The Ultimate "Travel" Guide - Bronco Suspension Data Compilation

[RobBob22]

Sorry Y'all, actually had to work today at work, just getting to some responses. The longer comments I'll get to in a separate post.

Great write up. Thanks for the input.

I really like the terraflex seems like it is described as having a really nice ride compromise. What I am on the fence about is the location of the rear bypass valves and having to run a big negative offset wheel. I have the 6100s now and am not in love with them.

The other company I would lean toward is the Carli king suspension. Sage Carli usually kills it on his tuning compromise.

I'm running Carli components on my F250 and would not run anything else. I have some of the Carli Bronco skid plates, they're very nice, they are a huge pain in the butt to install.

You guys are really stretching the excuse to the wife why you're spending $4g on suspension. haha. Thanks for sharing the data you compiled. ICON shouldn't even be a consideration, probably should be removed from the list then if they refuse to provide details about the product they sell. I know they are off my list now.

I found it annoying too, but hey, as far as the wife knows this upgrade cost $1000.

Definitely keeping an eye on this one. Happy to help answer any questions if we can.

Thanks for Joining, some data you added is absolutely in here. We can certainly add any specs you would like to provide on the Ride suspension. A new column will bad added for bump stop size.

Looking good on that flex.
So you have 37” in those pics, what offset are the wheels?

They are 37" tires (nearly a true 37" on the Yokohama's and the wheel offset is 0. I believe this is the minimum offset for the teraflex falcon suspension.

Sponsored

 

[AccuTune Offroad]

Thanks for Joining, some data you added is absolutely in here. We can certainly add any specs you would like to provide on the Ride suspension. A new column will bad added for bump stop size.

Happy to dive in deeper on Ride Shocks when needed, there is much more to these shocks than total travel.

 

[bassist]

So basically, the Badlands suspension looks pretty good in the grand scheme of things, and really it seems like the rear is where the most potential performance is gained…

…although I wonder how much that is limited by the rear swaybar. And if you did disconnect the rear swaybar, I wonder how much that would decrease the front travel.

 

[RobBob22]

Wouldn't these raw travel numbers in your table be more theoretical suspension data than real world possibility? In other words, wouldn't the stock geometry be the limiting factor for wheel, or actual tire travel within the IFS over the shock limits. Once a shock is installed on the vehicle, potential wheel/tire travel may be quite a bit different than what the actual suspension components allow given restraints in moving components and physical obstacles and/or limitations in joints and bushings.

Yes and no. There is a lot to unpack in your comment. So as far as the numbers go, they're real "stop to stop" shock travel numbers. That's really just how manufactures report this, the nice thing is even if they are measuring the full length or assumed eye to eye or mount to mount, as long as they are consistent between measurements the shock travel number is an accurate representation of that shocks full travel. However, there is always a caveat and this is a big one: bumps stops AND spring rates - we'll get to bump stops in a bit. Now if we're talking total wheel travel, few companies actually make a claim here, but if they did, I included it. I think most of what I've see seems fair.

You mention the Fox shocks exclusion because they have less travel than a stock shock, but perhaps Fox engineers took real world limitations into account in their design. Anyone that's changed struts probably knows you're only doing to get so much extension out of the lower control arm, especially while everything is still bolted together, not unbolted to get more clearance for an install. Likewise, a tire will limit how much uptravel is possible until the fender and tire make contact with the fender or the bump stop makes contact.

In reading Accutune's article and videos on the Fox PE and King shocks, it would seem Fox's maximum length for the Performance Elite is at the limit of a safe CV joint angle for the axle, since their tune mod includes shimming (limiting) for maximum extension of the King shock to basically the same measurement as Fox. Accutune's full extension measurements for the Fox and King front struts differ from your data at 24.26" and 24.6", respectively. Unless you're dropping the front differential, longer shock length may not be in your best interest, if it's even achievable. There's only so much droop you get of of the front geometry with stock suspension components.

