Jump to content

Motofab no longer making AT4 1.5” level?


Gswartz

Recommended Posts

Posted

Picking up my ordered AT4 on Saturday. Was looking to order a “AT4 specific” motofab 1.5” level that seems to be somewhat popular. They were on there site a month ago and now they only have 1” kits. Tried calling them but they never answer the phone. Also, can’t find them online. 
 

Anyone know what’s up?  They have a 1.5” level for the regular Sierra/Silverados, would one of those work?  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Gswartz said:

There website has specific AT4/Trailboss ones. Then regular Sierra/Silverado ones. Same size, different part numbers. 

Yes, and my point is that there was no physical difference between them.  Neither are recommended for AT4/TB.

Posted
1 hour ago, Gswartz said:

Picking up my ordered AT4 on Saturday. Was looking to order a “AT4 specific” motofab 1.5” level that seems to be somewhat popular. They were on there site a month ago and now they only have 1” kits. Tried calling them but they never answer the phone. Also, can’t find them online. 
 

Anyone know what’s up?  They have a 1.5” level for the regular Sierra/Silverados, would one of those work?  

ReadyLIFT makes a better kit

Posted

This video does a pretty good job explaining it. The motofab level leaves your cv axles very close to the spacer causing concern over future issues (boot rubbing on the spacer) I’m not 100% sold on needing a new UCA unless you plan on getting sporty off road. Rough Country has a better option for the at4 and it’s $130 so won’t totally bankrupt you, the install however is far more involved. It requires disassembly of the strut to install a top spacer. Good luck.

Posted

Yes, in a nutshell, the reason the under-strut spacers are not recommended on the AT4/TB is because the stock Rancho struts on these trucks are already longer than the non-AT4/TB variants.  Adding a spacer under them pushes the LCA down even further and puts the CV boot VERY close to the strut & hardware.

 

The quality leveling kits for the AT4/TB "split the difference" if you will.  Some will include a small top spacer, a small bottom spacer, or a preload spacer to achieve the lift.  The Zone version has you cut down one of the lower strut mounting bolts to avoid CV boot contact and it doesn't even include a bottom spacer.  My RC leveling kit is just a preload spacer and a very thin top spacer.

Posted

theres quiet a few people in the leveled threads running just a lower spacer with success. Anyone actually hear of someone who has an issue with the boot being contacted?  

Posted

Its not just the boot being contacted. Its the control arm being maxed out. 

Posted

GM uses same UCA on TB and AT4 as they do on their std models...

Posted
17 minutes ago, Dunn said:

GM uses same UCA on TB and AT4 as they do on their std models...

Hence why the ReadyLIFT kit includes new UCAs. Just a better kit, it's science 

Posted
2 hours ago, TheTicketTX said:

Hence why the ReadyLIFT kit includes new UCAs. Just a better kit, it's science 

Sorry, but I disagree here.  GM engineered the suspension on these trucks, not ReadyLift.  GM deemed the same UCA to be fine across all models (ride heights) AND stands behind it with a warranty so that is good enough for me.  

 

ReadyLift includes new UCAs to provide a little more droop travel and to straighten the balljoint angle.  Neither are necessary on a primarily street-driven truck.  But hey, if they can collect $400 more dollars from persuaded folks for new UCAs to simply level a truck, then giddy-up!  It's capitalism.

Posted
2 minutes ago, lapoolboy said:

Sorry, but I disagree here.  GM engineered the suspension on these trucks, not ReadyLift.  GM deemed the same UCA to be fine across all models (ride heights) AND stands behind it with a warranty so that is good enough for me.  

 

ReadyLift includes new UCAs to provide a little more droop travel and to straighten the balljoint angle.  Neither are necessary on a primarily street-driven truck.  But hey, if they can collect $400 more dollars from persuaded folks for new UCAs to simply level a truck, then giddy-up!  It's capitalism.

GM also engineered their UCAs for their Stock (Varied stock ride heights Up to 2”... not much added diversity there) suspension heights without lifts/levels/upgraded coilovers or mild to aggressive off road abuse.

 

Now I do agree with you if you’re just a everyday city driver, no need to splurge, just go the cheap route. But if you plan on upgrading your suspension at all, you’re going against what gm designed those UCAs to handle. GM warranty won’t last forever ?

Posted

I know but you can buy a UCA from anyone with whatever spacer ….

 

funny thing is they give you a UCA but than take it back with puck, still better to have one I guess than not....but your not gaining any travel with it using the puck...just better or easier alignment, at 1.75 losing a lot of downtravel….want to keep 2inches minimum ….primary function of UCA is increasing downtravel and with puck you cancel that out....along with more articulation for wear, ride quality in which it is a plus regardless

 

I plan on using it offroad, if it was street I wouldn't care.....

 

the king kit is way to go, I talked to Ben @ filthy quite a bit, very smart guy....its just too much for me right now....and honestly I probably don't need it.....

Archived

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...