Jump to content

Problem wit Skyjacker 4'' Lift 2014 Silverado 1500h

mattgee

By mattgee
in Modifications & Accessories

Recommended Posts

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
Posted

Hi everyone, I want to share my experience with Skyjacker, I purchased a 4'' lift for my 2014 Silverado 1500 4x4. the kit I got is for the aluminum knuckles and control arms, Everything went together well till I got to the point of installing the upper Control Arms. The Upper Balljoint on both sides would not seat all the way down flush on the Skyjacker Knuckles they were sticking up about a quarter inch or so, the taper on the Skyjacker Knuckle seemed to be off. I torqued to Specs around 37 ftlbs but they still stuck up so I tried up to 80ftlbs with no difference. I called Skyjacker they said to send some pictures and they would get back to me. A few days went by with no word from Skyjacker so I called again the Tech guy said he had not heard from the Research Department he will let me know when he does. another few days go buy waiting to hear from Skyjacker while my truck that I can't USE sits torn apart. After about a week I got an Email from Skyjacker the tech guy say's the Research Department said it was Ok sticking up, it's the way there designed to have a tight fit, just make sure the cotter pin is on the ball joint. Well I emailed back and told them there are no Factory cotter pins on the ball joints and that the upper Balljoint overtime can press itself in some more with the cycle of the suspension allowing the nut to loosen up and work itself completely off causing the upper control arm to pop off the steering knuckle making this design very unsafe. Never heard back from Skyjacker. Beware when purchasing from Skyjacker there service after the sale is not good at all!

  • 2 weeks later...
Iowatruckguy Enthusiast

Iowatruckguy

Posted
Posted
Hi everyone, I want to share my experience with Skyjacker, I purchased a 4'' lift for my 2014 Silverado 1500 4x4. the kit I got is for the aluminum knuckles and control arms, Everything went together well till I got to the point of installing the upper Control Arms. The Upper Balljoint on both sides would not seat all the way down flush on the Skyjacker Knuckles they were sticking up about a quarter inch or so, the taper on the Skyjacker Knuckle seemed to be off. I torqued to Specs around 37 ftlbs but they still stuck up so I tried up to 80ftlbs with no difference. I called Skyjacker they said to send some pictures and they would get back to me. A few days went by with no word from Skyjacker so I called again the Tech guy said he had not heard from the Research Department he will let me know when he does. another few days go buy waiting to hear from Skyjacker while my truck that I can't USE sits torn apart. After about a week I got an Email from Skyjacker the tech guy say's the Research Department said it was Ok sticking up, it's the way there designed to have a tight fit, just make sure the cotter pin is on the ball joint. Well I emailed back and told them there are no Factory cotter pins on the ball joints and that the upper Balljoint overtime can press itself in some more with the cycle of the suspension allowing the nut to loosen up and work itself completely off causing the upper control arm to pop off the steering knuckle making this design very unsafe. Never heard back from Skyjacker. Beware when purchasing from Skyjacker there service after the sale is not good at all![/quot

 

What's the verdict? I've got a 4" skyjacker lift on my 14 also, had a shop put it on and my ball joints are good.

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Skyjacker claims the lift is safe just the way it is, so for my own satisfaction I placed a couple of washers to fill the quarter inch space on each of the upper ball joints than torque a little higher than specs to 45 ft lbs , I figure placing the washers in the space will act as a stop not allowing the ball joints to sink in anymore loosing up the nuts, I check them every so often. I do have to say that other than that one problem the lift kit is built well, I went with the longer strut option rather than the coil spacer the ride is good. I will try to put up some pictures this weekend of the truck.

Iowatruckguy Enthusiast

Iowatruckguy

Posted
Posted

I went with the strut spacers but if i had it to do over i would of went with the longer struts. At the time i bought the lift they wanted me to stack the blocks in the rear which i ended up getting 4" blocks instead. ( I think they come with 4" now). I'm really curious to see how yours looks with the 325/60r18 tires.

Devin9607 Enthusiast

Devin9607

Posted
Posted

Has anyone installed a bigger diff drop with their 4'' skyjacker kits? The diff only gets dropped 1'' with this kit.

 

Also, has anyone upgraded from the skyjacker struts to a better strut that works with this kit?

Iowatruckguy Enthusiast

Iowatruckguy

Posted
Posted

I haven't done anything with the diff drop. I think its ok for the amount of lift but if a guy wanted more lift in the future then probably want to drop it another couple inches. I have the strut spacers on my truck and the ride is pretty close to stock. Im not sure what skyjackers longer struts ride like, im guessing better than mine.

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The 4'' lift kit Skyjacker sent me only had a 2.5'' rear block, I thought that was to small of a block when I installed them the rear sat a little lower than the front so I installed a 3'' rear block that gave it more of a level look. I noticed that if you go any lower on the diff drop you would probably have to shave off some fins on the diff other wise they will come in contact wit the cross member. I kinda agree that maybe skyjacker should have lowered the diff a little more on the 4'' lift to take more of the angle out of the front cv joints.

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Skyjacker struts ride really well, I had a spacer kit in my truck before I got the 4'' kit, what I did not care for with the spacer kit was the way the truck rebounded when ever I went over a speed bump or pot hole, there seemed to be no cushion there it wanted to jump over instead of absorbing the bump. The Skyjacker struts absorb the bumps a lot better.

Iowatruckguy Enthusiast

Iowatruckguy

Posted
Posted

The Skyjacker struts ride really well, I had a spacer kit in my truck before I got the 4'' kit, what I did not care for with the spacer kit was the way the truck rebounded when ever I went over a speed bump or pot hole, there seemed to be no cushion there it wanted to jump over instead of absorbing the bump. The Skyjacker struts absorb the bumps a lot better.

When you get a picture of the truck could you also snap one of the strut? thanks. I might get the struts from skyjacker one of these days.

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm having trouble posting pictures, can someone give me the steps to do that. Thanks

Iowatruckguy Enthusiast

Iowatruckguy

Posted
Posted

Lot of people use the tapatalk app otherwise you have to somewhat crop your pictures to fit the size itll allow to upload.

 

I'm having trouble posting pictures, can someone give me the steps to do that. Thanks

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

post-162566-0-84617800-1474911853_thumb. here is a picture of the Skyjacker strut that came with the 4'' lift.

post-162566-0-84617800-1474911853_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-84617800-1474911853_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-84617800-1474911853_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-84617800-1474911853_thumb.jpg

mattgee Enthusiast

mattgee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

post-162566-0-94879600-1474913704_thumb. Sorry for the picture being sideways but this is what my upper ball joints on both sides looked like after I torqued them down to specs, they would not seat all the way down. According to Skyjacker this is alright. So a washer in the space did the trick so far so good.post-162566-0-94879600-1474913704_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-94879600-1474913704_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-94879600-1474913704_thumb.jpg

post-162566-0-94879600-1474913704_thumb.jpg

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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, 452 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...