Some stock suspension calculations and measurements

[nolimits]

I've negated some of it by running much lighter rims (22lb) and somewhat lighter tires (68lb)than they are,. It's more the weight than size that matters. The tire they are running is 82lb, not sure on the weight of the rims, but I'd bet at least another 15lb there.

I think they've kingfisher off pushed the limits when heavy choices., I'm also doing rock crawling for the most part so not ecstatic any Hisham stopped to see some of the issues there.

Appreciate the additional insight. As I was looking back over details a little closer I see your rig and theirs wasn’t as “identical” as I initially thought.

It looks like you are running Maxxis Razr AT 37x12.5x17 on 17x9 Procomp 69 wheels. I ran a near identical wheel on my old TJ back from my Jeep days, love that classic style. Don’t realize they were so light @ 22# each. Closest I’ve seen without expensive custom or alloy is RTR Tech 6’s, 17x9 with +35 or 0 offset, that are also 22# each.

Maxxis Razr AT 37x12.50x17 = 68-72#
Procomp 69 17x9 wheels w/ -6 offset = 22# each
Total setup = 90-94# **

** = 4# variance between weight data on Maxxis site and actual reported weight

I see the Shocks Surplus rig is a 2022 Badsquatch, 2 door. They further state they are running Maxxis Razr MT 37.50x13.50x17. They never state their wheels but a photograph reveals stock SAS wheels with the beauty rings. The article further indicates their setup is +35# *** heavier per corner than stock setup. And that is where things don’t seem to jive.

Stock 285/70/17 Goodyears = 55# each
Stock SAS 17x8.5 wheels w/ + 30 offset = 34-35# each
Total stock setup = 89-90# each

Maxxis Razr MT 37.50x13.50x17 = 83-84# each
Adjusted setup = 84# + 35# = 119#
Delta = 29# ***

*** = Unclear where the 6# variance exists. Weights varied a pound or so on Maxxis site and 3rd party vendors. I used heavier of the two. Goodyear site didn’t list weight for Territory’s but B6G thread comparing 35’s, 37’s and 40’s states 55#. Some 3rd party sites listed those as 52#.

Taking the worst of the variances, you are almost identical to a stock 35” SAS weight setup, 94# vs 90#. A far cry better than their setup.

And as you pointed out, likely the reason you aren’t getting the same negative experience as they did. Well that and going low & slow in rough terrain instead of just sending it but that’s somewhat expected as more speed/force would magnify any shortcomings.

Sponsored

 

[nolimits]

I might add that when taking a deeper dive at the wheel specs it also became obvious to me some of the reason Shock Surplus may have made some of their comments about UCA’s being a decent probability for the Eibach kit.

They are running a 2022 Badsquatch with 2.3. Their article shows out of the box settings as 2.5” front lift and 1.9” in the rear. It appears that is what they liked and kept as it was and it measured out almost perfect once installed.

The 2.5” front lift would be pushing the bounds as @87-Z28 pointed out much earlier in this thread.

They show a 2.7 Sasquatch at 1.9” and 2.0”, respectively. This seems to be safer as findings here suggest. The 2.7 non-SAS Badlands is shown at 2.3” and 2.4”, again respectively.

It appears they are adjusting precisely for the 0.43” height variance between stock SAS and non-SAS Badlands suspension. Although specific numbers change, that same variance/implication exists for the 2.3 SAS and non-SAS Badlands.

The initial data compiled here was for a SAS setup. Are they correct the 2.7 non-SAS Badlands could *safely* run the 2.3” out of the box?

Also given how Eibach reports out of the box settings I would speculate they are shipping the same springs & shocks for both 2.3 and 2.7’s and because of the weight variances you get “more” lift on the 2.3’s putting them at more risk of not being in the safe zone w/o additional measures (UCA’s, etc).

 

[zuke]

Appreciate the additional insight. As I was looking back over details a little closer I see your rig and theirs wasn’t as “identical” as I initially thought.

It looks like you are running Maxxis Razr AT 37x12.5x17 on 17x9 Procomp 69 wheels. I ran a near identical wheel on my old TJ back from my Jeep days, love that classic style. Don’t realize they were so light @ 22# each. Closest I’ve seen without expensive custom or alloy is RTR Tech 6’s, 17x9 with +35 or 0 offset, that are also 22# each.

Maxxis Razr AT 37x12.50x17 = 68-72#
Procomp 69 17x9 wheels w/ -6 offset = 22# each
Total setup = 90-94# **

** = 4# variance between weight data on Maxxis site and actual reported weight

I see the Shocks Surplus rig is a 2022 Badsquatch, 2 door. They further state they are running Maxxis Razr MT 37.50x13.50x17. They never state their wheels but a photograph reveals stock SAS wheels with the beauty rings. The article further indicates their setup is +35# *** heavier per corner than stock setup. And that is where things don’t seem to jive.

