Jump to content

Steering Stabilizer (crossarm link shockabsorber) '16 & up HD's

Kerry Pulaski
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kerry Pulaski Enthusiast

Kerry Pulaski

Posted
Posted

GM removed the frame cross-member welded mount for the steering stabilizer on the HD's in '16. Going up my long stone driveway in my new '16 2500 HD, the steering wheel was jerking back and forth badly.  Looked under my friends 3500 HD, and saw the mount and a shock absorber to the cross link arm. I made a paper template off of his, and had my customer transfer that to a CAD drawing to cut one for me with his laser (for bolt hole accuracy), Mig welded it on. Added the shock, Worked great, shimmy and some road wander was gone.

In hopes my '24 2500 HD steering geometry was improved.........Nope. Going up the long crush stone driveway, wheel shakes like heck.

Found several mfg'g offer bolt on kits. Beware !!  I deal with metal fab for 43 years. Zoomed in on these brackets on line, some look very good. But the bolt through mounting on some to the cross-member, was very questionable. With those, I saw that there was no provision (thru tube in the cross-member) to add for that bolt) to stop pulling in the cross-member, when torquing it down.

At the lower control arm rear bolt where the other end of the bracket attaches to, only one mfg. had a key'd washer, to spread the load, when re-torquing that bolt back down.

I called that mfg. to also ask why he does not offer a gas filled shocks like others do. He explained, these gas shocks exert substantial pressure in one direction to the right, on the cross arm.

Makes highway driving a PITA. I asked if ANY gas shock mfg. offers a special "neutral bias gas" version IF that is design possible ?

Said no, it's a std off the shelf gas shock, just the proper length to fit this application.

Found several posts on other sites, with GM owners complaining of this right side terrible pull.

This mfg. explained, he Does offer Gas shocks , like for Dodge, Ford and others, where Dual gas shocks can be mounted in opposing force directions, to keep the steering Neutral. Said in GM truck applications, the conventional high quality shock works just fine.

 

I should explain what drew be to this mfg. to answer some questions.  Reasons: 4.

1) Some vendors sell his bracket, but offer it with a gas shock or conventional.  His site, only offers a conventional non-gas shock.

2) This product bracket includes a "Key'd" washer, to mount the bracket on the lower control arm bolt. This properly spreads the force on the cross-member 100%.

    Other suppliers that copied his basic design do not. Added cost ? Yes. Maybe a buck or two. To spread that load 100% around that bracket & bolt, is just a good

    engineering and safety practice, in a high load / stress area. Kudos.

3) To include a Through Cross-member Sleeve, to also spread the load  evenly to both sides of the cross-member, when other suppliers do not.

4) With all the well thought out mounting features of this product, again, why he is so against a gas filled shock in this application, when so many of us love gas shocks, in

     conventional use applications. A more expensive shock in this application, goes the wrong way !

This topic may seen trivial, but needed to be addressed in depth, once I got into it, finding out the little details.

I attached the PDF install manual FYI.

 

Happy Holidays to All !

SUSPENSION MAXX_SMX-SSB2520_GM 2500 KIT.pdf

  • Thanks 1
asilverblazer Senior Enthusiast

asilverblazer

Posted
Posted

Suspension Maxx, there I said it...

 

I was looking in to this too recently and came to the same conclusion as you did. 

 

I hadn't decided on the shock to use for the stabilizer because I want it to match my other shocks... Bilstein.

  • 2 weeks later...
Kerry Pulaski Enthusiast

Kerry Pulaski

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Owner of Suspension Maxx, advised against ANY gas filled shock, in a GM single steer application, due to Bias Pressure in one direction. In this case, will always force the steering track to the right, constantly.

Ram & Ford that have dual steering shocks, using opposing pressure gas shocks is OK, to balance the force.

Installed mine, and found it not only stops steering wheel shimmy on my gravel driveway, on bridge expansion joints, manhole covers etc., no wheel jerk.

Also adds a nice stiffness to the road feel, in the steering wheel.

  • 1 month later...
davidm767 Enthusiast

davidm767

Posted
Posted

I had a gift card this Christmas for Rough Country and I did their Steering Stabilizer (V2). Like the Suspension Maxx design RC has the conventional shock, cross member sleeve and keyed washer on the control arm. With that said, I'll still give a nod to the Maxx as the better overall design imho...again I had 'free' money to burn. I did the stabilizer primarily for my wheel/tire upgrade I plan on doing at some point this year. I can say it's definitely a better ride than before, with the steering wheel holding more firmly to the road vs. feeling every pothole/uneven pavement section. It's an easy upgrade no matter what brand you do end up going with.

Epsilon Plus Enthusiast

Epsilon Plus

Posted
Posted

Anyone running something other than a Rancho with it? I ditched my stock Ranchos in the trash and a single one in the front for steering would bother my OCD.

gemarsh Senior Enthusiast

gemarsh

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Epsilon Plus said:

Anyone running something other than a Rancho with it? I ditched my stock Ranchos in the trash and a single one in the front for steering would bother my OCD.

Nice thing about it is you can't see it, 'cept for when a person drops the skid plate to grease.

 

You could rattle can it black. My ocd it's that bad yet and all my switch and receptacle plate screws are all vertical in the house and shop!

  • 2 weeks later...
Kerry Pulaski Enthusiast

Kerry Pulaski

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 1/24/2024 at 6:44 PM, Epsilon Plus said:

Anyone running something other than a Rancho with it? I ditched my stock Ranchos in the trash and a single one in the front for steering would bother my OCD.

Just find an equivalent non-gas shock...In a few Off-Road specialty sites.  Someone posted a brand I can't recall. Even contact Suspension Maxx, ask for a suggested non-gas, non-Rancho, that will work with the kit they have.

My '24 HD Denali came with Rancho's, soon to be Bilstein's. I ran those on my '16 HD and loved them.

  • 2 months later...
Epsilon Plus Enthusiast

Epsilon Plus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tried a GM damper from a 2010 model a year before they discontinued it's use. Too short. Minimum collapsed length needed 14.25" & minimum extended length needed is 22" from my measurements.

Edited by Epsilon Plus
  • 4 weeks later...

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

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 681 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...