Jump to content

Aftermarket Shocks for AT4


Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, KA0S said:

Definitely agree. The Ranchos are terrible.

It's honestly surprising how long it's taking for manufacturers to come out with new product for these trucks. You can already order the 2020. I can understand a full suspension lift, but what's taking so long for shocks? It's not like they have to reinvent the wheel here....

Sent from my SM-N960W using Tapatalk
 

GM should have included something premium shock wise on the AT4 and TrailBoss.

Maybe they follow these forums and things will change in the future? LOL

Posted
32 minutes ago, ct_corey said:

I lowered the pressure on my duratracs down to 36psi cold. Made a huge difference. 

You could probably even go lower than that.

Downside is a reduction in MPG's

Posted

Rim size? I sure noticed a heck of a difference from my 2010's 18" wheels to my K2's 20" wheels. I put a E load tire on and run them around 38psi and its "not bad" with the factory ranchos. But yeah, their damping on sharp, quick bumps is terrible and gives that "axle wrap" type feeling, like the bump is going to swallow your axle. But, I will take the Rancho ride over the stock non Z71 any day. They feel too soft and unstable to me. They feel like if I ever had to swerve from a moose the truck would instantly roll, where a Z71 feels a ton more planted and way better handling overall.  Are the T1's using a different shock length, or mounting style? I know they changed the chassis a little so a K2 shock probably is slightly different unfortunately. Too bad for early buyers and aftermarket companies. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, L86 All Terrain said:

Rim size? I sure noticed a heck of a difference from my 2010's 18" wheels to my K2's 20" wheels. I put a E load tire on and run them around 38psi and its "not bad" with the factory ranchos. But yeah, their damping on sharp, quick bumps is terrible and gives that "axle wrap" type feeling, like the bump is going to swallow your axle. But, I will take the Rancho ride over the stock non Z71 any day. They feel too soft and unstable to me. They feel like if I ever had to swerve from a moose the truck would instantly roll, where a Z71 feels a ton more planted and way better handling overall.  Are the T1's using a different shock length, or mounting style? I know they changed the chassis a little so a K2 shock probably is slightly different unfortunately. Too bad for early buyers and aftermarket companies. 

22s are even worse. No sidewall really.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Sierra Dan said:

You could probably even go lower than that.

Downside is a reduction in MPG's

I didn't seem to loose much at 36 but the ass doesn't jump around like it did at 41 psi. My 16 felt similar. 

Posted
On 6/7/2019 at 2:45 PM, ct_corey said:

I didn't seem to loose much at 36 but the ass doesn't jump around like it did at 41 psi. My 16 felt similar. 

I can run 41psi all day long with my 5100s and still no bouncing around. Harsher ride....  Yes. Better MPG's, Yes.

41psi with the Ranchos had my teeth shaking on harsh hits. Eventually aired down to 32psi and it was better but still no dice compared to my setup now.

I settled on 34-36 psi for best of both worlds.

Posted
On 6/7/2019 at 1:06 PM, TripleBGM said:

Any link to the King replacement shocks for the AT4?

All the shocks currently available as far as I know. I had the CST shocks. They make very nice stuff.

 

Eibach shocks- https://eibach.com/us/c-56-car-truck-suv.html

King shocks- http://www.kingshocks.com/products/oem/gm-oem/ Part Numbers at the bottom of the page.

CST Suspension- https://cstsuspension.com/167-2019-gm-1500

 

  • 1 year later...
Posted
20 hours ago, Ross Novelli Jr said:

pre-ordered my fox shocks today, hope to have them installed by the end of June. I will advise on the new ride...

Which Fox set up did you order? 2.0? I believe the 2.5 is also out there, but I've yet to find a place that sells them.

Posted

Fox 2.5" coil over and 2.0's are part of BDS 2.5" lift kit - those will fit your AT4/TB with 2" level kit.  Also Fox said they are working on a 2.5" piggy back for the rear for BDS to offer as an option to the 2.0 for guys doing a lot of offroad stuff, however it is still under development.  

 

The Rancho's on the AT4/TB are mono tube, so better than twin tube on Z71 - so going to another monotube option, like a bilsteen 5100 may not net you much improvement - but will likely get you a firmer shock.  No question GM focused on "on road" ride quality - sacrificing off road capability for sure. 

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,758
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Randy Ginoza
    Newest Member
    Randy Ginoza
    Joined
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,993 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...