Long Travel BS Thread

I remember a mod on 2nd gens that had to do with a zip tie being placed between the steering shafts. It may take some time to find it - I'm not at home right now.

 

I saw that and did it and it seemed to reduce the shake in the assembly when I would shake it while not driving, but when I drove it there was still just as much clunk and shake as before

 

On first gens when the steering rack bushings get worn out there's some play that develops and the steering gets sloppy - could you mount a camera somewhere to see what's clunking when it happens? It may be difficult to fit one somewhere, but it helps deduce stuff like that once in awhile.

 

It’s most likely the rack bushings I just had the same clunking and i put in some energy supension rack bushings and its gone. To check have somone turn your steering wheel back and forth fast with the truck on and you look and see if the rack moves.

 

I’ll definitly give that a try it’s getting super annoying and frustrating trying to figure it out, time for a steering upgrade

 

Doing it within a couple of weeks. Gotta put the rear end back together this weekend. It's gonna be a task since I already have the bed cage and can't take the bed off.

 

Yes that’s my question. I can find 68” easier than anything wider.
If I’m going to go through all the effort is it wide enough or is there some reasoning I don’t know about to go bigger?
Sorry for the noob type question

 

There has been some discussion on this, and there is reasoning behind it. A quick search brought these up.

 

jberry is doing a currie 9 as we speak, @jberry813 whats the width you are going to run? wait ,I forgot he is soa unless he is changing that as well.

 

I lurk all over his thread.

 

I'm doing a Currie 70" wms

 

What made you decide on that width?
Also
Very badass!

 

Stock is 66wms
Most people run wheel spacers
1.25 are fine for on road driving but are still a bit close
1.50 isn't that much larger and I'm just running a bypass at the moment
So I figured 2.0 would accommodate plenty of room for the coilovers when I install the short course 4 link

So
66+ 2.0+ 2.0 =70 wms

 

I've got my own noob questions all the time! I'd say it's better to ask first than to spend money and regret it

 

Are you basing those wheel spacer #’s off other 4-link builds?

 

You guys know best. Going to be ordering a 9 in housing soon and want to know if you can outboard 2.5 bypass shocks with 68 wms on a 1st gen without them rubbing the shock body. I'll cycle it once I get the axle but wanted to see if it was worth redoing my shock mounts. I know straight up and down is best but if I have to angle them do I angle them foward or back and how much of an angle?

 

You should be good - guys rub 2.5 bypasses at full stuff with a first gen Tundra housing that's 66.5" wide wms to wms. Another 3/4 of an inch per side should help you stay off of them in almost all situations... that said the orientation of the tubes can help you stay off of them even more... @FlapJack935 is pretty familiar with this - he may run wheel spacers...

 

Going on a rock crawler so will see full articulation quite a bit. But good to know. I only have 2.0 shocks now but hope to upgrade in the future.

 

If you put the tubes behind / in front (#2) of the shock rather than outside, obviously they'll rub less. You could always notch the frame and move them in a little since I'm guessing you'll be boxing it.

 

Framed already boxed with 3/16 or 1/8. Can't remember. May plate the outside of it. Don't plan on doing a bed cage just doing some simple shock towers and hoping to not cut to much or the bed/frame if any. Good to know about the bypassed for when I get ready to order.

Setup works well inboard and angled back but looking for a better ride quality and hoping to use more of the shock and figured since I have to cycle everything I may as well try.