Coil lengths/rate question

Well you must be running stock tires then (or close to).

 

265/75/16 with aluminum wheels
And I have a second set of wheels for winter MT’s that are 255/75/17 with aluminum wheels

Nobody needs e-rated tires unless they are off-roading on sharp or very hazardous stuff. The only time I’ve popped tires was on the freeway. I don’t rock crawl, I drive forest roads and desert trails

 

I have the king setup and went from 600 to 650 spring rate, all I can say is it did make the ride rougher/stiffer, also at higher speeds the steering wheel vibrates and rattles.

 

But how does it handle off road?

 

I don’t disagree with you. I’d love to find a solid MT in 285/75/16 that isn’t 60+ lbs. Really defeats the purpose when a 315/75/16 is hardly more at 66lbs (Cooper).

 

I don’t understand the wide tire fad

 

Just looks a smidge better on a 3rd gens big ‘ole butt. All aesthetics, no ones disagreeing with ya.

 

I think the “looks better” is subjective. When I had wide tires on my 2.4l that stuck out past the fenders I ruined paint on the truck from all the rocks and my dad kicking up...didn’t look so cool then

A lot of guys run wide tires and if looks are what they are after then it does the job I suppose.

 

I prefer a wide(er) stance, not necessarily wide tires. It’s all a balancing game aesthetically speaking. I like that I can run 285s or even skinny 33s on a -12 Ray10 and still have a good amount of poke because I don’t have the fender flares a 3.5 has. I can honestly say I do like the skinny 33 look because its retains a more similar aspect ratio a 35x12.5 has than a 33x11.5. IMO, a 33x12.5 is disgustingly wide to me lol.

Totally subjective, absolutely.

 

Springs will sag based off the weight of the truck at each corner and the tensile strength in lb/in. So stock is ~690 lb/in and OME is 580 lb/in. You could anticipate compression or sag if you were to corner balance/check the weight on each tire.This is a rough dumbed down estimate and shouldn't be considered absolute, but if the OME coil were the same length as stock it would sit about 15% lower than stock given its lower spring rate. I don't know the stock coil length but I suppose if you knew that you could estimate your actual lift.

Regardless, if you did end up with a lower than desired lift just drop the shock down and throw a 1/4 spacer on top, that'll bring it up about 1/2" higher. Should fix any issues.

 

Definitely considering this for simplicity sake. Ahh negatives/consequences to using spacers?

 

Not with a 1/4", it's not really tall enough to cause an issue, unless you're throwing it on a lift thats already 3". You could use a 3/8" as well but will need longer studs, which is a bit more work since you have to remove the top hat from the shock.

 

From what I have read, the stock coil has a spring rate of 700 lbs/in and the OME 888 has a spring rate of 590 lbs/in. Therefore the lift provided by the OME coil must be provided by increased spring length and/or preload. I have read that the OME coil has a length of 405mm but I have not found the length of the stock coil. However, I did find a picture of them side by side and observed that the OME coil is longer.

This was a bit of a surprise for me, because I had previously assumed the OME coil had a greater spring rate. But it all makes sense to me now. The OME coil is designed to compress more for a given bump, thus providing more suspension travel for a given bump. Combined with a greater damping, this provides a better ride on bumpy surfaces.

The disadvantage is that for a given bit of extra weight the OME coil will compress more, thus the load carrying ability of the truck is compromised. This might be explain the reports of “sagging”. There may also be high speed flat surface ride quality degradation, because the high dampening of little bumps.

I have long wondered what the advantages of the OME lift kits were besides a small lift. Now I know.

Please fact check me.

 

By “more effective travel” I wasn’t implying that the maximum travel distance of the suspension increases. Perhaps I made a poor word choice. I meant that the shock compresses more when hitting a bump, thus the distance the truck travels downward increases, thus the downward deceleration of the truck is less, and thus the “ride” is less jarring.

 

No, you had it right, lol we both did. I knew that one would go one way or the other.