2" OLV Lift Install '04 AWD to 4" Lift to 5" Lift

[Corsemoto]

Try the Timbrens, interested in seeing where they end up with your springs. I see you checking out that used set in the classifieds.

I think the 1/2" or so will do more to help the axles/suspension geometry in the long run than having that extra bit of ground clearance if/when necessary off road. I've already gained an additional 3/4" from the tires so it's not as much of a concern for me to lose a small amount of lift at that end of things.

Was out this weekend and what I really need to do is replace the door hinge pins & bushings in the driver's door and re-align, it's starting to knock around a bit on rough terrain. May have to weld hinge plate on door, looks like spot welds might just be starting to separate.

[Bread Van]

The amount of torsion lift, cv angle and where it puts the control arms in range of travel is mostly why I want to try increasing body lift/decrease torsion lift.

Do you think that the decrease in ground clearance, increase in body lift, creating more issues with hoses/steering/etc will outweigh the CV joint wear issues?

I also plan to increase my body lift in front (just on torsion crank currently). I have a small vibration at speed that seems to be coming from the front. Haven't had any premature failures yet but the whole set up just looks more stressed than I like. I don't but too many miles on the van so who knows what might happen if it was my daily driver.

I don't feel the decreased ground clearance will matter. I've learned that with the current drivetrain and age of my van I don't take to overly burly roads anyway. Would need lower gearing if I wanted to RELIABLY take on the real nasty tracks.

[Philly758]

Try the Timbrens, interested in seeing where they end up with your springs. I see you checking out that used set in the classifieds.

I am eyeing the Timbrens in the classifieds. I got some measurements on them last night, need to get under the van tonight and see exactly what they would do for me. They will either be perfect for my application, or useless. We will see.

[Corsemoto]

After finding I had a bent sway bar link end bolt, I noticed that the sway bar was misaligned and off center towards the passenger side and so tire would contact sway bar.

Driver's side bent end link bolt at top of sway bar:


Passenger side sway bar sticking out further and causing tire rub:


I wanted to try and center the sway bar in the bushings so unbolted idler arms and loosened the sway bar bushing mounts on the frame. I sprayed a little contact cleaner in the bushings to try and help the sway bar slide and was able to tap/prise the sway bar over enough while tightening the bushing mount to prevent contact on either side. It's not completely centered but I am waiting on a new end link kit (longer) to install so I'll be able to center it then. I will also experiment with shims under the frame bushing mounts to try and help the sway bar angle.

Passenger side, no more rub:


Driver's side with a bit more clearance:


Here is the tire clearance at full lock on inner subframe rails at full lock, can see why I am considering 1/2" hubcentric wheel spacers.

[nog00der]

just got off the phone with bilstein. got some part numbers in case anyone is interested. 5100 series silver not fugly yellow front 33-062518 18.5" extended 12.1" compressed. rear 33-185606 22.5" extended (1/4" longer than stock according to their data) and 15" compressed. they are softer on compression than the yellow stock replacements but stiffer on rebound which seems to be the right recipe i think?

[Corsemoto]

just got off the phone with bilstein. got some part numbers in case anyone is interested. 5100 series silver not fugly yellow front 33-062518 18.5" extended 12.1" compressed. rear 33-185606 22.5" extended (1/4" longer than stock according to their data) and 15" compressed. they are softer on compression than the yellow stock replacements but stiffer on rebound which seems to be the right recipe i think?

Good info, thanks for posting here. The Bilstein 5100 series is a really nice monotube shock and those specs seem in the ballpark. I'm a big fan of Bilstein shocks, the digressive valving, overall quality and the part #s you gave are only around $75 each which is a pretty good deal for such a quality and serviceable shock.

It's funny, those are the same damping rates (255/70) and characteristics the Bilstein rep I spoke with mentioned and that the ride could be harsher but with no additional stability which is why I decided on the adjustable Rancho figuring I'd at least have the possibility to fine tune the damping. It is possible to have Bilstein shocks custom valved though I don't know if it's cost prohibitive.

