Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What leveling kits are you guys running? On my 2016, I just ran the 2.5 Motofab for the front with the RC Upper Control Arms. My problem is, I can’t seem to find control arms for 2020s without being 3” or higher. Curious on y'alls setups. I’m going to end up running 33s (A/T’s) on 22s. 

Posted (edited)

I have a 1.5" procomp top mount strut spacer.  I installed it last week, and the truck now sits at 39 1/4 is on all four corners.  I tried the bottom spacer but it pushed the shock into the cv boot so I took it off and went with the top mount.  

Edited by SILVER SLED
Posted
55 minutes ago, Jared Walters said:

What leveling kits are you guys running? On my 2016, I just ran the 2.5 Motofab for the front with the RC Upper Control Arms. My problem is, I can’t seem to find control arms for 2020s without being 3” or higher. Curious on y'alls setups. I’m going to end up running 33s (A/T’s) on 22s. 

I got an LT with the motofab 2.5" in front and a 1" in block in the back.  I have factory control arms because Ive heard 3" and above is when you need different ones.

Posted
7 hours ago, andrewb24 said:

I got an LT with the motofab 2.5" in front and a 1" in block in the back.  I have factory control arms because Ive heard 3" and above is when you need different ones.

How have the factory control arms held up? Also, how much of a difference was the height from front to back without adding the 1" rear block?

Posted
On 12/15/2020 at 8:51 PM, Jared Walters said:

How have the factory control arms held up? Also, how much of a difference was the height from front to back without adding the 1" rear block?

It should be about level. I had a 2" lower strut kit from rough country and I also have a 1" block in the back. I was a .5" high in the back then i put the 2.5" upper strut kit from motofab but havent checked it since then.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Just installed the Fox CoilOver 2in kit. Rides pretty good but I had to put a block in the rear to give it some rake. 

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

    • This video may not be the exact content for the joke thread but its a lot of laughs so here it is, I've only watched a portion of it so far but if anyone is looking for some light hearted good soap box driving action, its here. As a note in the upper left of the screen it shows the number out of 100 to refer back to any particular vehicle for comment !.    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1351928276956715
    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...