Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It's a 3 inch lift, since I have the heaviest front I'm not too concerned. And since they are threaded bodys, if it's too tall I can always lower it.

When Filthy saws 2.5 they mean 2.5 of actual lift, not a "2.5 kit". With Kings the rod end is exchangeable as well. So if I need too I can get the shortest one.

I have a six inch lift with 2500 and although I love the truck it definitely completely changed it compared to a stock one. since I do so many miles I'm trying to stay as close to stock as possible.

then if I find out, oh actually no I do need an additional 3 in of lift, superlift is going to launch their Black diamond King edition which will be an available upgrade with parts that you can add if you already have the king kit.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Posted

Finally found someone who isn't going to sell me what I want but what will work.He's done over 50 new gm and chevy lifts .....if your going mild it's 2.5 or less any higher than that and you better start putting some drop cross members in ,as the angles on the cv and drive shafts are just to steep for long term durability. In his words you can do 3 or 4 inch spacer or strut lifts but don't expect it to hold up off road, basically your just building a pavement queen.His recommendation ... use the bilstein 5100 lift stuts and a set of 33-34 inch tires and should be good.I wasn't looking to put 35's on and lose 5mpg or more but to get better travel and ride than the crappy rancho shocks they try and pass of as "upgrade" shocks and it's just about a grand less then the trail boss kit..Not to knock anybodies choice (especially topgear) because we all see the picture a little bit different.The reason for this choice is the other upper end shocks are great but if your not doing aggressive off roading at higher speeds your you never going to appreciate the benefits  of these shocks  and they do not hold up as well in cold,salty grimy conditions not only that but a $2600.00 package US is 4 grand + in Canada. My off road speed is more in the 10-20mph speed not the 60+ of the desert racers. Thanks topgear for the help in getting to the decision.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 9/22/2020 at 3:41 PM, topgear1224 said:

The rear isn't coils, it's 2.5inch piggy back shocks with adjusters. Only rams have coils... So far

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

Topgear, May be a silly question but you are sure the rear 2.5 piggybacks from king will fit on our truck. I ask because I’ve only see pictures of our silverados with the remote reservoirs mounted in wheel well, and the shocks are massive for two piggy backed. I should be ordering the kings soon and would much prefer piggyback in the rear. Thanks!

Edited by Duramax3oh
  • Like 1
Posted
Finally found someone who isn't going to sell me what I want but what will work.He's done over 50 new gm and chevy lifts .....if your going mild it's 2.5 or less any higher than that and you better start putting some drop cross members in ,as the angles on the cv and drive shafts are just to steep for long term durability. In his words you can do 3 or 4 inch spacer or strut lifts but don't expect it to hold up off road, basically your just building a pavement queen.His recommendation ... use the bilstein 5100 lift stuts and a set of 33-34 inch tires and should be good.I wasn't looking to put 35's on and lose 5mpg or more but to get better travel and ride than the crappy rancho shocks they try and pass of as "upgrade" shocks and it's just about a grand less then the trail boss kit..Not to knock anybodies choice (especially topgear) because we all see the picture a little bit different.The reason for this choice is the other upper end shocks are great but if your not doing aggressive off roading at higher speeds your you never going to appreciate the benefits  of these shocks  and they do not hold up as well in cold,salty grimy conditions not only that but a $2600.00 package US is 4 grand + in Canada. My off road speed is more in the 10-20mph speed not the 60+ of the desert racers. Thanks topgear for the help in getting to the decision.
did you know originally they were actually supposed to have rancho monotube on their Z71 and X31 package and it was changed last minute to a twin tube. They kept the monotube on the trail boss though.

No problem, yeah I'm building a "mini raptor". my benchmark is gen 1 raptor, which is a truck I'm extremely familiar with, even though I never owned it.

Although I do love my bilsteins on my 2500HD, you do really have to get speed in them and get the suspension moving to feel their benefits if you're below that threshold it does ride pretty rough (lots of unsprung weight from the 35s and their load range E2).

I do a lot of dirt / gravel / chip seal / broken asphalt. I also bought the long wheelbase for better travel on long highway journeys so a linear rate is actually going to work better for me as I'm not super interested in the actual on-road handling (with in reason). I don't mind my trucks to move around as they drive down the road as long as it's controlled and it makes sense.

the stock X31 suspension I will say having driven older Chevy z71s actually does work much better off-road, the problem is is you have to get it up to about 30 to 40 miles an hour and then the shocks run out of control at around 45 to 50 depending on how rough the dirt road is. Below 30 or so it's like riding on solid suspension, no movement.

This was the biggest reason I didn't choose bilsteins for this build, I didn't want digressive shocks, they're amazing on the road but over sharp sudden impacts they suck. Couple that with a spring rate that's likely very close to factory and the fact that when I purchased my kit they only had a 2.0 not a 2.5 available and they were off the table for me.

I really really wanted Fox's DSC kit but originally they only had the kit available for the front. Then I saw that they updated their product book to include ones for the rear but they explicitly state that they do not fit Trail Boss and that you cannot apply any lift whatsoever.

I was looking for a touch more travel in the rear. That basically left Icon and Kings. Icon is a digressive shock however in all fairness Icon does test the crap out of their products, offer free revalving, and they have some of the best customer service of any of the shock manufacturers.

However I knew I wanted remote reservoirs for those long 400 mile journeys on dirt and I knew I wanted adjusters so that way I could firm up the rear if I'm running a lot of tongue weight when I'm towing on the road. When I priced it out for Icon I could not justify the price increase over the Kings.

Stumbling across super lift that also included upper control arms and the rear block was just icing on the cake. At a price that was less than Camburg or Filthy could do. Add in a powertrain warranty and I knew what I was buying.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Posted



Topgear, May be a silly question but you are sure the rear 2.5 piggybacks from king will fit on our truck. I ask because I’ve only see pictures of our silverados with the remote reservoirs mounted in wheel well, and the shocks are massive for two piggy backed. I should be ordering the kings soon and would much prefer piggyback in the rear. Thanks!


Technically the rear reservoir IS remote mounted inside of the fender well (at least from what I've seen.). So it isn't really a piggyback, as that would be solidly mounted to the main assembly.

I won't have access to the actual install paperwork that's inside of the kit for about another 2 weeks as I had it shipped down south.

But it appears to mount the same way that my front bilsteins did on my 2500 which is with mounts that you bolt to the frame and then you use the hose clamps to secure the reservoirs.


I'm actually pretty lucky we don't salt the roads up here so the actual corrosion isn't going to be massive though I am probably going to go ahead and clear bra the main assembly just to kind of protect them.

Here is the Black diamond kit that is complete but hasn't been launched due to covid-19.



I don't really care about all the fancy stuff, I just paid really close attention to the ride and you can see the dampening is incredibly well controlled even on a 6-in lift.
be4613916589463e36f19582fa8f0584.jpg

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Posted

Just curious I see Rancho has a 3" kit seeing your extensive knowledge on shocks how would you rate the Rancho  9000 xl against the bilstein 5100.

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I never understood the hate for the column shifter. The console shifter just gets in the way, takes up prime cargo space and in my wife's Jeep, the dog constantly bumps the console shifter into neutral!    Best choice ever to just make it a column shifter across the lineup and be done with it.    (Bonus: Makes swapping from a 5 seater to a six seater far easier)
    • I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...