Jump to content

New UCA and droop stop removal

Splitarrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Splitarrow New Member

Splitarrow

Posted
Posted

I have a 2019 rst and plan on getting bilstein 5100s adjustable height shocks and Icon Tubular UCAs. In the installation instructions for these and most other UCAs they have you cut off the droop stops. I’ve read a lot of concern of letting the lower arm droop too low while taking out the front strut assembly out with the potential to cause damage to the cv axle.

So my questions is wouldn’t cutting off the droop stop potentially cause problems with letting the arms droop too low? This is mainly a pavement princess with occasional dirt roads for hunting and what not, so I feel like the only time it would be at full droop would be when lifting the front end to rotate tires.

Splitarrow New Member

Splitarrow

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just some more information this is icon’s response.

 

When using our coilovers we recommend to removing the droop stop to get the full travel out of the coilover and suspension. Without removing the droop stop you run into possibility of crashing in to that droop stop causing harsh ride conditions. We have not had any issues when testing with added stress on the cv shafts in the air. Our coilover and control arm are designed to stay within the usable travel of the suspension with out bind. being drooped in the air to changes tires will not hurt the cv axles 

Chuck Graves
Sales / Customer Service / Tech Support

Taco_Ninja Enthusiast

Taco_Ninja

Posted
Posted

Icon has been good to work with and they know their stuff. I haven't ordered any ICON stuff recently but ran a bunch of their gear on previous vehicles, off-roaders, and rock crawler type. I would imagine they are confident about what they say, otherwise it would open themselves up to a whole world of liability damages. These written responses are particularly tough to argue.

Personally, I would keep an eye on the ABS sensor wires, brake lines, CV boot (the rubber part) stretching/tearing and any other wires/sensors and call it a day. Those CV axle internals are pretty stout and I they hold up just fine for installs and tire rotations.

 

IANAL nor am I a mechanic, just a guy who's wrenched on his own cars/trucks for many years. This is my first GMC though so take it for what it's worth.

RWTJR Enthusiast

RWTJR

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Splitarrow said:

I have a 2019 rst and plan on getting bilstein 5100s adjustable height shocks and Icon Tubular UCAs. In the installation instructions for these and most other UCAs they have you cut off the droop stops. I’ve read a lot of concern of letting the lower arm droop too low while taking out the front strut assembly out with the potential to cause damage to the cv axle.

So my questions is wouldn’t cutting off the droop stop potentially cause problems with letting the arms droop too low? This is mainly a pavement princess with occasional dirt roads for hunting and what not, so I feel like the only time it would be at full droop would be when lifting the front end to rotate tires.

I am suspect under the intended use you describe you would not likely have an issue.

 

However it does prompt some thoughts: Why does GM use extended CV axles on the TB/AT4 which is only a 2" lift over the standard 1500 series truck? Why does the only factory authorized lift sold on the GM accessories web page include longer CV axles?  In both cases the droop stops remain in place restricting the movement, yet, GM still thinks it's important to extend the CV axles. Why is it often recommended to remove, or at least loosen, the CV axles from the wheel spindle to reduce the stress when replacing the strut assembly?

 

Aftermarket parts are often an improvement over factory parts and automotive engineers aren't all geniuses (I have 2 in my family). However, it does make one wonder why GM would go through the trouble of having 2 different length CV axles if lifting on the standard axle length didn't present some issues during testing and development.

 

Just some thoughts.

No expertise implied or expressed

 

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, RWTJR said:

I am suspect under the intended use you describe you would not likely have an issue.

 

However it does prompt some thoughts: Why does GM use extended CV axles on the TB/AT4 which is only a 2" lift over the standard 1500 series truck? Why does the only factory authorized lift sold on the GM accessories web page include longer CV axles?  In both cases the droop stops remain in place restricting the movement, yet, GM still thinks it's important to extend the CV axles. Why is it often recommended to remove, or at least loosen, the CV axles from the wheel spindle to reduce the stress when replacing the strut assembly?

 

Aftermarket parts are often an improvement over factory parts and automotive engineers aren't all geniuses (I have 2 in my family). However, it does make one wonder why GM would go through the trouble of having 2 different length CV axles if lifting on the standard axle length didn't present some issues during testing and development.

 

Just some thoughts.

No expertise implied or expressed

 

the make the CVs longer because the differential isnt lowered, if you did lower it the problem is solved.......the angle is more  important.....at 2" its probably borderline of not needing anything but GM probably found it cheaper production wise to just have longer axles vs making new brackets to lower it a an inch or so.......you wouldnt think that would be the case,  but seems like it is as most bigger lift kits just use drop brackets.....longer CV in a bad angle is still a bad angle, at 2" not really a concern , at 4"-6" and up it is

 

 

GM probably gets the half shafts for same cost as the standard ones so doesnt cost anymore to build than standard truck.....however if they had to make frames different or brackets than that does add cost and time between 2 models....slower production also adds cost, so just an idea and idk if this is true

 

 

 

Edited by Dunn
Flatblack83 Enthusiast

Flatblack83

Posted
Posted

I have the icon stage 4 with the tubular control arms, I didnt cut the stops off. When I put my truck on the lift, the suspension hangs and doesn't get that close to need to cut em off.

  • Thanks 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Flatblack83 said:

I have the icon stage 4 with the tubular control arms, I didnt cut the stops off. When I put my truck on the lift, the suspension hangs and doesn't get that close to need to cut em off.

There ya go. Measure twice, cuss less. 😉 

  • 9 months later...
Sean O New Member

Sean O

Posted
Posted

Thanks for this information. I’m installing icon aluminum ucas, 6120s, and 5100 rr. I wanted to avoid removing the drop stops

  • 3 weeks later...
Flatblack83 Enthusiast

Flatblack83

Posted
Posted

Food for thought on this subject. 

 

No need to remove them,  your sway bar won't let the front end fall that far anyway. Even with the extended coilovers you can put your finger in the gap from the icon uca to the stop.  Even hanging on a lift without the wheels when you unbolt the extended coilover the lower arm falls 3/8 of an inch. Still no where near the stops.

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

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      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. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      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
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      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.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      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.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...