Stock 285/70/17 Goodyears = 55# each
Stock SAS 17x8.5 wheels w/ + 30 offset = 34-35# each
Total stock setup = 89-90# each

Maxxis Razr MT 37.50x13.50x17 = 83-84# each
Adjusted setup = 84# + 35# = 119#
Delta = 29# ***

*** = Unclear where the 6# variance exists. Weights varied a pound or so on Maxxis site and 3rd party vendors. I used heavier of the two. Goodyear site didn’t list weight for Territory’s but B6G thread comparing 35’s, 37’s and 40’s states 55#. Some 3rd party sites listed those as 52#.

Taking the worst of the variances, you are almost identical to a stock 35” SAS weight setup, 94# vs 90#. A far cry better than their setup.

And as you pointed out, likely the reason you aren’t getting the same negative experience as they did. Well that and going low & slow in rough terrain instead of just sending it but that’s somewhat expected as more speed/force would magnify any shortcomings.

Nice in depth analysis!

The variance in the RAZR AT specs can be because the 37x12.5 17 comes in both load range D and load range E, but of course there can be variance just between manufactured lots as well.

I do love the look of the ProComp 69s, and that's why I originally bought them, not the weight. And while they are very light, they are also not the strongest wheel... I've managed to crack (But not break) two of them rock crawling... That said, they are also inexpensive, easily found around the $175 mark. So despite the strength issues, I think the weight and aesthetic are worth the tradeoff, and I'll keep replacing them when I crack them

 

[Fordified1]

I might add that when taking a deeper dive at the wheel specs it also became obvious to me some of the reason Shock Surplus may have made some of their comments about UCA’s being a decent probability for the Eibach kit.

They are running a 2022 Badsquatch with 2.3. Their article shows out of the box settings as 2.5” front lift and 1.9” in the rear. It appears that is what they liked and kept as it was and it measured out almost perfect once installed.

The 2.5” front lift would be pushing the bounds as @87-Z28 pointed out much earlier in this thread.

They show a 2.7 Sasquatch at 1.9” and 2.0”, respectively. This seems to be safer as findings here suggest. The 2.7 non-SAS Badlands is shown at 2.3” and 2.4”, again respectively.

It appears they are adjusting precisely for the 0.43” height variance between stock SAS and non-SAS Badlands suspension. Although specific numbers change, that same variance/implication exists for the 2.3 SAS and non-SAS Badlands.

The initial data compiled here was for a SAS setup. Are they correct the 2.7 non-SAS Badlands could *safely* run the 2.3” out of the box?

Also given how Eibach reports out of the box settings I would speculate they are shipping the same springs & shocks for both 2.3 and 2.7’s and because of the weight variances you get “more” lift on the 2.3’s putting them at more risk of not being in the safe zone w/o additional measures (UCA’s, etc).

Yes they ship with the same spring for all Broncos 2 and 4 dr, 2.3 and 2.7. As does the Ford Performance and probably others.

You can option the Eibachs for a heavier front spring from Panda Motorsports.
As far as pushing the bounds. Maximum front droop is really all that matters no matter what you set the ride height at, that doesn’t change. IMHO.

 

[zuke]

I might add that when taking a deeper dive at the wheel specs it also became obvious to me some of the reason Shock Surplus may have made some of their comments about UCA’s being a decent probability for the Eibach kit.

They are running a 2022 Badsquatch with 2.3. Their article shows out of the box settings as 2.5” front lift and 1.9” in the rear. It appears that is what they liked and kept as it was and it measured out almost perfect once installed.

The 2.5” front lift would be pushing the bounds as @87-Z28 pointed out much earlier in this thread.

They show a 2.7 Sasquatch at 1.9” and 2.0”, respectively. This seems to be safer as findings here suggest. The 2.7 non-SAS Badlands is shown at 2.3” and 2.4”, again respectively.

It appears they are adjusting precisely for the 0.43” height variance between stock SAS and non-SAS Badlands suspension. Although specific numbers change, that same variance/implication exists for the 2.3 SAS and non-SAS Badlands.

The initial data compiled here was for a SAS setup. Are they correct the 2.7 non-SAS Badlands could *safely* run the 2.3” out of the box?

Also given how Eibach reports out of the box settings I would speculate they are shipping the same springs & shocks for both 2.3 and 2.7’s and because of the weight variances you get “more” lift on the 2.3’s putting them at more risk of not being in the safe zone w/o additional measures (UCA’s, etc).

I'm going to admit I didn't do a lot of measuring when I set it up my non-SAS 4 Door BL... I went "higher" than out of the box, but I have a lot of weight added too, Heavy spare, Heavy bumpers (ARB Rear, Fab Fours stubby front with a Smittybilt X2O winch) lot of tools, recovery gear, and a heavy subwoofer box and amps in the back, so I ended up actually at about 2.5 in the front, and 2.0 in the back...

I originally had Zone UCAs, but wore out the bushings (Which are really a challenge to change) so I slapped the stock UCAs back in until I get time to swap them. It still easily aligned back to factory specs, everything looked good on the shop lift with no over extension, and I haven' noticed any binding or issues while crawling, which has given me an excuse to take even longer getting the Zone's back in

 

[Fordified1]

I wonder if @Caleb@PandaMotorworks can contact Eibach and get the compressed and extended lengths for the rear coilovers for us to complete the above chart?
Any other #Eibach dealers here?