I 100% agree that none of the options for front suspension are really gaining you much in the way of droop and the most significant benefits here come from up-travel and it's a fact you are limited by the half-shafts and the lower control arms. Fox did their homework, but I'm not sure they did more or better homework than Ford per se, who in their own design allows more travel. (You could argue Ford quality did not do the homework and to that point I might agree.) However, this is where we need to have the conversation about bump stops. The factory bump stop is probably like ~3.5 inches tall, but the Fox one is probably ~1.5 inches. So fox can 100% get away with a shorter "stop to stop" and still offer comparable travel, they just have a much more abrupt jounce. @AccuTune Offroad actually changes this out to a longer stop on their custom tune, which would further limit that real world travel, but again I think that is fine for the market on this type of suspension and the target audience, it makes sense to me, those people wanna go fast and enjoy the ride. If you want more uptravel, it can be had with accommodations for contact on the fenders. There are body mount spacers and entirely new fenders people can swap too.

@AccuTune Offroad measured mount surface to the top surface of the mount. I would have done mounting surface to mounting surface, but the net result is the same travel information. The numbers I have here should be mount to mount, or eye to eye. We report the same travel, but overall some of his lengths are longer. Travel in my view is the key metric.

I've also gleamed from Accutune's posts that posted data like you have above is only comparable if all the shocks in the mix are measured at the same reference points. No independent source has compiled that data to make it a comparison of apples to apples.

On this I disagree. As the thread title suggests, I endeavored to find maximum travel (mostly rear, since there is not much to gain upfront) - in the OEM mount locations - not whose suspension might bind your CV axles more, I'm willing to upgrade the entire diff if I need too. As far as I'm aware all of my travel figures for suspension are stop to stop. I did specify this in my request to all manufactures, but I cant guarantee what they told me. So the travel numbers are very comparable, but also - yes - I did not stuff 25.2in of teraflex falcon shock in the same space as the 23.2 in 6110s. I references the falcons and the 6110's and the numbers provided seemed accurate. The Falcons are hard to compare here because the physical shock is mounted to a bracket that extends past the top of the strut tower. I know the combination of Falcons and upgraded UCA made more contact with the Apex links I had and thus forced me to remove them, so there is, moderately more droop.

I edited your pics to illustrate what I'm seeing as your wheel travel in what I'm taking to be the more extreme angles on the IFS front end you're experiencing by using the level front bumper as a reference point, and it's a whole lot less than 10". Assuming you have 37" tires the sidewall height is about 10", so I think I'm being generous saying you have 4" of "tire" travel.

I don't think this is an accurate way to make this measurement, the focal point of the camera is from a person 6 feet away and 6ft height in one picture, and 25 ft away up a 15ft incline in the other. That and the rough measurements on front wheel travel I measured while on the forklift was ~8.5-9 inches. Of course the compression of the wheel on the forklift is fairly gentle and only partially if at all compressed the jounce. If you look at the same photos you can see the front passenger wheel is further tucked into the wheel well with the weight of the vehicle on it. I could pass my hand between the body and the tire, but not with much more room. I do expect if I hit an obstacle hard enough I might make contact here. The bump stop is ~3.5 inches as well, with ~1.5-2 inches remains to go this makes with this wheel travel is at least by this manufacture determined with the bump stop possibly accounted for.

I'm a lot less concerned about the rear travel as what I see as over extension on the rear shocks. I'm not sure I'd want that much free travel out of my suspension especially on a steep descent. It just seems to me that to get 10" of wheel travel out of the IFS in a Bronco with 35" or larger tires would take some rather substantial geometry changes to the front suspension to pull it off. The long-travel kits I see address this in some way, shape or form, which is more involved than a bolting on another damper. Maybe I'm missing something, but can anyone explain what part of this anology is wrong or doesn't make sense?