If you give them a try, I'd love to hear how they work for you. One thing to check with relocated ball joints in the upper control arms is to make sure the arm does not contact the shock body on full suspension droop. It shouldn't with the smaller diameter body on monotube shocks but if it does dent the tube then the shock would be damaged as the piston rides on that surfaces internally whereas the piston in the twin-tube design rides on a separate inner tube.

[Bread Van]

Hey there CM

Looks like I may be inadvertently following in your footsteps when it comes to tires. I'm now considering a 30.5 diameter tire, which is what the 245/75 is. That said I've giving a little more consideration to the 215/85 as it will save me a couple pounds per corner and the 1" reduced width at the tread surface may save some rubbing woes. The more I read about traction on uneven rock surfaces the more I'm convinced a narrower tread is better due to the pressure per square inch, debatable however. I also considered 225/75s but at 29.3" diameter it hardly seems worth the effort to "upgrade" from my 235/70s...load rating aside. So maybe urge will pass and I'll save myself some bucks!

Anyway, I re-checked your thread to see how the 245/75 is working for you, and it seems to be all good. Any comments you'd like to add after more miles?

[chevymaher]

Hey there CM



Anyway, I re-checked your thread to see how the 245/75 is working for you, and it seems to be all good. Any comments you'd like to add after more miles?

I have 295/50/15's on mine. I got it with 225/70/15's on it.
The destination tires I got are on my durango. They were the factory size on it. 31/10.5/15's.

[Corsemoto]

:wave: Hey there CM

Looks like I may be inadvertently following in your footsteps when it comes to tires. I'm now considering a 30.5 diameter tire, which is what the 245/75 is. That said I've giving a little more consideration to the 215/85 as it will save me a couple pounds per corner and the 1" reduced width at the tread surface may save some rubbing woes. The more I read about traction on uneven rock surfaces the more I'm convinced a narrower tread is better due to the pressure per square inch, debatable however. I also considered 225/75s but at 29.3" diameter it hardly seems worth the effort to "upgrade" from my 235/70s...load rating aside. So maybe urge will pass and I'll save myself some bucks!

Anyway, I re-checked your thread to see how the 245/75 is working for you, and it seems to be all good. Any comments you'd like to add after more miles?

Hey Bread Van, time for the good, the bad and the ugly I guess!

How much lift do you have right now again, it's in the 2"-3" range? I really don't see stuffing 30.5"-31" tires in there and fitting well without additional lift (body lift and add-a-leafs or leaf springs! C'mon man! ) or major clearance effort. With the 30.7" tires with my lift, I have been doing a little bit more clearance work here and there. The front required additional bumper cover trimming (I had already relocated the bumper stays inward) and metal work (cutting, grinding, pounding) in the rear wheel well area. The rears will probably try to rub the body seam at front of wheel well under load, I had to trim that area back and part of the reason I want the HD springs - as I am only going to be adding more weight to van.

Regarding tire size, those were all questions I pondered as well and the one thing I kept coming back to was I really liked how sure-footed the van felt with the 235/70-16 Yokohama Geolandar A/T-S XL load rated tires so I didn't want to go back to a narrower tire or even too wide of a tire, I tried to keep it all in perspective. In fact, after upgrading to the 245/75-16 E load rated tires, I'm not sure if the 29.5"-30" tire isn't the best all-around size for the van, a nice balance or sweet spot really. I think probably some of that relates to the huge weight penalty of the E load tires. When you get into D and E load tires I think there is at least a slight degradation in ride quality just due to the heavy duty nature of the tire carcass and overall weight.

Also, if you're not running at least 3.73 gears, I imagine the additional diameter/weight could be a real anchor and van could lack any sort of punch rolling from a stop and even smaller inclines on highway (or off-road) could become noticeable. From my experience with 3.73 gears, it's not the end of the world and I was able to experiment and set different transmission shift points with the Jet programmer which helped some.

