Gen 2 OE rear shocks on gen 1

[uh_oh_6.2]

I think if people are jumping with this setup then they are ill-informed. (I mean prerunner type jumping, which would of course benefit from a complete suspension upgrade)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Yeah when I say jumping I’m talking like 2-3 feet maybe off the ground. I live in South Carolina, we ain’t got poo for fun stuff around here

 

[BenBB]

i dont know how in depth everyone has gone in here.

but the body size alone is enough to look and see you are not getting proper shock travel on a stock truck.

if you were lifted or aftermarket i could see this working well potentially. NOT on a stock truck stock travel.

I may be way off base but I'm not really seeing an enormous departure between Gen1 & Gen2, as far as the shocks are concerned. I mean, at best 500# lighter? On a 6200+lb. truck? And aside from going to an opposed rear configuration, did they really change anything at all out back? Diff, leafs, etc. looks pretty much the same to me. Something is definitely different in the front, given that swapping hats works, could it be just the shock tower (so the 1"-ish travel gain was in up-travel, mitigating CV and other damage from increased droop)? Yes all of the above could and probably should be addressed by revalving (by maybe a shim or two at best), but I'd wager most people could never even tell the difference...

Which you are right, but while using the gen1 springs which have a higher spring rate it pushes the truck up to mid perch if not a .5 inch taller. Calving May be a tad off, but it’s a good option for people wanting to save a buck. I haven’t had any issues at all.

Appreciate the reports uh_oh_6.2, I think I'll stick to rebuilding the stock 2.5 fronts for now but will start looking out for the 3.0 rears used (and cheap lol). Appears to be a viable option with no real drawbacks.

 

[AndysLog]

I may be way off base but I'm not really seeing an enormous departure between Gen1 & Gen2, as far as the shocks are concerned. I mean, at best 500# lighter? On a 6200+lb. truck? And aside from going to an opposed rear configuration, did they really change anything at all out back? Diff, leafs, etc. looks pretty much the same to me. Something is definitely different in the front, given that swapping hats works, could it be just the shock tower (so the 1"-ish travel gain was in up-travel, mitigating CV and other damage from increased droop)? Yes all of the above could and probably should be addressed by revalving (by maybe a shim or two at best), but I'd wager most people could never even tell the difference...



Appreciate the reports uh_oh_6.2, I think I'll stick to rebuilding the stock 2.5 fronts for now but will start looking out for the 3.0 rears used (and cheap lol). Appears to be a viable option with no real drawbacks.

the shock is like 3-4" longer lol. is that a serious question?
im not saying the guys running to the store, and weekend overlanding may be fine. but the shock simply does not properly fit and work as is intended on a stock truck. the valving is not in the right spot for where the suspension rests since you have such a large difference in sizing.

its just my opinion though i mean if you like it and it works for you then run it. i however think its not a proper setup and not something guys should look at as a "good" option when switching from 2.5 to 3.0.

UNLESS- either lifted or relocating the upper shock mounts up front. and i guess the rear is already pretty low on the bottom, so you would need to relocate your mounts up top on as well.
OR maybe a 2-3" lift all around might do it a little better? bigger longer shocks only work better when its actually proper. you can mount shocks on a lot of different things, doesnt mean its as good as it can be or even better than before.

 

[BenBB]

the shock is like 3-4" longer lol. is that a serious question?
im not saying the guys running to the store, and weekend overlanding may be fine. but the shock simply does not properly fit and work as is intended on a stock truck. the valving is not in the right spot for where the suspension rests since you have such a large difference in sizing.

its just my opinion though i mean if you like it and it works for you then run it. i however think its not a proper setup and not something guys should look at as a "good" option when switching from 2.5 to 3.0.

UNLESS- either lifted or relocating the upper shock mounts up front. and i guess the rear is already pretty low on the bottom, so you would need to relocate your mounts up top on as well.
OR maybe a 2-3" lift all around might do it a little better? bigger longer shocks only work better when its actually proper. you can mount shocks on a lot of different things, doesnt mean its as good as it can be or even better than before.

I agree the front is kinda sketchy, not an option for me either...

 

[hogwash]

Just to put the measurements back up at the top.

Front shock is 2 inches longer (not 3-4)

Shaft is 1/2 inch longer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[AndysLog]

Just to put the measurements back up at the top.

Front shock is 2 inches longer (not 3-4)

Shaft is 1/2 inch longer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

thank you for official numbers


this picture should be enough for anyone to see the fronts not a spectacular idea. maybe a shorter version of the lower mount on the gen2 shock?

 

[ogdobber]

thank you for official numbers


this picture should be enough for anyone to see the fronts not a spectacular idea. maybe a shorter version of the lower mount on the gen2 shock?

That looks waaaay more than 2 inches... however when you look at the pic the way it was taken then it doesn't look so bad.
However 2 inches is enough to kill cv's without limiting straps anyways



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[t_j]

Just to put the measurements back up at the top.

Front shock is 2 inches longer (not 3-4)

Shaft is 1/2 inch longer.

This is not how you take shock measurements. You need eye to eye length (or eye to top hat (installed) for both fully extended and fully compressed. Otherwise you are just guessing about the internals at collapsed length.

 

[hogwash]

This is not how you take shock measurements. You need eye to eye length (or eye to top hat (installed) for both fully extended and fully compressed. Otherwise you are just guessing about the internals at collapsed length.

I'm just quoting the measurements that have been given here. I'll get the exact measurements when i install them on my truck.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[tcm glx]

Guys, your worried about extended length, however you should be very worried about compressed length as well.

If/when you bottom out, instead of bottoming on the appropriate bump stop (particularly in the back) your going to be bottoming/compressing on the shock. That will lead to either ripping shock mounts off, or blowing shocks out.

So in the fronts, concerns are overextending CV/rubbing on UCA
And in the rear, overcompressing the shock