I have a different view. I can only do so much to extend front travel w/o going to wider track with, extended LCA's and modifying the front axle, but increasing rear travel and rear articulation is fairly easy. Sure if you go vertical enough you could possible see rear suspension extend but what you're worried about has more to do with spring rate and suspension preload. In this obstacle below, if I was still running the 6112s I would not be as tucked on rear passenger or front drive, and would tip a lot more due to lost wheel contact.

Has anyone taken actual measurements on maximum and minimum "shock length" specifications on a Bronco at full droop and compression without a shock in place and a 35" tire bolted on the axle? With stock and aftermarket UCAs? It would seem to me to be a more critical dimension in choosing a shock package, than shock travel you can't effectively use.

Again, I think you can use almost all the reported travel. I've seen half shaft break under minimal articulation, not saying extended droop does not make these joints weak and prone to failure, but if a stock bronco can do it, certainly a bronco on heavy 37in tires will as well. I would point fingers more at combined wheel weight rather than total suspension articulation, although both seem to come hand in hand.

 

[RobBob22]

I'm curious to know where


Happy to dive in deeper on Ride Shocks when needed, there is much more to these shocks than total travel.

The Ride shock numbers come directly from you in a thread, and I believe the ICON numbers do too, or at least in a thread you added information to.

Totally, again my goal is travel, you could easily look at this data and say what could provide, lift, ride comfort and high speed performance and come to the conclusion that the Ride, Fox, and King suspension is the best choice. If you want long travel, I think ICON and Falcon float to the top for that application.

 

[RobBob22]

So basically, the Badlands suspension looks pretty good in the grand scheme of things, and really it seems like the rear is where the most potential performance is gained…

…although I wonder how much that is limited by the rear swaybar. And if you did disconnect the rear swaybar, I wonder how much that would decrease the front travel.

Where I'm going we don't need sway bars they will only slow us down. Any sway bar will limit your travel, but it will also balance your vehicle in articulation. You can actually gain small increments in front end articulation with a properly installed rear sway bar, but really it's a balance thing.

My bronco does not have a factory rear sway bar, and it no longer has a front one.

 

[RobBob22]

I am no suspension expert by any means but it seems to me there is a hard travel limit (into the fender to pulling the CV apart) on the bronco front suspension? With 37”s about all ya can get is a little over an inch (-1” up travel/+2” down travel) over stock (some extra up with a body lift and a little more down with a diff drop). Fox is a little conservative and Icon pushes it hard…I really don’t know how you folks are getting around these limits?

That's it, I don't think you can go around those limits unless you're going NEW LCA's, wider track width, longer half-shafts, etc. Some suspension will allow you to go fast on 37s w/o fender mods and others will allow you to go slow over large objects with greater articulation. Choose your poison.

 

[Fordified1]

Great write up. We mostly rock crawl so I threw away my sway bar the first month of ownership and don’t miss it now that I’m used to it. But I’m not putting a teenager in it in high speed traffic either. I’m running the Eibach 2.0’s because of affordability and cush. Next suspension mods will be rear control arms. I’m hoping the added flexibility of Johnny Joints will take some stress away from the upper control arm mounts and free up some rear articulation.

 

[RobBob22]

Great write up. We mostly rock crawl so I threw away my sway bar the first month of ownership and don’t miss it now that I’m used to it. But I’m not putting a teenager in it in high speed traffic either. I’m running the Eibach 2.0’s because of affordability and cush. Next suspension mods will be rear control arms. I’m hoping the added flexibility of Johnny Joints will take some stress away from the upper control arm mounts and free up some rear articulation.

They will for sure. Eibachs are nice. In the under 2K range I’d say they’re a bit better then 6112s.

For the RJ trailing arms I did go aluminum. I’ve seen the steel joints come loose and need better tightening. The aluminum ones compress and tighten, I don’t think they can loosen. Having to retorque all this on the vehicle would be a pain.

