Search results

Very interesting article. which vehicle application are the shock force vs piston velocity curves for? Tacoma or bronco? are curves for compression force or extension?

I like an inch of rake on my rig, especially for when I load the back with crap. I would try that and have the shop get you at the max caster wrt spec. I really have a hard time believing you will need a new UCA.

Perhaps you are over thinking thinks a bit. If you want clearance I would lift the rear to the max setting on the 6100 bills. Then adjust the front to have 0.5-1.0” of rake, depending on how much gear you add to back when loaded. As for alignment, as you lift cg, the distance between wheel hub...

Yeah. I also have the 6100s. I like them. Just helping others understand what they are getting with this shock. I wouldn’t want a progressive shock, near linear would be good. For the cost I really like the 6100s.

the 6100 bills are digressive. Steep loading force slope for small shock velocities. After a while you will be able to tell if a quarter is heads or tails after you run over it.

Lowest cg possible that still satisfies your clearance requirements. Static shock equilibrium near mid travel, which requires appropriate springs to carry your weight instead of using spring preload.

that’s exactly what I was thinking. Ok. Not really. No clue what that even means. Except logging may require a chainsaw.

I failed chemistry so I can’t appreciate that joke.

the max bending stress in a circular rod is a function of the diameter to the third power. So small changes in diameter can really beef up the tie rods. it would be very cost effective and stupid simple for the oem tie rods to be increased in diameter. There is a reason this is not done. Nobody...

lots of fantastic info here for anyone thinking about portals. From someone with a good bit of experience with a portal Bronco. very interesting observation that the portal trucks tend to be bouncier. You are probably talking about more difficult obstacles only? At some point the shocks most...

You are currently at about 2 degrees, arctan(1.875/48). That is pretty level in my book. I would leave it alone. You don’t want any interference issues with bracket and frame. I would check the compressed length of rear shocks and verify there is no interference.

well said. This is a costly and time consuming battle that is hard to win. Just need to deal with the compromises. There is no such thing as a perfect solution without compromise. Portals are no exception.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

pretty sure this should apply to everything. Best thing I have heard on here in a while.

I would keep the offset on the positive side. +18 is near optimal for minimizing steering moment arms and loading. I would try to make that work with crash bar mount and inner fender clearance.

OEM UCA works fine for alignment on the bilstein 6112s. Good articulation since springs are not to stiff and dampers are tuned reasonably well.

AccuTune offroad is very good about data sharing and they have great technical publications on their website. The readily provided spring characteristics and shock lengths that have known reference datum’s. I was also wondering if they have damping curves available from their shocks? Couldn’t...

Nice. how much did you end up with on the fdu drop? Also curious if you got a measured length for the lower arm when you installed? From frame pivots to ball joint? what CVs are you using? I suppose 3.5” longer axle shafts. The longer shafts definitely help with the CV binding. What spacer...

The front motion ratio is very close to 1.6 at stock ride heights and 1.1 in the rear. so thickness of spacer lift multiplied by motion ratios will give you the total lift at wheel.

everyone on the fence should read this post. Excellent advice here for most.