Jump to content

2014+ Leveling Kits

bcazier

By bcazier
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

NorCalSLT Enthusiast

NorCalSLT

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have pictures of a 2.5" rough country level kit installed but without the top 1/2" spacer in the front?
Basically just the lower 2" spacer in the front and the 2" block in the rear.

Im looking to get almost level but still keep a slight rake and also not mess with the front springs compression from that 1/2" spacer.

  • 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

AK333 Enthusiast

AK333

Posted
Posted

You could just do the 2" front level and You would end up about 3/4" higher in the rear after everything settles out.

AK333 Enthusiast

AK333

Posted
Posted

There are pics of my truck 1 page back with just the 2" level.

tyrich88 Enthusiast

tyrich88

Posted
Posted

 

With a 2" level, I fit my 305/65/18s with zero trimming and zero rubbing, even at full lock in reverse. They measure 33.7x12.1, and even .1" more, and it would rub. I think I found the absolute limit for size on these new trucks with just a 2".

How much have you been offroad with that size? They look great!

Travis1024 Enthusiast

Travis1024

Posted
Posted

Hi guys I am new here and been reading this thread this for awhile. I have a 2017 SLT all terrain and was hopping to do the RC 2.5" kit but once I realized that the top spacer goes in the coil instead of the over the strut on the 2017 models I decided against it. I noticed that motofab makes a couple of different options for a 2.5" level kit. I was wondering if anyone has used this kit http://www.motofablifts.com/product-p/ch-25lm.htm ? I also find it weird that rough country makes you conform what control arms you have for there leveling kits but motofab does not? Also I have not found anyone else that makes a 2.5" bottom mount level besides motofab. Is there a benefit from using a 2" spacer on the bottom and a 1/2" on the top instead of just using a 2.5" on the bottom alone? thanks in advance for any help with this!

I had a terrible experience with Motofab. Long story short, they told me the lower strut spacers would work for my '16 and they did not.

 

Before placing my order, they were very quick to answer all of my qualifying questions, but when i tried to reach out for a refund, I NEVER heard from them (after multiple attempts). Luckily I purchased through amazon, or I would have never received a refund. Moving forward I will go with anyone but them due to the lack of customer service and would advise others the same in case there happens to be an issue.

 

That said, if you do the top spacer, you should be alright since they are all pretty standard and a solid billet material

Travis1024 Enthusiast

Travis1024

Posted
Posted

Hypothetical question for those more qualified than myself - Trying to get some more height out of mine without having to do a full lift kit

 

Keep my Bilstein 5100 at the 1.25" setting and do a 2.5" Top strut spacer (totaling 3.75") WITH aftermarket UCAs - would this work?

 

Or would it be a better option to just do a 1 inch body on top of a 2.5 inch level totaling 3.5 inches?

jimmyboy8301 Senior Enthusiast

jimmyboy8301

Posted
Posted

Hypothetical question for those more qualified than myself - Trying to get some more height out of mine without having to do a full lift kit

 

Keep my Bilstein 5100 at the 1.25" setting and do a 2.5" Top strut spacer (totaling 3.75") WITH aftermarket UCAs - would this work?

 

Or would it be a better option to just do a 1 inch body on top of a 2.5 inch level totaling 3.5 inches?

that would DESTROY your front end components. TREs, BJs, CVs would all be ruined

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mnm99 Enthusiast

mnm99

Posted
Posted

I had a terrible experience with Motofab. Long story short, they told me the lower strut spacers would work for my '16 and they did not.

 

Before placing my order, they were very quick to answer all of my qualifying questions, but when i tried to reach out for a refund, I NEVER heard from them (after multiple attempts). Luckily I purchased through amazon, or I would have never received a refund. Moving forward I will go with anyone but them due to the lack of customer service and would advise others the same in case there happens to be an issue.