You're on the right track with the 215/85-16 as you would lose about 1/2" (or a bit more) per side in width compared to 245/75-16 and weighs only a few more pounds. Seems to have worked well throughout the years for Land Rover type expedition vehicles and I do like the narrow width/tall sidewall look as well. I'd be interested in reading (and seeing!) your reults, if you go that route.

[Bread Van]

Ok, for the sake of anyone following along and fireside chat, here comes an information dump.

As far as your comments regarding handling of wider vs. narrower tires. I previously ran D-ply 225/65 snow tires with a load index of 112/110. I honestly think my van handled, ever so slightly, better on those than it does on the 235s...That said the difference is pretty negligible. I think that as long as the tire is "stiff" enough the width shouldn't matter too much...main reason I'm not overly concerned about a 215 tire, especially since 215/70 was stock.

For what it's worth the new Nokian AT tire, the Rotiiva, has a 225/75 E-ply tire available that weighs in at only 34.8#. That's a 29.3" diameter so as far as your aforementioned "sweet spot" comments go...that might be just the tire to hit that sweet spot quite squarely. Tires-by-web also sells that tire in a 215/85 E-ply but I can't find a weight, I'm guessing it would be similar. I'm also looking pretty heavily at Toyo Open Country AT2s though and they make a 225/75 in P rating (load index 104 at 30.6#) or LT E-ply (load 115/112 at 38.4#). For comparison the Yok Geo 235/70 XLs are listed at 34#. My Cooper 235/70 weigh ~33#, neither of those are E-ply tires.

Back to the discussion of 245/75 vs 215/85: I think the 215/85 would be better for the weight issue (as low as 35-36# as indicated above) and the fitment issues you point out. Using my current tires as an example it seems the lift I have should accept the 245/75 in the back; upfront, however, I know I'll need to remove trim in front and behind the tire. I'm also concerned about suspension bits on the inboard side during turns...+1 for the narrower tire plan.

Yokohama makes a D rated Geolander AT/S in 215/85 16 that weighs 38#. It costs about $150/tire which is about $45 cheaper than the Nokian. GY DuraTracs are also available in that size for about $160 but 42#. In any case, some good options available. Sadly the more I think about it, I this whole prospect is kind of silly to gain 0.65" of ground clearance. I feel like maybe I should be more focused on adding reliability or just taking a trip instead.


Edited for clarity and to correct wrong weight listed for yoko geo 215/85, it weighs 38# NOT 28#

[ssbf1]

Corse, Did you end up adding more body lift or are you still running maxed torsion? Have you run into a problem with the CV angle and joint wear or are you just concerned?

[Corsemoto]

No, I haven't had a chance to experiment with additional body lift yet and yes, torsion bars are at or close to maxed out with stock keys. I haven't noticed any additional wear but I also install new cv joints around the same time. I do have a minor vibration in the front axle somewhere around 60 mph and it's possible reducing torsion lift slightly could help this.

Also, my preference is to have the suspension - control arms and cv joints at a less severe angle while being back closer to middle of travel as opposed to near extended limit like it is now with torsion lift. You lose quite a bit of downward or extended travel as you crank the torsion bars, effectively moving the resting position of the control arms much closer to the travel limit in that direction which is also why it feels harsher on rebound.

[Corsemoto]

I ordered some new replacement parts as the swaybar bushings were no longer holding the sway bar very well and swaybar would tend to shift from side to side sometimes resulting in tire rub at near full lock. Also, the end link bushings had flattened out unevenly due to the downward angle of swaybar and control arm from the torsion lift so want to alleviate that somewhat. I considered shimming the swaybar subframe bushing to move down but space is limited with idler arm right under bushing shell so went with slightly longer end links.

