Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Idk why the pictures flip but that’s where I cut. Today I rubbed a little while backing out of my driveway and turning the whee all the way. I’m sure if I cut the felt up a little higher I would rub but I’m not. I spray painted the metal tab I cut and hit the edges up. 
AAD650EB-6E27-4ED4-A7FF-52BCE72AEAB1.thumb.jpeg.bb13689d43a8123827184d357b90fdb8.jpeg
D51A71CE-60AC-4CF9-9713-F5343D27C836.thumb.jpeg.d285db6cd4d4cee0157c35e7b97e9402.jpeg


How tall are the back tires from ground to top of the tread when on the truck?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
2 hours ago, jgraves13 said:

 


How tall are the back tires from ground to top of the tread when on the truck?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I’m gonna say about 33.5 inches 

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I want a lift...…….but it sounds like 2.5" is the max these trucks should have, before doing a full bracket lift?

 

I am thinking about a 2.5" front leveling kit, using the stock struts

 

1/2" bottom strut spacer and a 2" top spacer or a 2" bottom strut spacer and 1/2" top spacer? Which would be better and why?

 

Then, I would remove the stock rear block (1-1/4") and installing a 2" or 2.5" tall rear block

 

The cap and gear sagged the rear end almost 3/4"...………..so I am leaning towards the 2.5" rear block

 

I like my 18" wheels and want to try to keep them, just add larger tires

 

 

20200314_100646_zpsvqgbpmd5.jpg

 

 

20200314_100633_zpsxopbkf7n.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Posted
I want a lift...…….but it sounds like 2.5" is the max these trucks should have, before doing a full bracket lift?
 
I am thinking about a 2.5" front leveling kit, using the stock struts
 
1/2" bottom strut spacer and a 2" top spacer or a 2" bottom strut spacer and 1/2" top spacer? Which would be better and why?
 
Then, I would remove the stock rear block (1-1/4") and installing a 2" or 2.5" tall rear block
 
The cap and gear sagged the rear end almost 3/4"...………..so I am leaning towards the 2.5" rear block
 
I like my 18" wheels and want to try to keep them, just add larger tires
 
 
20200314_100646_zpsvqgbpmd5.jpg
 
 
20200314_100633_zpsxopbkf7n.jpg
 

Just do a 2.5” top spacer. No point in splitting it between top and bottom


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
On 3/21/2020 at 1:21 PM, KOZ45 said:

I want a lift...…….but it sounds like 2.5" is the max these trucks should have, before doing a full bracket lift?

 

I am thinking about a 2.5" front leveling kit, using the stock struts

 

1/2" bottom strut spacer and a 2" top spacer or a 2" bottom strut spacer and 1/2" top spacer? Which would be better and why?

 

Then, I would remove the stock rear block (1-1/4") and installing a 2" or 2.5" tall rear block

 

The cap and gear sagged the rear end almost 3/4"...………..so I am leaning towards the 2.5" rear block

 

I like my 18" wheels and want to try to keep them, just add larger tires

 

 

20200314_100646_zpsvqgbpmd5.jpg

 

 

20200314_100633_zpsxopbkf7n.jpg

 

What I have on my truck

https://www.roughcountry.com/gm-leveling-lift-kit-1305-10.html

Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2020 at 12:21 PM, KOZ45 said:

I want a lift...…….but it sounds like 2.5" is the max these trucks should have, before doing a full bracket lift?

 

I am thinking about a 2.5" front leveling kit, using the stock struts

 

1/2" bottom strut spacer and a 2" top spacer or a 2" bottom strut spacer and 1/2" top spacer? Which would be better and why?

 

Then, I would remove the stock rear block (1-1/4") and installing a 2" or 2.5" tall rear block

 

The cap and gear sagged the rear end almost 3/4"...………..so I am leaning towards the 2.5" rear block

 

I like my 18" wheels and want to try to keep them, just add larger tires

 

 

20200314_100646_zpsvqgbpmd5.jpg

 

 

20200314_100633_zpsxopbkf7n.jpg

 

looks a bit familiar...I only added  a RC 2" level and 285/65R18 KO2s on my stock rims... I'm please with the stance...

 

post-162426-0-99530500-1503328109_thumb.jpg5b1e6d734ec86_truck1.thumb.jpg.8ea1c2e9459482fe32ec29511d267278.jpg

 

Edited by spenpet
  • Like 1
Posted

How much room do you have with the 285/65R18?

 

275/70R18 : 33.20" x 10.80" (1.6" taller and .40" wider than stock

Not much of a increase over stock......I know I could fit a 275 series easy, but also like the wider tread

285/65R18 : 32.60" x 11.20" (1" taller and 0.8" wider than stock)
285/70R18 : 33.70" x 11.20" (2.1" taller and 0.8" wider than stock)
285/75R18 : 34.80" x 11.20" (3.2" taller and 0.8" wider than stock)
 
 
Posted
Went with the pro comp pro runner shocks, front is leveled just under 1.8”. 
 
 
58B4FCF6-973C-4893-83B6-F0B0BB383091.thumb.jpeg.e1b8f866fb7a89cde6240abbc62decc1.jpeg

Did you have to trim any metal to fit those tires?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
3 minutes ago, jgraves13 said:


Did you have to trim any metal to fit those tires?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope just had to do the normal trimming on the plastic. I bought some trim plates just in case, but I didn’t have to use them. 

Posted
Nope just had to do the normal trimming on the plastic. I bought some trim plates just in case, but I didn’t have to use them. 

Great thanks! Do you have any pictures of what you trimmed? I want to do the same setup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
19 minutes ago, jgraves13 said:


Great thanks! Do you have any pictures of what you trimmed? I want to do the same setup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not the cleanest trim, I used a dremel tool. 
 

BA0C885F-8D3E-48D9-B48B-27F30909EE1C.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted

Quick question, I searched for hours with not too much conclusive luck...

 

Will aftermarket control arms such as Readylift work for a 2017 Denali with magneride? I have a 2.5 inch level kit waiting to go on but want to replace the stamped steel control arms as well to be safe.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

2017
2.25 Ready Lift
Zone add a leaf
285/60r20 Norcal Mod No Rubf1af57ab65756cf07d6475246bf15f22.jpgd805de75c0f2e7e4f1866c78e73db6a1.jpg

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

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
  • 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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 473 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • 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.         
    • 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. 
    • 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. 
    • 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...