 

[87-Z28]

Most folks chase lift and that almost always comes with stiffer springs, or more preload, at the detriment to flex as it gets harder and harder to reach jounce on the loaded tire in "Static" conditions. The stock set up actually flexes alright. I would be surprised if any aftermarket companies that added lift also had softer than OEM springs

this can’t be overstated.

the oem IFS wheel travel has a pretty tight design envelope, strictly based on kinematics, ie, hard points and knuckle/ control arm geometry. So not much room to play with shock lengths, unless upper shock tower is altered; ie, design envelope is from roughly 24.3” to 17” at the extremes. So it is very hard for shock manufacturers to get more than 7” of travel. Kinematic motion ratio for OEM geometry is nonlinear but can be averaged to 1.65. So 11” of front wheel travel is about all you are going to get kinematically.

the “actual” wheel travel is dependent on the forces resisting the displacement inputs at the wheel. Resisting forces come from shock and sway bar. Displacement inputs come from terrain and vehicle speed. So to get maximum wheel travel numbers the forces need to be minimized. For slow crawling softer springs and no sway bar resistance help increase travel. However at expense of possibly reaching hard limits in both jounce and rebound. At higher speeds or more severe wheel displacements, increased resisting forces are required to keep from abruptly reaching max travel. Shock forces, spring and damping, dominate the wheel travel response and are perhaps more critical than “total” travel numbers.

 

[popo_patty]

this can’t be overstated.

the oem IFS wheel travel has a pretty tight design envelope, strictly based on kinematics, ie, hard points and knuckle/ control arm geometry. So not much room to play with shock lengths, unless upper shock tower is altered; ie, design envelope is from roughly 24.3” to 17” at the extremes. So it is very hard for shock manufacturers to get more than 7” of travel. Kinematic motion ratio for OEM geometry is nonlinear but can be averaged to 1.65. So 11” of front wheel travel is about all you are going to get kinematically.

the “actual” wheel travel is dependent on the forces resisting the displacement inputs at the wheel. Resisting forces come from shock and sway bar. Displacement inputs come from terrain and vehicle speed. So to get maximum wheel travel numbers the forces need to be minimized. For slow crawling softer springs and no sway bar resistance help increase travel. However at expense of possibly reaching hard limits in both jounce and rebound. At higher speeds or more severe wheel displacements, increased resisting forces are required to keep from abruptly reaching max travel. Shock forces, spring and damping, dominate the wheel travel response and are perhaps more critical than “total” travel numbers.

Time for a TTB swap

 

[RobBob22]

this can’t be overstated.

the oem IFS wheel travel has a pretty tight design envelope, strictly based on kinematics, ie, hard points and knuckle/ control arm geometry. So not much room to play with shock lengths, unless upper shock tower is altered; ie, design envelope is from roughly 24.3” to 17” at the extremes. So it is very hard for shock manufacturers to get more than 7” of travel. Kinematic motion ratio for OEM geometry is nonlinear but can be averaged to 1.65. So 11” of front wheel travel is about all you are going to get kinematically.

the “actual” wheel travel is dependent on the forces resisting the displacement inputs at the wheel. Resisting forces come from shock and sway bar. Displacement inputs come from terrain and vehicle speed. So to get maximum wheel travel numbers the forces need to be minimized. For slow crawling softer springs and no sway bar resistance help increase travel. However at expense of possibly reaching hard limits in both jounce and rebound. At higher speeds or more severe wheel displacements, increased resisting forces are required to keep from abruptly reaching max travel. Shock forces, spring and damping, dominate the wheel travel response and are perhaps more critical than “total” travel numbers.

10,000% agree.

Spring rate is an area where I have limited data, and I should have asked when I collected this other info. I’m sure @AccuTune Offroad knows a few.

If I have hot take is probably that every one of these suspension setups is pushing the front LCA/shaft about is low as they will go within 0.25” (which could be a huge difference in CV bind) and you’re really only losing up-travel on some of these designs.

There is something to be said about bushing stiffness and total travel as well but I think that factors more for rear travel.

