Jump to content

2014+ Leveling Kits

bcazier

By bcazier
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

No Tyme Senior Enthusiast

No Tyme

Posted
Posted

The kit provided a 2in block which gives it 1in over stock to level the back with the front. Do you think putting stock blocks back on would help? I was going to swap them out but after reading about others have the same issue with no lifts has me thinking it's not the lift

If you pulled out a 1" block and install a 2" block you are only raising 1", would not seem like it could be the problem... But by returning to the 1" would tell the story.

  • 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

SilverBullet14 Enthusiast

SilverBullet14

Posted
Posted

I had a custom shop install a level kit to my 2014 GMC Sierra 2wd, the level was 2.25in or 2.5 I believe. I added 305/55/20 nitto terra grapplers but some have mentioned the front looks higher now , I see it but when I measure its even. Is this an illusion bc the 2014 front ends are big or does it really a look off ? Andhow could it be fixed, adding block to the back?

post-136373-0-14987100-1417108016_thumb.jpg

post-136373-0-14987100-1417108016_thumb.jpg

post-136373-0-14987100-1417108016_thumb.jpg

post-136373-0-14987100-1417108016_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Aldila Enthusiast

Aldila

Posted
Posted (edited)

I like your lean. I left the block out of my back that comes with rc 2.5 and I'm still 1/4 inch higher in rear. I've had a couple 2wd trucks and leveling kits always made them sit a little higher in front because of less weight. If you want to fix yours, just remove factory rear block and replace with larger block.

Edited by Aldila
EaZ8 Enthusiast

EaZ8

Posted
Posted (edited)

Rough Country 2.5 Level with stock rear block.

any rubbing?

i just ordered that kit a couple min ago, and im ordering my rims/tires this week.

do you mean you are using the RC 2" block plus the stock block or just the stock 1" block?

Edited by EaZ8
  • Like 1
Mike1220 Senior Enthusiast

Mike1220

Posted
Posted

any rubbing?

i just ordered that kit a couple min ago, and im ordering my rims/tires this week.

do you mean you are using the RC 2" block plus the stock block or just the stock 1" block?

 

If he is doing what several others are doing. He means that he is running the 2.5" level/lift up front and did not use the taller rear block that Rough Country sends with the kit. He just left the rear completely stock

Aldila Enthusiast

Aldila

Posted
Posted

If he is doing what several others are doing. He means that he is running the 2.5" level/lift up front and did not use the taller rear block that Rough Country sends with the kit. He just left the rear completely stock

That's correct. I left the rear stock.

  • Like 1
No Tyme Senior Enthusiast

No Tyme

Posted
Posted

Well I am smiling ear to ear... Just had the RC level/lift 2.5" kit installed. Here is a pic this morning:

beforelift.jpg

 

And this is this afternoon:

 

afterlift.jpg

 

Now for some taller tires!

  • Like 2
Sjjr613 Enthusiast

Sjjr613

Posted
Posted

Well I am smiling ear to ear... Just had the RC level/lift 2.5" kit installed. Here is a pic this morning:

beforelift.jpg

 

And this is this afternoon:

 

afterlift.jpg

 

Now for some taller tires!

Did u install the 2" block in the back too? ?
Spurshot Senior Enthusiast

Spurshot

Posted
Posted

Did u install the 2" block in the back too? ?

 

Hard to say for certain, but it looks like the rear is also higher. But is the block with the kit a 2" block or just 1" ?

  • Like 1
No Tyme Senior Enthusiast

No Tyme

Posted
Posted

I believe the stock block is 1" and the kit replaces that with a 2" block.

Sjjr613 Enthusiast

Sjjr613

Posted
Posted

I believe the stock block is 1" and the kit replaces that with a 2" block.

Did u replace the stock block with the one that came with the kit?
No Tyme Senior Enthusiast

No Tyme

Posted
Posted

Did u replace the stock block with the one that came with the kit?

Yes!

  • 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
 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   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 722 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      He is not saying that an SAE *W20 will have more viscosity than a *W40 due to MORE VII polymers. He is saying that although multiple *W40 may post in the PDS the same or similar 100 C and 150 C viscosities that the blenders choice of modifier TYPE and AMOUNT to get his chosen base to grade will not give identical real world viscosities in shear and at temperature. All will pass the SII test but not all will pass the 100 C HTHS (unpublished value) testing the blender does and relies on to get the required by law "percentage improvement' referenced to his last great work.    Tis the problem with the lie. Once told others are required to support it. 
    • PunchT37
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By PunchT37 · Posted

      I have a `25, 1500 that auto sets on incline. Never knew that at first. I have the electronic shifter. Just think if it didn`t do that? Unlike a mechanical shift that you can muscle out of park, how would you get this thing out? That would be a problem.   What I found out later is, I don`t have to push the button to release. Just put it in gear.   Setting parameters? Don`t know if it`s possible.
    • SoCal Angler
      Parking Brake - Automatic Engagement Questions

      By SoCal Angler · Posted

      2023 GMC 3500 HD, SLE, 6.6L Gas, 4x4, 6 Spd Options:  SLE Convenience Package; Driver Alert Package 1; Spray on Bedliner; X31 Off Road Package; TRAILERING MIRRORS, HEATED POWER -ADJUSTABLE, AUTO DIMMING, WITH TURN INDICATORS WHEELHOUSE LINERS, REAR INC. REAR AXLE - 3.73 RATIO INC. GVWR, 11,350 LBS. (5148 KG) INC. FRONT AND REAR PARK ASSIST, INC. ULTRASONIC     I have been launching my new boat and noticed some things related to the parking brake.. I usually set the parking brake (habit) when on flat ground for typical driving.    When backed down on the launch ramp to launch the boat and I place gear selector into Park, the parking brake activates automatically. My second nature is to set parking brake manually and noticed I was turing the parking brake off.  The parking brake appears to be setting itself automatically.   I looked all over my owner's manual and only found references to being on an incline and manually setting parking brake, or at times parking brake will be auto engaged, but nothing specific to my situation.    When is the parking brake automatically engaged?  Under what specific circumstances?  Can the auto set parameters be changed?     I like the auto set feature.  It would be nice if always engaged when shifted into Park and released when shifted out of Park (like my wifes 2025 RAV4).   Thanks!    
    • 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.         

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...