Jump to content

ReadyLift - 2.25'' FRONT LEVELING KIT W/ CONTROL ARMS

JamesAT18

By JamesAT18
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

JamesAT18 Enthusiast

JamesAT18

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, contenderv07 said:

awesome thanks!! I want to get a little bit taller tire (275/65r20) so maybe that helps out some?? Hell I don't know anymore lol

That's a possibility too, but they just look sooooo skinny. I've considered 285/60 but it may too much and there isn't a lot of options in that size. 

 

Trust me, I've had the truck for 2 months and I've been researching for the perfect set up for probably a year lol. I think I will mimic MallCrawl's set up. But Faulken ATW3

  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

MallCrawlZ71
MallCrawlZ71

Got it on my 17’ Z71 and no issues running 305/55 Toyo’s Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jguzek
jguzek

Readylift tubular upper control arms and spacers installed. Raised the front end 2.25" Stock rear with stock 285-45/R22 Bridgestones (for now). Love the new stance and the ride is great. I had i

jguzek
jguzek

For those interested, Tirerack.com has the ReadyLift 2.25 Upper Control Arm leveling kit for $304. Free shipping. P/N:66-3086 https://www.tirerack.com/suspension/suspension.jsp?make=ReadyLIFT&am

Posted Images

dRoblez Enthusiast

dRoblez

Posted
Posted
On 8/20/2018 at 6:47 AM, Avolution03 said:

Readylift tubular upper control arms and spacers installed. Raised the front end 2.25" Stock rear with stock 285-45/R22 Bridgestones (for now).

Love the new stance and the ride is great.

I had intended to use another company's relocation brackets for the magneride (Readylift doesn't make one) however after installation, the thicker tubular UCA placed the ride sensors right back in the stock position. No relocation bracket needed.  I couldn't be happier with the new setup. 07d6a08f7348f55a3bf1c237745d972c.jpg

IMG_20180822_0857159.thumb.jpg.415db7859f874f7d834608876067e884.jpgIMG_20180822_0857494.thumb.jpg.d4be2f0dc139270b39d6fb1bba09648f.jpg
Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk

This is the exact same kit I just installed today on my 2018 Z71 and the height in the front after the install was about 1/2” taller than the rear. I took it out for a drive and after the front was still 1/4” taller than the rear. I’m wondering if this is the reason they say it won’t work with the Z71’s? Z71 is the same as the All-Terrain package isn’t it? I did see a note on a website that stated if the wheel hub to top of the wheel well is 22” or greater then the lower strut spacer is not needed only use the top. Mine measured just under 22” but maybe I still need to only use the top spacer? Any thoughts?

Hillwood Enthusiast

Hillwood

Posted
Posted

Were you able to get the alignment back into specs?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • 2 weeks later...
ChadLtzZ71 New Member

ChadLtzZ71

Posted
Posted

I was wondering

On 12/16/2018 at 8:54 PM, dRoblez said:

This is the exact same kit I just installed today on my 2018 Z71 and the height in the front after the install was about 1/2” taller than the rear. I took it out for a drive and after the front was still 1/4” taller than the rear. I’m wondering if this is the reason they say it won’t work with the Z71’s? Z71 is the same as the All-Terrain package isn’t it? I did see a note on a website that stated if the wheel hub to top of the wheel well is 22” or greater then the lower strut spacer is not needed only use the top. Mine measured just under 22” but maybe I still need to only use the top spacer? Any thoughts?

Do you have any rubbing?  I am also about to buy this kit for my stock 17 Z71. I don’t drive it much and don’t put many miles on it so it will be awhile before i have to install new tires. I really don’t want to drop 130 on spacers I don’t need. 

  • 3 weeks later...
dRoblez Enthusiast

dRoblez

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2018 at 1:13 PM, ChadLtzZ71 said:

I was wondering

Do you have any rubbing?  I am also about to buy this kit for my stock 17 Z71. I don’t drive it much and don’t put many miles on it so it will be awhile before i have to install new tires. I really don’t want to drop 130 on spacers I don’t need. 

