Jump to content

Took the Fox 2.0 plunge

Vetteran

By Vetteran
in Modifications & Accessories

Recommended Posts

Rkaroll953 Enthusiast

Rkaroll953

Posted
Posted

 

Is this how it came from Fox? Or did you readjust?

 

And how much lift is this?

 

 

And sounds like Camburg/Dirt King would be the best bet then.

stock for me

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Donolie Enthusiast

Donolie

Posted
Posted

So for the guys that are running this set up currently, how dramatic a difference are we talking over stock? I've been running the 2.0 set up front and rear for about two years now and am not blown away by the difference.

 

That being said however, I was one of the lucky ones that purchased and installed during the issue when the pre-load settings were incorrect out of the box (I believe) and subsequently discovered a few months later. I have the correct 018 part number installed for aluminum control arms.

 

My installer was never able to achieve a level stance. Maybe got a little over an inch so sits slightly nose low. Doesn't look awful but not as good as it could and on road performance is stiff. Rebound when hitting a quick dip at freeway speeds cause a noticeable thump in the front end. Trail performance just seems ok, rough and not absorbing of ruts, rocks, etc but seems to have better control.

 

I've since done some inquiry with Fox and they informed me that the spec'd 2" to level could be achieved on 2WD not 4WD. In any case, they said I could bring them in to have them checked out to confirm the correct position of the pre load rings, re-valve to soften them up etc but they they have to be off the truck. This means I'd have to re-install my Ranchos, re-align, take the Fox's into their shop, then re-install them and re-align again.

 

I feel like the peace of mind might be worth it to confirm everything setting wise is correct plus, I'd really like to get the performance out of this set up that it sounds like some of you have gotten. So my original question, should the difference over stock be night and day noticeable?

For my 2014 with Aluminium arms, I got about 2'' of lift and a better ride, but it's still a 4wd truck. My 95' 2wd Silverado does ride better but its 2wd. For myself, the fox 2.0 improved the overall ride, still stiff, but much better. I got the same amount of improvement from changing the stock Goodyear SRA to the Duratrac. My alignment was only slightly off, and it was only a toe adjustment so if you got less lift than me, I wouldn't worry about getting another alignment while waiting for fox. I'd be interested if the updated arms fixed the ride for you. I thought about getting the 2.5's for the rear but the stock ranchos were terrible towing.

trik396 Enthusiast

trik396

Posted
Posted

I'm going to run the Cognitos with Fox 2.0 because all the other arms I see use a uni ball. I'm sure they are good however my experience with uni balls or heim joints prove that with Midwest winters the corrosion kills them quickly. Does anyone make a "weather proof" uni ???

trik396 Enthusiast

trik396

Posted
Posted

Also the cognito ball joints appear to be what 2500/3500 trucks use so they should be overkill on a 1500 which suits me fine!

wuznme Enthusiast

wuznme

Posted
Posted

I'm going to run the Cognitos with Fox 2.0 because all the other arms I see use a uni ball. I'm sure they are good however my experience with uni balls or heim joints prove that with Midwest winters the corrosion kills them quickly. Does anyone make a "weather proof" uni ???

 

 

Had some condoms for heim TRE's I had from FFR, can't remember where I got them though.

trik396 Enthusiast

trik396

Posted
Posted

Had some condoms for heim TRE's I had from FFR, can't remember where I got them though.

You would think they would include some kind of rubber "boot" to protect from road dalt etc. Hopefully someone knows what can be done but I'm leaning towards regular ball joint configuration. Plus they are grease able

Sierra706 Senior Enthusiast

Sierra706

Posted
Posted

You would think they would include some kind of rubber "boot" to protect from road dalt etc. Hopefully someone knows what can be done but I'm leaning towards regular ball joint configuration. Plus they are grease able

If you grease frequently and properly you shouldn't have too many problems

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

aaronarf Enthusiast

aaronarf

Posted
Posted

You should not grease uniballs...this will cause premature wear/failure.

 

Uniballs are self lubricating, keep them clean and thats all you need to do! They have PTFE liners. Some use dry graphite lube to keep the squeaks down, Also make sure you get the stainless steel versions if you are replacing them, FK has two different variants.

geswek Enthusiast

geswek

Posted
Posted

Just dropped the truck off at shop to get my front and rear 2.0's installed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

geswek Enthusiast

geswek

Posted
Posted

OH MY .......

 

It was worth every penny I just spent -- I should have done this from the start!

geswek Enthusiast

geswek

Posted
Posted

Details?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

It's a night and day difference from the Rancho shocks we get with Z71--ride home was incredibly smooth and nice. I hit some bumps that I normally hit that are jarring--this time the truck handled them well and didn't bounce me out of my seat. Wife gave me a thumbs up too, which is always a bonus!

 

I bought the Fox 2.0 coil overs up front and long-tubes in the rear. Cost me $1500 installed from 4 Wheel Parts.

Sierra706 Senior Enthusiast

Sierra706

Posted
Posted

 

 

It's a night and day difference from the Rancho shocks we get with Z71--ride home was incredibly smooth and nice. I hit some bumps that I normally hit that are jarring--this time the truck handled them well and didn't bounce me out of my seat. Wife gave me a thumbs up too, which is always a bonus!

 

I bought the Fox 2.0 coil overs up front and long-tubes in the rear. Cost me $1500 installed from 4 Wheel Parts.

The fox 2.0 rears?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Chuck FB
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      Which has made me wonder with the various engine failures of a few brands in the last few years, is it sub par materials such as lifters etc causing failures, or bearing clearances on the crank etc or perhaps bad designing of an engine physically or causing too much load on the components due to the hp/torque they can push out of them. Or is the oil viscosity and additive package of current oils or a lack of oil flow by an oil pump not able to supply sufficient oil at idle or under high load at low rpm. Or is it every item I listed that combined together has pushed the limits so far to the left that there is hardly a margin of safety left and add in some fuel dilution and too long of an OCI and premature engine failure is the result ?. 
    • 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.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...