 

[nolimits]

I'm going to admit I didn't do a lot of measuring when I set it up my non-SAS 4 Door BL... I went "higher" than out of the box, but I have a lot of weight added too, Heavy spare, Heavy bumpers (ARB Rear, Fab Fours stubby front with a Smittybilt X2O winch) lot of tools, recovery gear, and a heavy subwoofer box and amps in the back, so I ended up actually at about 2.5 in the front, and 2.0 in the back...

This is a driving factor for me looking at a lift. I am about to add heavy bumpers, front & rear, plus a winch. Already have sliders. I’d like to upgrade all the skids but that will be a little later down the road. Not sure on audio yet but it sucks so something is required, lol. And of course tools and recovery gear also.

The Eibach has value to me because I can *easily* adjust it as my build progresses.

When I talked to @Caleb@PandaMotorworks he said one methodology is to crank up the lift as you are doing. The other is to purchase some heavier springs. In particular for the front. Added cost was a few hundred bucks.

Assuming you don’t need the additional height for other reasons, I’m not sure which would be better. In my head, I think cranking the lift up and compressing the spring to compensate for the extra weight may be less beneficial than the heavier springs. Of course, I’d expect the heavier springs to ride more firm as well. But maybe I’m not looking at this right?

 

[Fordified1]

I just rewatched a video I made in 2022 at Hidden Falls of a Beautiful Bronco with terrible choices on means and height of lift. Suspension doesn’t articulate hardly at all and look at the terrible angles of LCA and axles.
I had just climbed that same section with my rzr on 31’s. Albeit a tough section, this Bronco was very near tipping over because his suspension isn’t articulating. His whole family was in there and it’s a long way to the bottom. Listen to his air lockers.
Edit: the file is too large here’s some screenshots.

 

[87-Z28]

Assuming you don’t need the additional height for other reasons, I’m not sure which would be better. In my head, I think cranking the lift up and compressing the spring to compensate for the extra weight may be less beneficial than the heavier springs. Of course, I’d expect the heavier springs to ride more firm as well. But maybe I’m not looking at this right?

I think you are going to want stiffer springs. The big advantage here is that you can then get the shocks to be closer to mid stroke at equilibrium (ride height). This way you have good available stroke in both jounce and rebound. and better articulation behavior.

if you crank up preload you can improve lift but at the cost of available rebound (extension). The shock will not be very balanced wrt stroke and may not have much extension available until full droop is reached.

 

[nolimits]

I think you are going to want stiffer springs. The big advantage here is that you can then get the shocks to be closer to mid stroke at equilibrium (ride height). This way you have good available stroke in both jounce and rebound. and better articulation behavior.

if you crank up preload you can improve lift but at the cost of available rebound (extension). The shock will not be very balanced wrt stroke and may not have much extension available until full droop is reached.

Thank you for confirming. This is what my brain was thinking but couldn’t spit out so eloquently, lol.

 

[zuke]

Assuming you don’t need the additional height for other reasons, I’m not sure which would be better. In my head, I think cranking the lift up and compressing the spring to compensate for the extra weight may be less beneficial than the heavier springs. Of course, I’d expect the heavier springs to ride more firm as well. But maybe I’m not looking at this right?

You've got the right line of thinking...

All suspension choices are compromises, and you've got to choose what's most important to you and what resources you can allocate.

Achieving height through pre-load, as I've done, sacrifices articulation and handling, but lets me keep a softer ride and requires less $$$ and time to get me there.

Heavier springs give up ride quality, and aren't "adjustable", You get what you get (You still have the original adjustability, But the center of that adjustability is raised by "X", and you can't go back down without switching springs), But you get to keep all the original articulation, You'll obviously have to allocate extra money and time, at least to the initial setup..

 

[Fordified1]

Like try to walk without bending your knees lol.

 

[BAUS67]

Like try to walk without bending your knees lol.

Looks like they are wheelin' one of these.

 

[87-Z28]

Like try to walk without bending your knees lol.

of course this is an extreme case. Looks to be almost no available shock extension. Ride height is likely near full droop with excessive spring preload. As @zuke said there are always compromises to consider. Some preload has usefulness.

 

[userdude]

I just rewatched a video I made in 2022 at Hidden Falls of a Beautiful Bronco with terrible choices on means and height of lift. Suspension doesn’t articulate hardly at all and look at the terrible angles of LCA and axles.
I had just climbed that same section with my rzr on 31’s. Albeit a tough section, this Bronco was very near tipping over because his suspension isn’t articulating. His whole family was in there and it’s a long way to the bottom. Listen to his air lockers.
Edit: the file is too large here’s some screenshots.

You're at Hidden Falls, I think I know exactly where y'all are (along fenceline not far from the turn to Cougar Mountain?).

Sponsored