Rear Shock relocation thread

Hoops*

My bad, auto correct kicked in.

 

Have you had a chance to drive the truck “aggressively” and feel the shocks sense you added the hoops? If so how’s the rear feel with the extra travel from the hoops? Been rolling the idea around of relocating

 

What type of driving do you do? It’s not only the additional travel but it’s also the additional dampening you get from a performance shock. Especially if you go 2.5”.

 

For sure man. I’m curious to see how it rides. Thanks.

 

All this angst over fitting 10" shocks, when the Archive kit fits 12"×2.5" or 14"×2.5"
It can handle all the bump travel spring under can dish.
Price is $350 shipped with TW discount for DCSB

https://archivegarage.com/products/taco-shock-relocation

This under the bed kit allows a cross brace in the bed to lockout the frame rails from rotating inboard as well, where others do not.

 

I meant more from everyone else

 

No love for the 1st gen though.

 

I hear you, get a handful of 1st gen owners together, I like helping people

 

I get what you’re saying but I think there has to be some kind of general logic behind the decision.

I have always been curious of why TC decided to go with a 10” relocation kit. My SOA cycles more than that, which means the shock geometry would have to be rather aggressive in order to make a 10” shock work.

Maybe it has to do with the design being intended for bypass shocks and the location of the bypass zones?

 

And you just now did a relocation with SUA?!

I agree though, TC and DMZ are both very solid companies. I have TC UCAs and I’m very interested in their stock length LCAs. I won’t go LT with this truck. I draw my line there.

 

I used to have a line drawn there. Then I realized that for the money I had put into dialing in a mid travel setup I could have just went straight to LT in the first place and spent less money. Any future truck I have that I plan to offroad and modify will just go straight to LT or stay stock

 

How do you figure?

This is a legitimate question because LT is not cheap so I’m trying to see how you put that much money into a mid travel setup.

 

I pretty much adopted the same mentality...most do what they can to not replace the lcas until the bushings finally take a shit. When that happens you have to remove them which can be cause for cutting out the bolts and stuff depending on their condition. At that point if you are going to get ucas and lcas you could piece it together like a mid travel guy or just do the whole thing at once like a long travel guy does. Difference is the LT guy has to buy it all at once, a true mid travel kit rocks the bypasses up front too.

 

I went with an OME kit first, full kit for like $1000. Went through 2 sets of front springs trying to get those right with bumper setups so add another $100. Blew one shock from pushing it too hard and since they aren’t rebuildable had to by a new shock. Another $200. Couldn’t get alignment with stock arms so I got SPC arms add $300. The ball joints on them failed twice (warranty) but not wanting them to fail in the field I went to TC uppers, add $600. Then I wanted better shocks since the OMEs just aren’t the best so I put a set of kings in front and rear. Add $2000. TC lowers for another $1500 to beef up the front. By the. The front was awesome but the rear couldn’t keep up. So I did shock relocate, beefier shackles, beefier hangers, and better leaf springs. Another $2000 for all that in the rear. Total to get to where I was with a solid mid travel setup was easily $7700. Now granted I made some money back when I sold components and I did make changes I could have avoided had I bought the right thing the first time but take all that money and the time swapping stuff back and forth and I could have easily bought an entry level front and rear lt kit

 

Idk if I agree with that last part. I thought MT/LT was dependent of the amount of travel, not the shocks used on the setup.

I see what you’re saying. The learning curve is costly for sure. I am overall happy that I went from 5100s to 2.5 coilovers with nothing between.

I wanted LT until I actually thought about it. There is a point where your truck becomes fast enough that it’s a huge safety concern without a cage. I feel that with a solid mid travel, the truck is fun to drive, reliable, and still not too capable of going fast through rough terrain.

If I got LT there is absolutely no way it would be remotely safe to drive without a cage, which is costly and not very comfortable for on road.

 

What first gen thread??

 

My point at the end was a true dedicated mid travel build would dictate having UCA/LCA/Coils/Bypasses like what Jeff b has. The beauty of mid travel is that you don't need to have any or all of those as your geo isn't affected at all from stock. But if you were to build up a mid travel set up in its full capacity, then ideally you are dumping the same amount of money into it as an LT build. The difference is LT requires all this cause of the new geo while MT you can have all or some of it.

In my build I was starting to do that, then realized why even start that rabbit hole when I can just save for all the LT equivalent stuff and then just swap out my coils when the day comes. But that's where the real self identification of what you want/need comes into play. I don't need LT at all, but always wanted it.

 

I understood what you were saying and it makes perfect sense. LT is a large up front cost/investment due to changing the geometry where MT is something can do piece by piece but the overall cost between the two may be close.

Where we don’t agree is the limitations of the shock used to define the amount of travel you have. If we use the logic that to be MT you have to run bypasses, then the same is true with LT, which I dont agree with.

 

Im sorry as I was not clear on that. You can run without bypasses on either set up as most currently plan for bypasses, but don't necessarily pull the trigger on them if their budget/style of driving never require it. Im not sure I understand what you mean by defining the limitations of the amount of travel in the shock. Sure, MT wont be able to articulate and achieve the same travel as LT, but in the faster aggressive manner that both set ups can be designed to operate in the bypasses would help prevent the shock from bottoming out.

Again, its not needed to have bypasses, but if you are flying through stuff it can really help your setup from just blowing through the travel you have regardless of the geo.

 

I have always viewed the classification of a suspension setup by the amount of travel it is capable of, not the shocks being used on the application. (This is in reference to the bold in your quote.)

I agree with you entirely and I think we are on the same page. The purpose of a bypass is to allow more adjustablility throughout the travel in zones, there is no argument that additional dampening control doesn’t help ride comfort and controllability. Not only in the bump zone.