With the stock tires, no rubbing at all. With the tires I went with, 295/60/20, definitely rubbed, but I did the full NorCal mod and no more rubbing. 

  • 4 weeks later...
PSU23 New Member

PSU23

Posted
Posted (edited)

Guys, which upper control arm versions did you receive with the kit?  The new (without grease fittings in the bushings), or older (with grease fittings on/into the bushings)?

 

i just received a kit with the new version, and there isn’t an Allen head key or etc., to stop the bearing from spinning when fastening the nut down. Did you guys have any issues installing with a jack/jack stands?

 

any tips?

Edited by PSU23
JamesAT18 Enthusiast

JamesAT18

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/18/2018 at 12:28 AM, luckyshotbrooks said:

ReadyLift 2.25” leveling kit with new control arms.

275/70r18 NittoTrail Grapplers

AAF95E69-3928-470B-A882-49C066B43EEA.jpeg

  • 3 months later...
ProxyW New Member

ProxyW

Posted
Posted

Hey guys I’m looking to find the right kit for my 18 Silverado but I’m big on angles. I know A straight suspension lift would be the best option for all angles but it isn’t realistic for me rn. Could you guys possibly provide the angles you guys are running with the 2.25 level w/ UCA’s.

mchnhd4 Enthusiast

mchnhd4

Posted
Posted
On 8/9/2018 at 8:13 AM, 74Sprint17SierraATX said:

Following thread. Just bought strut spacers and am concerned with CV angles and Ball Joint angles. Thanks for posting.

 

I just bought a supreme suspensions 2.5" front and 2" rear. The kit comes with differential drop kit components. Supreme's website says 2.5" + may require the differential drop kit. At 2.25" lift i would think it should be ok, but if you're doing higher speed in 4wd and use it a lot I would guess that it will prematurely wear those joints out because of the increased angle.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...
RobinhoodNC Enthusiast

RobinhoodNC

Posted
Posted

Here is my setup, Readylift 2.25" front, RC forged UCAs, 3" rear blocks.

 

Rake is now 1.3" which is fine for me as I didn't like the previous "leveled" look. Furthermore, side steps are now exactly parallel to the ground.

 

Downtravel is almost as good as stock with RC UCAs,  & drivability is very nice compared to 3" front spacers installed before !  Since pics taken I put back rubber bumpstops for smooth operation. No more "clunks" !

 

Robin

raedylift 2.25 (2).jpg

raedylift 2.25 (3).jpg

raedylift 2.25 (4).jpg

raedylift 2.25.jpg

  • 1 month later...
Inferno18 New Member

Inferno18

Posted
Posted

Hello fellas.  I'm about ready to purchase and install this same exact kit for my 2018 Silverado CC Z71 LTZ.  How are all of yours holding up since your last posts on this?  Any issues?  

  • 3 months later...
Vasa1 Enthusiast

Vasa1

Posted
Posted

I had the Readylift 2"25 kit, without the ucas,installed when I bought my 15 Sierra all terrain dblcab.Then installed 275/65-20 KO2’s. No issues for over 100K. Now present day, will be installing the 66-3086 RL kit on my new 19 dblcab limited because of the stamped steel ucas. Will be running the same tires as well.

Dalton!12 New Member

Dalton!12

Posted
Posted
On 2/15/2019 at 8:44 AM, JamesAT18 said:
On 9/17/2018 at 11:28 PM, luckyshotbrooks said:

ReadyLift 2.25” leveling kit with new control arms.

275/70r18 NittoTrail Grapplers

AAF95E69-3928-470B-A882-49C066B43EEA.jpeg

Do you rub!? How do you like this setup? I'm about to order the same leveling kit and also the same tires but not I was going to get 285/70/18

Vasa1 Enthusiast

Vasa1

Posted
Posted

19 dblcab limited. The Readylift 2.25, stock rear and 275/65-20 KO2’s. No issues or rubbing.

4F6A1296-7735-4DFD-9FA5-E3D7D419D0E3.jpeg

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...