I compared and researched stock parts with aftermarket and came up with Energy Suspension 9.1517G Hyper-Flex urethane sway bar bushings to fit my 30mm (1 3/16") swaybar and Energy Suspension 9.8167G Adjust-A-Link end link kit. I'm also going to be making a few more improvements/modifications in the near future so wanted to procure a few other bits and pieces like the Prothane urethane body/subframe bushing kit.



If you look closely at the swaybar end link bushings, there are two different length bushings, that is where the adjustment comes in. I wanted slightly longer end links so am using the two smaller bushings on the outside and the longer bushings on the inside to give the most length.

With new bushings in place, measuring both sides from subframe to eye to center swaybar before tightening shells.



The swaybar bushings are greasable but clearance is too tight with the idler arm underneath so picked up some set screws to plug the holes with and I'll just remove the set screws when I need to lube the bushings. Easier than drilling new holes for the zerk fittings like I was originally planning on doing.

Swaybar bushing installed and lubed, the swaybar is also wrapped with teflon tape (yellow gas) to reduce the possibility of any urethane related noise.



Clearance (or lack of) for the zerk grease fitting while test fitting.



End link installed and torqued to factory spec: 13 lb ft.



I opted to install the bolt through bottom of control arm this time around, the install goes much faster and don't have to fight holding the bushing and washer in place inside the control arm while trying to thread the nut.



Swaybar is still slightly low so may shim the center spacer with a couple of washers, there is enough thread showing should I choose to do so.


Test drive tomorrow to see if I notice any difference.

Couple of thoughts - I need to do some rust cleanup and painting on the subframe and suspension components! I'll probably get the chance soon as my control arm bushings are not looking that good, especially the lower. I would wager that is where the majority of Stevie Wander (steering wander) is coming from. I am still undecided on whether or not to use Moog Problem Solver bushings or urethane bushings. The urethane bushings don't come with shells so would have to burn the rubber out of the old shells for use so potential drawback there.

I also see now why the service manual always says to support the control arm when working due to the design of the control arm bushings and how they operate. Because the bonded rubber inside the bushing shell is designed to flex (or twist) back and forth with control arm movement, if you don't support the control arm (when disconnected from steering knuckle or upper arm), the control arm can rotate beyond what the bushings are designed for and can potentially damage bushings. I haven't necessarily always adhered strictly to this practice though I think most of the wear has come from hard driving in the past and now dealing with the additional load of the larger and heavier tires.

[chevymaher]

Very nice.

Now see what you went and done. I got a popping I knew was the swaybar. I look at your thread and see you nice new parts. I go crawling under mine seeing the worn out bushings. It been 10 years I needing shocks to.

I tellin my wife it all your fault to. See if I don't.

I will get this look to.

Anyway I be doing the swaybar soon reckon.

[Corsemoto]

Thanks chevymaher. I appreciate the advice and info on the urethane body bushings too, looking forward to that install.

Glad I could help!

I am the enemy of many wives with guys spending all their money on motorcycle parts. I've definitely caught the evil eye numerous times! I love it when I hear, "Just don't tell my wife what I spent if she asks!"

[97cargocrawler]

Would you kindly post the part number for the urethane body bushings? I'm guessing you're gonna burn the rubber out of the old ones and reuse the clamshell? Have you installed these yet?

[Corsemoto]

Prothane 7-108

https://www.astrosafari.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3299&start=8640#p275721

I haven't installed yet, I am waiting until I do 3" body lift spacers so only have to do the job once. I'm not sure how I'm going to tackle it yet. I don't think the rubber bushings are bonded into the shells, but maybe will require a bit of effort to remove. Ask chevymaher, he's the one who turned me onto them in his van bullseye rebuild thread.

I definitely wanted something with a firmer connection between the subframe and body in my quest to tighten up the van.

[chevymaher]

Put the body mount cups in a vise. Find the biggest meanest flathead screwdriver you can find. And pry the old ones out. The rotted rubber makes them stick. But they are not glued or secured in there in anyway except age.

[Corsemoto]

Cool, thanks chevymaher!

[wayne228]

Looks outstanding ! May be a project in next years budget !