Jump to content

Aftermarket UCA's, stock 20" wheels, 285/60R20, level??

Weiser699
 Share

Recommended Posts

Weiser699 Enthusiast

Weiser699

Posted
Posted (edited)

I need concrete facts as there is so many conflicting answers, data, etc. I have a 2020 Sierra SLT with stock 20" wheels and OEM 275/60R20's (33's). I want to level the front 2", continue to use the stock 20" wheels but upgrade the tires to 285/60R20's and replace the UCA's with aftermarket ones and not have to use wheel spacers or do any trimming or cutting. 

 

Cognito says I need spacers.

Zone says I need 1.5" spacers. Really? 1.5"? This makes no sense as even my OEM tires wouldn't even work then. 

BDS says it "should" fit. 

 

Am I stuck with having to use 275/60R20's? Will aftermarket UCA's even work with my stock wheels regardless of tire size? Anyone running my same setup with aftermarket UCA's? 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Weiser699
81mmcat Enthusiast

81mmcat

Posted
Posted

I have a stock 21 1500 AT4 and put on 285/60/20 cooper at3 xlt,  0 rubbing using factory wheels, no wheel spacer

81mmcat Enthusiast

81mmcat

Posted
Posted

yes all stock if you search some on this sight you will see that all the 19-21's have the same upper control arms you don't need aftermarket ones  unless you go more than 2" on factory slt 1500

Weiser699 Enthusiast

Weiser699

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So AT4's use the exact same UCA as a regular SLT/SLE, etc? Same part#? I am going to get no additional wear and tear on my UCA's if I stay 2" or less? I hear horror stories of owners of the new model GM's/Chevy's destroying a UCA even with a 2.5" level and that the OEM UCA's are basically junk. Most manufacturers of level's recommend new UCA's because of this every reason. I just can't imagine why aftermarket UCA's are so significantly "beefier" than stock that any tire size over OEM requires a spacer or different wheels. 

81mmcat Enthusiast

81mmcat

Posted
Posted

the  problem is when you go higher than 2".   Had 2" on my 2014 60,000 miles still drove like new when I traded it in.  I really suggest you go to the silv/gmc mods section and read a crap load of info there. Most guys with trouble are raising their trail boss or AT4 higher without the UCA's

81mmcat Enthusiast

81mmcat

Posted
Posted (edited)

Or buy the factory 2" lift and have a competent mechanic install it.  Look at the gm kit no control arms included, should speak for itself

Edited by 81mmcat
Weiser699 Enthusiast

Weiser699

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, 81mmcat said:

Or buy the factory 2" lift and have a competent mechanic install it.

GM won't install a factory 2" lift because I have the max tow package (NHT code) plus it still has the crappy Rancho's so I am just going to do Bilstein coilovers in the front and bilstein rear shocks with a 1" block instead.  

Amcguy1970 Enthusiast

Amcguy1970

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 81mmcat said:

the  problem is when you go higher than 2".   Had 2" on my 2014 60,000 miles still drove like new when I traded it in.  I really suggest you go to the silv/gmc mods section and read a crap load of info there. Most guys with trouble are raising their trail boss or AT4 higher without the UCA's

 

On the current trucks that is correct, that is incorrect on previous gens. I am not sure how 2" became some magic go no go zone but on previous gens the UCA's weren't designed to be run lifted from the factory, so anything over factory accelerated the wear and how much was determined by how big or heavy the tires were, where you drove, how much over factory lift you went, etc. Many had no issues, but also many didn't keep them long enough to see wear (60k won't be a good indicator) or most of the time were street queens that never saw any off road driving or towing/hauling. The current gens UCA's were designed to work stock and with the 2" level from the factory TB/AT4 lift, but again anything over that accelerates wear and those that add another 2" are having big issues which they effectively are stacking 4" of leveling kits on. I personally would stop at 2". My current 2014 has a modest 1.25" level up front and 1" rear knowing it adds wear to the front end and UCA's but not as bad as those running 2" or more. So far at 90k they have been good even with a few thousand miles of off road driving and some towing and hauling thrown in too. I also just run factory wheels and P-rated tires though too, heavier tires speed up the wear process on much of the front end. 

 

As you said though Bilstein level under 2" sounds like a great plan...

 

Tyler

Edited by Amcguy1970
Weiser699 Enthusiast

Weiser699

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 minutes ago, Amcguy1970 said:

 

On the current trucks that is correct, that is incorrect on previous gens. I am not sure how 2" became some magic go no go zone but on previous gens the UCA's weren't designed to be run lifted from the factory, so anything over factory accelerated the wear and how much was determined by how big or heavy the tires were, where you drove, how much over factory lift you went, etc. Many had no issues, but also many didn't keep them long enough to see wear (60k won't be a good indicator) or most of the time were street queens that never saw any off road driving or towing/hauling. The current gens UCA's were designed to work stock and with the 2" level from the factory TB/AT4 lift, but again anything over that accelerates wear and those that add another 2" are having big issues which they effectively are stacking 4" of leveling kits on. I personally would stop at 2". My current 2014 has a modest 1.25" level up front and 1" rear knowing it adds wear to the front end and UCA's but not as bad as those running 2" or more. So far at 90k they have been good even with a few thousand miles of off road driving and some towing and hauling thrown in too. I also just run factory wheels and P-rated tires though too, heavier tires speed up the wear process on much of the front end. 

 

As you said though Bilstein level under 2" sounds like a great plan...

 

Tyler

Thanks Tyler. Yes, my plan is to do either 1.75-2" max in the front with those Bilsteins as I will be doing a 1" block in the rear. I still want to maintain about a 3/4-1" rake so once I have my Bilstein monotubes and 1" block in the rear installed will determine how much front lift I'll need. If the UCA's on these SLT's are the same as the AT4s, then I think I'll be safe with 2". I don't plan on off-roading much at all, mostly highway travel and occasional towing. 

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have Bilstein AT4 lift on my 21 elevation ( 3in front and 2in rear).....have a cognito UCA and stock wheels..everything fits and works fine......whatever the stock 20s are on elevation is what i have....

 

i bought the cognito becasue it fit with stock wheels

 

and 3 people had broken TB arms leveling those but thats 4inches and way too high for stock arm....i am in the middle and didnt want any problems so its cheap insurance and plus the angle makes truck ride better without binding......not to mention its a much beefier unit anyway and if i offroad it i would want something more stout than stock ones ( when you see them off the truck they look like they were made from a coke can seriously)

 

UCAs typically have a 2" range for height they are made for,......if at stock TB height you wont have or shouldnt have any issues....

 

another thing i like is ball joint beefy and is replaceable.....its bolted on so when they wear out just buy a new ball and bolt it on....

 

 

Edited by Dunn
BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted

I know it is not a Sierra, but I have a 2020 LTZ Z71. I had Bilstein 6112's installed up front set at 2" lift. I am running the stock UCA's, Toyo 285/60/20's on Fuel Sledge wheels, 20x9 +19 offset. I believe the Factory 20x9 wheels were +28 offset.

 

No rubbing or trimming.

 

Good luck.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,770
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Paul8556
    Newest Member
    Paul8556
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 596 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...