Fitting 35’s with minimal trimming NOW ADDING LONG TRAVEL AND 934 CV’s

Look. Don’t go here again. I think that shitty plastic snorkels are trash.

 

I've experienced something similar to this as well, with no fender liner. Almost trashed my 20k engine. That wasn't even near deep water.

 

All the best influencers are running them

 

Why do the boxes have shadows, but the people don't? What kind of illusionary tricks are going on here?

 

using logic and critical thinking will get you nothing on this forum.

 

Enjoying the banter while I

 

After King promoted your video you better up your game now. Call up ARB for the influencer snorkel sponsorship.

 

This is what every Tacoma with a snorkel looks like to me

 

snorkel flex!

 

Don't wait. You'll end up like everyone else complaining about shock lead times even though the delays are and have been known for awhile. Get something on order now. Re-valving is easy in SoCal. I know JD has their own valve spec they use in both King and Fox which I'm sure works for the majority of users. May need some slight tweaking to dial it in but not worth delaying putting them on order.

With a Fox/King 2.5" shock and at least a 600# spring you'll be totally fine without a sway bar. Some guys run lesser spring rates but that's application dependent. There is a difference between a 5100 and other performance shocks on the market.

This. I firmly believe too many people choose to increase spring rate to avoid re-valving their setup when they add weight. There's also something to be said about the kit geometry. From my experience, the amount of preload required to obtain a certain ride height on a stock length kit is far more than what the LT kits require, even with the same spring rate. I haven't taken the time to figure out why. Just an observation.

 

I attribute the lighter springs to a different leverage ratio. I could be wrong, not sure.

 

That would be the logical answer. I haven't taken the time to confirm. I assumed the wider kits would increase the motion ration, therefore leverage, but the numbers don't support that.

 

Depends on where the shock is mounted on the arm honestly. If it were in the stock location one would think it would produce greater leverage. If it were more outboard it would produce less. Theoretically, at least.

 

DSM has preached to the masses for years on this forum that your springs alone should hold the weight of the truck with very little preload ie: not the shock / valving.

If my memory is correct I believe Micah said the formula for a second gen was to add 50lbs of spring rate for every 120lbs of shit you add to the front 1/2 of the truck. That allows the spring to properly support the truck and then you valve for performance / tuning needs.

 

Yeah, but when geometry changes so does the spring rate and tuning needs

 

That's been the "go to" statement regarding spring rate for a long time. IMO, it's too generalized as spring rate also changes the ride characteristics of the vehicle but it's a much better guideline than throwing more spring at the truck and not addressing valving.

 

Just to clear this up. Springs alone hold up the front of our trucks. The shock/valving holds up nothing.

 

omg did you just agree with me !?

 

Well the way you worded it or the way I read it, you made it sound like shock/valving plays a part in holding height.

 

yup of course however the leverage ratio change is not that big and springs are only available in 50lb increments so you can’t get super tweaky with springs…

it’s still a solid guideline for a daily driver. when you start getting into specialized trailered rigs where performance outweighs ride height and clearing 35’s with a 1” lift and keeping your mud flaps on because it’s a lease…obviously different story