Fox Life!!! Anything Related to Fox Suspension

@*TRD* ,
You seem to be really knowledgeable on C/O's so what do you think of my quoted post above? Thanks!

 

Well, he does own a shop that specializes in shocks and coilovers.
http://accutuneoffroad.com/
So yeah he knows a couple things

 

I was unaware of that. Thanks.

 

The coilovers are the extension limit stops for the suspension. Extended travel coilovers that require UCA’s let the suspension droop more than factory. If you don’t install an extended travel UCA the stock upper ball joint will over travel, wear out quickly, and possibly break.

Once you’ve installed extended travel UCA’s the next limit becomes the lower ball joint, UCA joint, and sometimes UCA to spring contact. Basically extended travel coilovers are pushing all the limits on droop and if they were any longer there could be consequences.

Flipping your top hat moves the shock down and now the shock isn’t stopping over extension where it was before. The wheel can droop past where it should have stopped.

I don’t recommend flipping the top hat. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

I have SPC LR UCA's with extended travel, 2.5 non-resi, single adjustment collar. Maybe you can answer this:
When Fox was using a double adjustment collar, the 2.5 non-resi top hats were flipped (compared to now with single adjustment collar). Still today, their 2.5 resi C/O's have the top hat flipped, matching how they were before they went to the single adjustment collar (visually explained in my prior post).
If it was fine to do on the double collar 2.5 C/O's, and its fine to do on the resi 2.5 C/O's, why wouldn't it be fine to run it that way on the non-resi single collar 2.5 C/O's? All 3 types are internally the exact same, with the only differences being externally and that is single vs. double collar and a remote reservoir, correct? Thanks!

 

Are you sure the eyelets, shock bodies, rods and rod ends are all the same length between the two designs?

I’d bet they changed the design but kept the same extended length compared to the coil bucket.

Taking this deeper I bet the ifp shocks have a longer body to give more space for nitrogen. To accomplish this IFP shocks probably use non-standard parts that cost more. And r/r shocks use standard parts that cost less due to volume.

 

I most certainly am not sure they kept the design the same! From what I've read (take it with a grain of salt) is that when they changed from 2 adj. collars to one, the only thing that changed was the new single collar with the Allen bolt. I have zero legit proof on that.
As far as the IFP vs. RR, the Fox 2.5 front C/O RR are IFP, are they not? Maybe I have that last bit wrong but I'm pretty sure their RR's are IFP (internal floating piston) design.
Thanks.

 

The terminology is confusing and I’m using “slang” because I’m on a cell phone in the middle of nowhere on the way to Moab.

Remote reservoir shocks do have ifp’s. But in my previous posts when I say ifp shocks I’m referring to shocks without remote reservoirs.

There may have been multiple design changes, but the distance from the bottom of the oem chassis mount to lower shock eyelet at full extension is extremely important and flipping the mount changes it.

I do not recommend running the upper plate in any orientation other than how fox designed it.

 

Okay, thanks for all your input. Have a safe trip!!!

 

Im not sure I understand how that would make lift and reduce preload? Also, isn't the top hat different on those pictures, not flipped? If I'm not mistaken, the top hat on my non-res extended travel is just a single plate with the Allen set screw.

 

Sure. Rub it in. Haha.


We still have a foot of snow

 

Part# 883-02-555

 

It's the same top hat, just flipped over. Doing it that way adds about ~1 to ~1.5" in overall length of the C/O. If the C/O overall length is longer (further distance between the top minting holes and bottom mounting hole) means it'd lift it that same amount which in turn I could theoretically reduce preload as I'd be getting more lift out of the actual static length of the C/O.

 

Thanks

 

Its just like adding a spacer to the top of the coil assembly. I would think if you reduce the number of threads and keep the coilover at the same overall length with the hat flipped it would probably be a little better ride with less preload on the coil.

 

Yes I am quoting myself. The more I thought about this I realized that you still have to be worried about overextending the coilover. With the top hat flipped it would change the overall extended length as well, so even if you reduce the number of threads it would still extend further than before. I would think flipping the top hat would be more hassle than its worth. It sounds like @MolonLabeTaco just needs 650lb springs at a bare minimum with that bumper.

 

I chopped that POS bumper up & didn't like how it turned out so I ordered one of the ebay ones. I'll be adding a winch as well, along with sliders so I may move up to 700lb. springs.

Even w/that bumper off the truck I still can't get 3" of lift even w/them cranked further than fox recommends. I think it's BS I can't reach the 3" they advertise.

 

You are aware that you will have barely any if any at all downtravel at full 3" don't you?

 

Evidently you haven't read my posts! I'm @ 2.75" lift now w/3" down travel. I was about 3.25" down travel @ 2.25" lift. Keeping my down travel is important to me & will not be sacrificed for lift.

 

Evidently you're pissed about a 1/4" of lift with a heavy bumper. I did see your idea of flipping the top hat against Fox's recommendation, so yes I've read your posts.