 

[AccuTune Offroad]

However, this is where we need to have the conversation about bump stops. The factory bump stop is probably like ~3.5 inches tall, but the Fox one is probably ~1.5 inches. So fox can 100% get away with a shorter "stop to stop" and still offer comparable travel, they just have a much more abrupt jounce. @AccuTune Offroad actually changes this out to a longer stop on their custom tune, which would further limit that real world travel, but again I think that is fine for the market on this type of suspension and the target audience, it makes sense to me, those people wanna go fast and enjoy the ride. If you want more uptravel, it can be had with accommodations for contact on the fenders. There are body mount spacers and entirely new fenders people can swap too.

• In our Fox upgrade package (2-door or 4-door), we upgrade the shaft bumpers because the Fox bumpers are too soft and allows for a harsh bottom out. We experienced this both on and off-road.
• The shaft bumpers are the only bump stops on the Bronco suspension. Traditionally on trucks & SUVs you will see frame mounted very hard rubber bump stops being used, which don’t compress much at all and result in a very harsh bottom out.
• The foam bump stops we upgrade to are about .20" longer, hardly noticeable by most. Although slightly longer, they have a better density to allow for a more comfortable bottom out. We believe this is a better option for what the majority of people will be experiencing.

@AccuTune Offroad measured mount surface to the top surface of the mount. I would have done mounting surface to mounting surface, but the net result is the same travel information. The numbers I have here should be mount to mount, or eye to eye. We report the same travel, but overall some of his lengths are longer. Travel in my view is the key metric.

We do measure from mounting surface to mounting surface. This has been an industry standard for quite some time, so nothing unique to us. Here is a diagram to be more specific for bar pin mount and top hat mounts:

 

[RobBob22]

*These measurements, are going from the top of the top hat to center of lower bolt, or to mounting surface of bar pin.

Thanks for the correction, I miss understood this from an earlier post and thought you were measuring from the top most point of the top hat, not the mounting surface. I think that is the measurement represented in the table for most.

I can’t explain the ~0.85in difference on the Fox measurement between what they have online and the information in the old thread. The travel dimension is the same so It seems like a minor shift in measuring point. In my view a minor detail.

The foam bump stops we upgrade to are about .20" longer, hardly noticeable by most. Although slightly longer, they have a better density to allow for a more comfortable bottom out. We believe this is a better option for what the majority of people will be experiencing.

I agree, I’ve seen the complaints here, I think the Accutune mod is probably good for that suspension. I ball parked that bump stop measument. What is the Fox factory bump stop length vs. the one you add?

Maybe you can answer this? How much compression do you expect out of a bump stop? 50%, 60%? I’m sure this varies but would be cool to have a general understanding.

 

[AccuTune Offroad]

Thanks for the correction, I miss understood this from an earlier post and thought you were measuring from the top most point of the top hat, not the mounting surface. I think that is the measurement represented in the table for most.

I can’t explain the ~0.85in difference on the Fox measurement between what they have online and the information in the old thread. The travel dimension is the same so It seems like a minor shift in measuring point. In my view a minor detail.




I agree, I’ve seen the complaints here, I think the Accutune mod is probably good for that suspension. I ball parked that bump stop measument. What is the Fox factory bump stop length vs. the one you add?

Maybe you can answer this? How much compression do you expect out of a bump stop? 50%, 60%? I’m sure this varies but would be cool to have a general understanding.

Unfortunately at some point Fox decided to change their measurements and how they are displayed on their site. I've lost track of which shocks are using this measuring method vs which are using eye to eye measurements (disregarding the top hat). This also proves that shock measurements are not consistent across the board. King and Fox also have different methods of measuring stem top shocks.

We've tried to be as clear as possible with Ride Shocks setup guide to ensure customers have the ideal setup:

Fox bump stop is about 1.50", one we use is 1.70" tall

Bump stop we use is 909 LB/IN, I don't know what Fox bump stop rate is.

Sponsored