ADS Off-Road Racing Shocks - Information, Pictures, & BS Thread

I’m probably at about 700 miles, maybe close to 1,000. I could see break-in affecting springs/seals and mostly on up-travel but I’m not wrapping my head around how it would make the down-travel better.

I dunno, I’m feeling a little disappointed in this purchase.

 

Good to know. Is it more of a linear curve on rebound? I don’t know enough to:

1. Know what I’m looking at (flat top of piston is linear/progressive?)
2. Know what it would feel like

I guess the “digressive” thing has just been perpetuated without evidence

 

I’m not understanding the question. I am not doing a valving change, just a regular service but progressive/digressive is in the design of the piston, hence why I lifted the shims.

@hoarder23 have these been revalved?

It won’t. Idk why he keeps referring to this.

Here’s the thing, don’t get disappointed with your purchase. They are not a bad product. There nothing super special about them though, in comparison to other performances manufacturers, so you will likely have to tinker with the valving setup until you find something you like. It’s not a “1 size fits all” formula.

Sorry not sorry to all of you groupies.

 

They are progressive. Look up pics of Icon pistons to get a visual of a digressive piston design.

 

i appreciate the help.

i'm happy with the product, as a whole. the rear behaves very well considering i have little weight and the Icon RXT leafs are set at the middle setting. It still rides well and is well controlled by the shocks.

It's the topping out in the front that has me frustrated. With adjusters set mid-soft to medium the compression is very nice, well controlled and well controlled on the rebound. It's when the wheels drop from neutral ride height that it gets harsh. Adjusting things firmer seemed to help with by slowing the down-travel down, but it made the compression too stiff and I still topped out.

I'm not wrapping my head around why, i guess I need to do some more reading.

Talking with Tyler at ADS, he told me to measure my installed spring length (tires off ground, spring fully extended) and subtract 6.61" for the block height (whatever what is). If my measurement was 4.625" or more I am within the operating range of the coilovers. My measurements were 5.14' and 5.28." My bet is the UCAs i put on are just allowing significantly more down travel than stock and it's allowing the coils to top out harshly.

Way off base with this thinking? and is re-valving my best bet to control it or should I get 700lb springs and use less pre-load?

Here's the weird thing, Accutune recommends 600lb springs for my truck and the armor I have (up to 400lbs added weight and I have probably 350lbs). https://accutuneoffroad.com/shock_selection/ I should easily be able to achieve 2.0-2.5" lift (I'm at 2.25") with my setup.

I tend to agree the stock trucks are over-sprung and underdamped. People like to say we need a 700lb spring on aftermarket coils because the stock is 700lbs but Toyota put a heavy spring on because it's way cheaper than developing proper shocks.

 

Yes, they have been revalved from the stock setup to one that is more correct for my truck and use

 

Because my shocks felt ok new, but after the coil settled they just seemed to ride better with more dampening.

The shocks are nice, but shocks are shocks.
The only shock that comes to mind with different technology is the Billy 8112’s

 

Which makes sense. The springs are known to settle and the seals will “get to know each other” after a couple of miles but that will not do anything for the rebound side, which is what @rdpoe is having issues with.

 

When I first installed my OME 2888’s with the OME 90021 shocks it was VERY harsh as @rdpoe describes. After putting on the ADS coilovers it never happened again.

The OME coils were 590# according to ARB and I have the 700# coils on the ADS shocks.
What’s weird is how much harsher the OME shocks were in every situation in comparison to the ADS. I believe the preload (if too much) can actually make the shock race downwards from the preload causing harsh downward rebound

 

I’m starting to come to grips with maybe backing off on the preload. I won’t be able to get even 2” out of it which is a bummer. These coils should be able to handle 2.5” easily

 

It doesn’t make sense to me because I had 2.5” of lift which was about 1 1/8” of threads showing in the preload. The ride was fine

How much threads do you have showing?

 

I’ve got 1.25” of threads and a lift of 2.25” from the stock suspension.

Maybe it’s just a hair too far.

Edit: do you not still have the ADS?

 

Hmmm, I wonder if it’d be possible to make 8” 3.0 fit a 4wd Tacoma with a 3.5+ kit? I don’t plan on running a bypass up front, so having the bigger piston would be beneficial. Nice work RnD’ing these, Matt! @M C M

 

Why would you and what are you trying to achieve with the bigger piston? The bypass is to allow zone controled dampening. A larger c/o won’t achieve the same result. Save the money it takes to go 3.0 and invest into bypass for the front.

 

It shouldn’t be causing that much of an issue in my opinion, but maybe you lower to 1” of threads. You will need an alignment after though.

I do still have ADS, and I really like them.

 

Yea this is what i'm saying, stuff like this could do a lot to help make the top out less harsh. The basis, though, is that he's concerned with the clunk from the top out over potholes and such. Its really A. Tuning tricks like this to make it feel less harsh B. more travel so that the tire stays on the ground and there's less topout events happening at all

 

Depends on the price increase. I haven’t seen if 3.0 price are comparable to 2.5 + bypass + secondary shock hoop. It is true, zonal control is great and makes a lot of sense plus you have two pistons to valve with and adjust. I like the larger piston for the heaviness of my rig. I don’t think I’ll ever shelling out the cash for a bypass. That’s the only reasoning. If unlimited monies, hoop and bypass for sure.

 

I wouldn’t expect the price difference to be even close. You’re going to shell out more for the bypass setup. I’m just saying you’ll get much further utilizing any of the money you save on the 3.0 towards the bypass setup.

You don’t necessarily have two pistons to valve. It’s not uncommon to use the c/o as a spring carrier and let the bypass do the work. It depends on who's setting the truck up.

My point is you’re not going to achieve the same result and unless you’re stacking multiple shims on top of each other and still blowing through travel you’re not going to need to go up in piston size. Your truck isn't that heavy.

 

Going to be talking with ADS today. It seems there might be a solution in the works. I’ll update with more info when I have it

 

keep us posted. I'll be interested in their resolution.