King 2.5 Remote Reservoir Coilovers NOT compatible with Bronco SAS wheel off-set

[Species8472]

Good idea, I am at their website now (seems legit).

I've bought three sets of Kings from them for my Toyota's over the years. Picked them up in person. Great experience and results.

Sponsored

 

[BlueBetty]

Thanks for all the great suggestions! Just got off the phone with Fox Shock and sourced the part numbers for their side mount rear reservoir brackets (pics attached courtesy of you all!). Let's hope this works. Below is information if anyone else needs to retro-fit the rear reservoirs on their King coil-overs.

Fox Shock: 1-619-768-1800 (must call this number, they do NOT sell this part through their website or any vendors)

Left Side:
Part Nº. 026-01-222-1 ($35)

Right Side:
Part Nº. 026-01-222-2 ($40)

Shipping $15
Total (incl. S&H + Tax) $97.32

 

[BlueBetty]

" I am now looking at paying out of pocket for custom-fabricated reservoir mounting brackets to achieve true OEM-wheel compatibility. Currently quoted a minimum of 6 hour ($1,000) plus the cost to re-pressurize the Shocks ($175). This is assuming all goes well including the hoses will reach their new positions."

Okay... this is the part where you lose me..... A bracket for a reservoir mount is a very simple thing. It is nothing more than a small piece of metal that sometimes might have one 90 degree bend in it. very simple to make. Why the hell is it going to take 6 hours to install? I bet I could install all 4 in an hour and a half if I took my time and drank 3 beers while doing it.... (and I am an old man).... I guess 6 hours if they are custom fabing the mounts themselves but damn.

Why would you have to repressurize the shocks??? Seriously. unless you are lengthening the hose lines you should not be depressurizing them. If the hoses do not reach at their given length then they are picking the wrong mounting location...

I am at a loss here, this is not rocket science. I think they are milking you because you do not know any better.

Are you satisfied with those Tie-Rods?

 

[5GENIDN]

Are you satisfied with those Tie-Rods?

very. but I felt compelled to upgrade the rack to a 74 weld stage 3 rack first.

 

[BlueBetty]

very. but I felt compelled to upgrade the rack to a 74 weld stage 3 rack first.

And are you able to achieve Full steering "Lock-to-Lock" clearance (e.g Tie-Rod don't bind with coil-over springs)?

 

[5GENIDN]

And are you able to achieve Full steering "Lock-to-Lock" clearance (e.g Tie-Rod don't bind with coil-over springs)?

yep! I am fine. Full lock to lock without any problems. As you can see in that pic.... that was almost full lock and plenty of clearance.... Even while at droop or compression. I have one of the very first 10 sets of their portals and purchased the rack at the same time. I ordered even before I received the Bronco... In fact I ordered the day I bought the Bronco, July 1, 2023... called Quinn that day.

Now I know they changed the Portals trying to standardize them across platforms. Those early sets of redesigned portals had some issues, esp. with the brake caliper shim (which I do not have)... I do not know if there were any changes to the racks. Never heard of any. I also only heard of a very few people having problems with the rack.

 

[87-Z28]

. I do not know if there were any changes to the racks. Never heard of any. I also only heard of a very few people having problems with the rack.

This is my understanding of the 74w racks. They provide an extremely stiff housing that is intended to minimize displacements and thus protect function of the internals under high loading scenarios.

The oem rack has inherent spring stiffness (yoke bearing) that allows for zero lash at zero load. However, this results in increasing lash for increasing load, due to the effective spring stiffness (load vs displacement curve). This produces a smooth transition under steering reversal and very nice for daily driving.

The 74w rack does not have zero lash at zero load, since it has no yoke bearing and thus stiffness goes from zero to near infinite. The rack machining tolerances thus dictate the initial lash before loading occurs from pinion/rack contact. This allows for increased strength and stiffness under sever loading, ie, not incumbent on the load displacement curve of yoke bearing. The downside is there must always be some lash at zero load during steering reversal. This lash can be negligible and/or minimized with very consistent and tight machining tolerances. Different racks with varying degrees of clunking perhaps have different and/or not consistent machining tolerances.

I am not sure 74w currently sells the housing. Not sure what they are doing. It would be nice if they were more transparent and information would flow more easily.

In my view this is analogous to oem style bushings (providing displacement based on a load vs deflection curve of the bushing material) and heim style joints (metal on metal with a discontinuous stiffness from zero to infinite depending on joint tolerances). Heim style joints get noisy especially as the “lash” or joint tolerance increases with time due to wear and tear. Discontinuous stiffness across the joint under loading.

Sponsored