King Shocks - Remove internal spacer?

I guess I dont really see how the aluminum spacer circled in OPs pic could help with anything structural? But I am curious cause I dont really know shit about shocks

Seems like putting it back together and cycling it real quick would be the way to go. With pictures of course

 

I've got an open mind. I haven't DISAGREED with anyone. I have been asking what binds next the whole time... Seems like the consensus is cv axle.

Unfortunately, several people respond to 'what binds next?' with 'the mfge designed it that way' which is clearly not an answer to the question at hand.

Do you have any technical resources to share? Or personal experience on the matter at hand?

My understanding is that as a side effect of designing IFS suspension (coupled with steering) to control all 6 degrees of freedom - the forces on the front shock are limited by design.

 

Providing a spacer like that COULD reduce the max amount of deflection of the shaft by increasing the distance between the 2 support points - the DU bushing in the seal head and the wear ring on the piston head. The closer the two support points are, the more the manufacturing tolerances would allow the end of the shaft to deflect.

Im 100% gonna try it myself. Wasn't expecting the dog pile, but I guess I shoulda known. I just thought someone might have tried it by now.

 

Yes this is what people do when planning for shock relocation, 4-link, etc. in the rear.

My educated guess is CVs will bind first, simply based on existing LT offerings in the front. If you can bear the downtime, you can send your CV axles to Dirt King to be machined for about $440 to get more angle, and install a diff drop kit.

 

Cool! Thanks! I noticed someone up thread mentioned machining the cv cup, thanks for adding detail to it!

 

If I remember right (it's been a long time since I messed with the suspension crap on these trucks) the first suspension item which binds is the upper control arm followed by the lower.

Assuming removing those spacers would allow you extended travel (which if I remember right, they do) you could run extended travel or even longer than extended travel specific OE made shocks and you won't have issues at the CV's regarding binding, assuming the OE geometry is still intact and you aren't running some sort of LT setup. For example, I have 6.5" travel coilovers on my front end and have never had binding issues at the CV's despite the fact that they are a full inch longer than OE specific extended travel setups.

 

This is the kind of info I'm looking for! Dope build, man!

I also found this:

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...r-oem-replacement-use-2nd-gen-tacomas.226774/

Which mentions using 20" extended, 14" collapsed shocks. However, the OP added the 3" rod end.

According to
https://www.mckenzies.com/products/...uard-groove-875-14-thd-2-5-performance-series

and
https://www.mckenzies.com/products/...erformance-series?_pos=1&_sid=ef9f0dbc5&_ss=r

...The 2.5x6" Kings described in that thread are 20"+3" (from additional 3" due to 25005-004) - or 23".

Best number I can find for 25001-119A extended is 21.687" extended.

 

That's interesting, I actually specifically referred to the first post by Blackhawke88 years and years ago when doing my own version non OE retrofits in Sway-A-Way. I still run them as my primaries to this day and they have been incredibly reliable.

I have seen other reference materials mention that removing that spacer causes what would end up being extended travel coilovers, and being that all OE coilovers must reach the same collapsed and extended lengths due to the natural trucks geometry it only makes sense that the only difference between OE travel and extended versions is simply just an internal spacer and a change in rod ends.

Remove it if you want extended versions, the only caveat is that you would most likely have to replace the rod ends.

 

Hmm... to be clear - this discussion started because the shaft setup shown in the OP IS 'extended' as shown (due to it missing an ADDITIONAL 0.25" spacer).

Ive seen reference to removing the 0.5" spacer specifically as well. However, as i mentioned, I have confirmed with King that 0.75" of total spacer height = standard travel and 0.5" of total spacer height = extended travel.

...but then there are cases like you and Blackhawk88 that cast doubt on that being the limit of travel.

Do you happen to know the extended and collapsed lengths of your 6.5" shocks?

EDIT: i re-read what you wrote. I think i see now that you are saying I could achieve extended-extended travel by removing the 0.5" spacer, but I would have to watch the rod ends to control overall length.

 

@TomHGZ get in here. You're into these kind of threads.

 

Yes the rod ends may contribute to the overall addition of length if you get the extended 3" versions or if you just run a 1 inchers and use a spacer in between them and the coil lower seat cone. It predominantly depends if you have 4X4 or not.

My personal lengths end up being 18.900 extended 12.370 collapsed

 

Wait.. I must be misunderstanding something. Can you be specific about how you're taking that measurement? That must not be eye-to-eye? Is that upper eye to the bottom of the shaft or something?

 

I don't know what there is to misunderstand.

Those were the measurements as taken after the 3" rod ends were added. Prior to that they were shorter and yes those are eye to eye measurements.

 

Huh. That is just a lot shorter than the OEM shocks in the high 21" range. Just about 3"...so that's where the confusion was.

I guess the body on the OEMs must be longer. That's the only way the shock could be longer, but have less travel.

 

The height matters only to an extent. The travel is what is important here. The OEMs probably use the same body as the extended travel version with internal modifications done to limit that extra inch that you want out of the ET versions. It's their way of charging more money for the same thing.

 

This thread is going sideways a bit...

@12TRDTacoma you say you are running a 6.5" travel coilover up front, is this an LT kit? Your build specs say you're getting 10.06" of wheel travel. Is that all correct? Your coilover setup is very different than the OP, so it's becoming a bit misleading when you compare the two.

@ekliptiko "However, as i mentioned, I have confirmed with King that 0.75" of total spacer height = standard travel and 0.5" of total spacer height = extended travel." - This is accurate. Measuring shock lengths on a OE coilovers will be different than what 12TRDTacoma has.

Fox and King Standard travel and extended travel 2.5 R/R coilovers are identical except for one thing.... one has a spacer in it and one does not. Long travel coilovers are totally different.

 

MT. The front coilover build is not OE specific, it was made to fit that's why they are longer stroke than other OE specific built set ups around here. The amount of travel mine is capable of in no way reflects what the OE suspension is capable of though nor will mine use the full travel my coilovers are capable of either.

What you said at the bottom of your post sounds spot on about the standard and ET coilovers whether 2.0 or 2.5 RR.

 

So you're running a shock that is too long for the application. I'm assuming there is a reason behind doing so. You don't have up travel limitations due to the longer body? Using factory coil buckets? What are you using to limit down travel and not damage suspension components?

 

I'm running Delta Joint retrofits up top which are supposed to extend general travel a little further than standard uniballs, I have not confirmed that as I have limiter straps and am just tired of messing with suspension. I'll probably get around to it one day when I get the will to do so though.

There are no up travel or down travel limitations on these and yes I am still running the factory coil buckets.

 

You've cycled your suspension and confirmed there is no bump travel issues?