsane Enthusiast

mrhonestlyinsane

Posted
Posted

Anyone running 275/65/20s with the RC 2.5" kit on stock wheels?

I'm looking at the Toyo AT II the BFG KO2 and the Mickey Thompson ATZ and would like it know if anyone is running a similar size tire and can tell me if it rubs (turning, reverse, gravel/bumpy roads, offroad) and if you had to trim.

 

2014 GMC RC 2.5"

 

Thanks in advance

This can be done with no problem. I ran that size tire on my 2 inch rc level before I lifted my truck. Most you will have to do is tie back the fender liner. There are plenty of examples of this set up in this thread. I still have pics of mine in my gallery.
highspeedZ71 Enthusiast

highspeedZ71

Posted
Posted

Hey everyone, so the rough country 2.5 wants you to unplug the power steering before installation.

I'm wondering can I just disconnect the battery instead?

MOhunter92 Enthusiast

MOhunter92

Posted
Posted

Hey everyone, so the rough country 2.5 wants you to unplug the power steering before installation.

I'm wondering can I just disconnect the battery instead?

I'm guessing that would be the same thing. I heard rough country say the reasoning for it is there are sensitive sensors in the electric power steering that can be thrown off when installing the kit if they are left connected. I would rather just disconnect the plugs, seems easy enough. But battery would be just as easy

 

 

Sent from my treestand using Tapatalk

highspeedZ71 Enthusiast

highspeedZ71

Posted
Posted

Hmm that's interesting, I was wondering what the whole point to that was. I was just thinking since I'm gonna install a MIT aswell and should disconnect the battery for that I could get away with not removing that debris cover and disconnecting the connectors to the power steering

Patflynn8734 Enthusiast

Patflynn8734

Posted
Posted

This can be done with no problem. I ran that size tire on my 2 inch rc level before I lifted my truck. Most you will have to do is tie back the fender liner. There are plenty of examples of this set up in this thread. I still have pics of mine in my gallery.

 

 

Did it rub any on rough roads or during full turn after you tied back the fender? And what did you use to tie the fender back?

5RWill Enthusiast

5RWill

Posted
Posted (edited)

I always chuckle when I see those kind of posts. They act like a longer strut is better than a spacer giving you a longer strut.. Lol angles are the same, and nothing is really better feeling than the factory set up. You pay for a so so ride and less lift than a spacer kit lol just doesn't make sense. I'm gonna go with the RCX 2.5 then when the truck is out of warranty bds 4 inch

 

 

Sent from my treestand using Tapatalk

 

For the Billies at least, lift isn't achieved due to a longer strut it's due to the springs. Angles aren't entirely the same in the case of Bilsteins either, 1.8" =/= 2.50" there is a reason Bilstein went with 1.8" you could argue that angles are nearly the same with a 2" spacer which is a better comparison, but your still extending the strut with the spacer. Having ridden in both and been in both i'll take my Billy's every day of the week over spacer kits. Of course there are struts that are much longer, but Bilsteins are 1/4th an inch longer than factory. My brothers truck rides like crap (RC2), My cousin's the same (RC 2.5). At the end of the day it's preference and what your willing to spend. Had i had it to do over again i just would've went with more and waited on 6112s and gotten rear shocks with reservoirs. In the end they both work, i vastly prefer one over the other though.

http://www.bilsteinus.com/fileadmin/user_upload/user_upload_us/pdfs/Bil_LevShks_WebArticle.pdf

Edited by 5RWill
Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted

 

For the Billies at least, lift isn't achieved due to a longer strut it's due to the springs.

I agree that Bilstein's are a good shock but they do increase strut length to achieve lift. They increase strut length by a different method. You will have the same new angles imposed on your other suspension components as a spacer of the same amount of lift. With a 1.5" - 2" spacer lift you should not notice a poorer ride quality than stock. If you do, and have not changed tires, I would get in for service. The Bilsteins have a good reputation for providing a nicer ride than stock.

5RWill Enthusiast

5RWill

Posted
Posted

The quarter inch might facilitate some help in achieving the lift but the literal length of the strut isn't what's causing the lift. It's the "pre-load" if you will on the spring. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what your saying. Are you saying that by doing that they're basically increasing the length of the strut in a different way?

 

As to the spacer kits as I said its personal preference. I strongly dislike how my brothers truck rides. Before with stock tires and after with duratracs. I will say my cousins is a little better albeit not much. My brother has stock gm shocks and my cousin has the ranchos that come on the z71

Donstar Senior Enthusiast

Donstar

Posted
Posted

The quarter inch might facilitate some help in achieving the lift but the literal length of the strut isn't what's causing the lift. It's the "pre-load" if you will on the spring. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what your saying. Are you saying that by doing that they're basically increasing the length of the strut in a different way?

My understanding is that by raising the perch you are pre-loading the spring which in turn is creating lift. The end result is you have increased the distance between the top mount of the strut and the bottom mount. The angles of your control arms etc. will be impacted in the same manner as a spacer of equal lift height. I don't have any special expertise in this area, I'm simply sharing my understanding from the reading i have done. Money is the main reason I chose a spacer over Bilsteins! There are many who report a rougher ride from Bilsteins at max height and there are those that report a rough ride from 2" leveling spacers. The research I have done favors no noticeable negative impact in ride quality from either method.

5RWill Enthusiast

5RWill

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree the angles are the same of the desired lift either way. But the Bilsteins aren't limiting upward suspension travel just changing the static ride height of the truck. At least that is how I understand it from all that I've read as to why someone would want the Bilsteins over spacers. Maybe spurshot or someone else knowledgeable will chime in and elaborate.

 

Either way they both get the job done and if your not ramping and pre-running your unlikely to run into problems.

Edited by 5RWill
mmwest Enthusiast

mmwest

Posted
Posted

Here is my dilemma.I currently have a 2 1/2 inch rough country lift that rides pretty rough.I am going to put 5100s on the front but I'm indecisive on to set it at the middle setting and leave the top spacer or put it on the top setting of the 5100 shock.I'm looking for the best ride and also to maintain my 275/65/20's BFGoodrich.

It's hind site now but I regret putting the 2.5"rough country lift on there. Any help on the situation will be greatly appreciated thanks

tyrich88 Enthusiast

tyrich88

Posted
Posted

Here is my dilemma.I currently have a 2 1/2 inch rough country lift that rides pretty rough.I am going to put 5100s on the front but I'm indecisive on to set it at the middle setting and leave the top spacer or put it on the top setting of the 5100 shock.I'm looking for the best ride and also to maintain my 275/65/20's BFGoodrich.

It's hind site now but I regret putting the 2.5"rough country lift on there. Any help on the situation will be greatly appreciated thanks

You could always go with the Rancho quick lifts

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,317 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...