 

That said, if you do the top spacer, you should be alright since they are all pretty standard and a solid billet material

 

Can I ask what didn't work with the Motofab on the bottom? I was looking at there 1.5".

Travis1024 Enthusiast

Travis1024

Posted
Posted

 

I had a terrible experience with Motofab. Long story short, they told me the lower strut spacers would work for my '16 and they did not.

 

Before placing my order, they were very quick to answer all of my qualifying questions, but when i tried to reach out for a refund, I NEVER heard from them (after multiple attempts). Luckily I purchased through amazon, or I would have never received a refund. Moving forward I will go with anyone but them due to the lack of customer service and would advise others the same in case there happens to be an issue.

 

That said, if you do the top spacer, you should be alright since they are all pretty standard and a solid billet material

 

Can I ask what didn't work with the Motofab on the bottom? I was looking at there 1.5".

 

 

Sure. So I was told by a local shop out here (that has about 15+ years or so in lifting/working on lifted trucks) that since I have the stamped steel control arms, the lower strut spacer would not sit correctly. Top worked perfectly and could have ultimately used a motofab top, but i went with pro-comp based on principle.

mnm99 Enthusiast

mnm99

Posted
Posted

 

Sure. So I was told by a local shop out here (that has about 15+ years or so in lifting/working on lifted trucks) that since I have the stamped steel control arms, the lower strut spacer would not sit correctly. Top worked perfectly and could have ultimately used a motofab top, but i went with pro-comp based on principle.

That's weird. The strut has 2 flat tabs that the spacer sits on. You would think flat is flat. Isn't rough country and all the others the same?

atay2011 Enthusiast

atay2011

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hypothetical question for those more qualified than myself - Trying to get some more height out of mine without having to do a full lift kit

 

Keep my Bilstein 5100 at the 1.25" setting and do a 2.5" Top strut spacer (totaling 3.75") WITH aftermarket UCAs - would this work?

 

Or would it be a better option to just do a 1 inch body on top of a 2.5 inch level totaling 3.5 inches?

I know people say more than 2.5" is bad for your suspension, but I had a very similar set-up. I had the Rough Country 2" lower strut spacer and the Bilstein's cranked up to the max height, which put me at about 3.75" up front...I didn't have aftermarket UCAs, though I would have added them soon had I kept the truck. I had 285/75r18 Nitto G2s with stock rims and I was off-road quite a bit and no issues. I didn't keep the truck long-term and traded it for a 2500 at about 50k miles, but I had zero issues with my set-up and loved the way it looked.

Edited by atay2011
Travis1024 Enthusiast

Travis1024

Posted
Posted

I know people say more than 2.5" is bad for your suspension, but I had a very similar set-up. I had the Rough Country 2" lower strut spacer and the Bilstein's cranked up to the max height, which put me at about 3.75" up front...I didn't have aftermarket UCAs, though I would have added them soon had I kept the truck. I had 285/75r18 Nitto G2s with stock rims and I was off-road quite a bit and no issues. I didn't keep the truck long-term and traded it for a 2500 at about 50k miles, but I had zero issues with my set-up and loved the way it looked.

You dont happen to have any pics of the truck do you? would love to see what it looked like at that size

atay2011 Enthusiast

atay2011

Posted
Posted

You dont happen to have any pics of the truck do you? would love to see what it looked like at that size

Here's what I have left of pics:

 

with NItto G2s 285/75r18, 2" level + Bilstein 1.75"

truck 5

tyrich88 Enthusiast

tyrich88

Posted
Posted

 

Here's what I have left of pics:

 

Looks great!

It would put some accelerated wear on ball joints and such, so if it were mine I would replace the control arms...

how did it ride?

TexasSilverado16 Enthusiast

TexasSilverado16

Posted
Posted

Anyone know of the biggest size tire I can fit on a 2" leveling kit 2wd silverado. I'm wanting to go with a 20x10 -24 offset.

 

 

TexasSilverado16

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

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 338 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...