Jump to content

2014+ Leveling Kits

bcazier

By bcazier
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

rawalters117 Enthusiast

rawalters117

Posted
Posted

More details please.

 

What width wheels? If aftermarket, what offset? And what brand/model tire? Anything else aftermarket, like UCAs or anything?

 

Thanks!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wheels are the stock 18s, 8.5 in width I believe. Everything is stock except the BDS 2" level.

  • 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

rawalters117 Enthusiast

rawalters117

Posted
Posted

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

 

I go offroad fairly often at our family farm, and it sees mud, rocks, grass, ect. out there. They grip extremely well, ride smooth, and are quiet. Even going over fairly rough terrain while turning, I still have yet to rub. I am very impressed with these tires, especially at their price point.

tyrich88 Enthusiast

tyrich88

Posted
Posted

 

I go offroad fairly often at our family farm, and it sees mud, rocks, grass, ect. out there. They grip extremely well, ride smooth, and are quiet. Even going over fairly rough terrain while turning, I still have yet to rub. I am very impressed with these tires, especially at their price point.

NICE!!!!

Since you said above you're stock... how much has it hit your gas mileage and are they super heavy??

I'm running 275/70/18s right now which are 10 plys... but the wider tires seem to be significantly heavier.

AK333 Enthusiast

AK333

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey guys! So I know this is probably one of the most covered topics of all but I'm hoping to find a little more info on wheel/tire fittment with a leveling kit. At this point I'm leaning towards the RC 2" front level for now. I have set of 17x9s picked out because I like more tire and less wheel. I've read through this thread till I was blue in the face and couldn't find much of an answer. I'm trying to decide between 0 or -12 offset and then also between 285/70's and 295/70's. Just wondering if anybody with experience with these sizes could chime in if possible so I can't get these wheels and tires coming. I found a ton of info on stock wheels but not as on wheels with these specs. The -12 offset wheels with 295/70 would be best case scenario for me but I'm guessing 0 offset carries less of a chance of rubbing? Thanks in advance for any and all input guys!

Edit

So with my set up -6 offset is about the max I could go with a 2" level and 17x8.5 wheels with 285/70 tires. Last post on this page of the wheel tire thread are picks of my truck and more pics on the next page of the thread. Hope this helps

 

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/161228-post-your-2014-wheeltire-set-up/page-260

Edited by AK333
Korazu Enthusiast

Korazu

Posted
Posted

Man there are some sharp looking trucks with just the leveled system. I plan on doing a 2.5" front with a 3" rear block. Just don't quite know what I want to run for wheels and tires yet.

 

Havok H109s 20x10's or 20's GMC Sierra Stockers...

 

I still have my stockers, as I have not yet decided on rims, but put Toyo AT2 305/55R20 on a 2.5" level with 3" rear block and a set of Hellwig 987's on the rear.

 

IMG 0336

IMG 0355

 

With and without trailer.

  • Like 1
Dank1500 Enthusiast

Dank1500

Posted
Posted

Edit

So with my set up -6 offset is about the max I could go with a 2" level and 17x8.5 wheels with 285/70 tires. Last post on this page of the wheel tire thread are picks of my truck and more pics on the next page of the thread. Hope this helpshttp://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/161228-post-your-2014-wheeltire-set-up/page-260

 

That setup looks fantastic! With all the crazy wheel designs out today, I love a simple 17" wheel. You don't see it very often. I for one am I huge fan of soft 8 style wheels so I went with Ultra type 164's. They are a -12 offset so we'll see what kind of trimming and zip tying I'll have to do when they get here. Also I decided on a 2.5" front and 2" rear kit. 2.5" seems to be a comfortable limit without a diff drop and aftermarket UCA's. Hopefully the extra .5" will do me some good. A friend of mine has a 3" front level and you can see the upper arms are riding on the bump stops more then I'd like to see.

AK333 Enthusiast

AK333

Posted
Posted

Maybe I am just a bit old school but IMO without a 6" lift and 37" tires the 20" wheels look like they should be on some low-rider and not a 4x4 truck. I guess I'm just getting old because it seems like everyone and their brother is running 20's. Hope everything works out with your new wheels, tires, and leveling kit. I know the tires I have are big for 285/70 or at least that is what I have read in comparison to other brands of A/T tires in that size.

Dank1500 Enthusiast

Dank1500

Posted
Posted

I agree completely. Especially MT's on 20's. even with 35-37's, I'd still run 17's or smaller lol. I had 35/12.5r16's on my lifted '03 Silverado. Thanks for the good luck on the wheels and tires. I'll be sure to post pics and info on fittment.

rawalters117 Enthusiast

rawalters117

Posted
Posted

NICE!!!!

Since you said above you're stock... how much has it hit your gas mileage and are they super heavy??

I'm running 275/70/18s right now which are 10 plys... but the wider tires seem to be significantly heavier.

 

These are 10 ply as well, but even at the size I have, they weigh around 65 lbs, which is significantly less than other brands at a similar size. I went from around 21-22 highway to 19 highway average, so honestly not a big hit at all in my opinion, especially coming from those tiny goodyears.

pamaguin Enthusiast

pamaguin

Posted
Posted

Very Nice Looking Ride Bud... What are the Wheel and Tire Specs... Thanks in Advance..

Moto Metal MO962 20x9 0 offset with KO2 285/55

 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Esan Enthusiast

Esan

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://secure.shoeboxapp.com/photo/443b9fb4456c4db45521f2c9ff362d3e49685e938275ab0e78361119d361bcf202

 

factory rims tires upsized one size 265-75-17 plastidipped. 2"front and 1" back level just added tow mirrors this weekend

https://secure.shoeboxapp.com/photo/d35393889b8d37bb57972408147ee7ec4fd189300aabad35b3cb80f4ad5694f302

Edited by Esan
seahawk42 New Member

seahawk42

Posted
Posted

 

I go offroad fairly often at our family farm, and it sees mud, rocks, grass, ect. out there. They grip extremely well, ride smooth, and are quiet. Even going over fairly rough terrain while turning, I still have yet to rub. I am very impressed with these tires, especially at their price point.

 

Your truck looks pretty sharp from your profile picture. Curious if you have any other pictures of it from the side or back.

 

Thanks

rawalters117 Enthusiast

rawalters117

Posted
Posted

 

Your truck looks pretty sharp from your profile picture. Curious if you have any other pictures of it from the side or back.

 

Thanks

 

This is all I have at the moment.

 

C183AB6C-232F-4086-A648-9A597D5CBB28_zps57cdcb59-666a-4c7e-9c4b-7bffc1a48206_zps850e245b-c136-4612-a879-77c6ff8c697f_zps

  • Like 2
Sierra Jon Enthusiast

Sierra Jon

Posted
Posted

I saw those Falken wildpeaks from a mile away. Good looking truck. I rock the Falken at3s too.

 

2014 Silverado DCSB Z71

The Wildpeaks are getting great reviews. I haven't heard anyone with a bad experience.
  • Like 2

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   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 654 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...