TrooperChris
Mudrunner
Reged: 07/27/00
Posts: 417
Loc: Johnson City,TN
|
|
Im looking to put 33s on the Trooper...for those that have lifted their 1st gen Troops did you replace the steering stabilizer? Also, I want to jump in on the Rancho 9000x deal for 218 dollars but I dont know the part number. I have roughly 2 inches of lift right now from shackles and torsion bar crank and if I need more lift to fit 33s Ill probably do a body lift, but may also get new springs from DOR. So I guess my question is this...I know I wont need longer shocks for a BL but will I need them if I lift it another 2 inches or so on top of what I have?
TIA,
Chris
--------------------
1988 Trooper: 2.6L Delta Cam, Pacesetter Header, K&N, 2 1/4 exhaust, CB, Lights by Hella, Warn Hubs, 6.5 inches of lift thanks to DOR and PA, Rancho 9000x's, 33X12.50 Durango MTs
1995 Nissan Maxima...the DD :-)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Go to gorancho.com and look up your shocks in their catalogue. I think the ones you need in the rear are the 99179s I don't know about the front. Either way you don't even need the part numbers when you buy the shocks you simply tell sam's what vehical and how much lift you have during checkout and they take care of it.
|
Smiley
Trail Leader
Reged: 12/12/01
Posts: 5911
Loc: Back in BFE, WV
|
|
Chris,
I’m not a Trooper owner, but FWIW, here’s a 'little reading' for you…
Rancho Shock Numbers
For a 1st Gen Trooper (or Rodeo, or Amigo) with a 2 to 4-inch Suspension Lift:
____shock__________(t) fittings (b)______compressed__extended____total travel____
Front:_RS-99214_____S42____LS23_______10.375_____14.500_______4.125______
Rear:_RS-99179______S42____L1_________14.000_____22.375_______8.375______
These might be another possibility (but I don’t know if anyone has tried them yet)…
Front:_RS-99295_____S51____LS42_______10.625_____15.250_______4.625______
Rear:_RS-99247______S42____LS43_______14.625_____23.875_______9.250______
Now, here's where the 'little reading' part comes into play...
Starting with the front-end…
Traditionally, the 99214 is considered THE front shock application for ALL Isuzu 4x4s…
However, for everyone who's running a Ball Joint Flip (w/ or w/o a Spacer), maybe you-all could help check my math on this one…
Doing the Ball Joint Flip increases the distance between the Upper and Lower A-Arms. --- Adding a Spacer increases that distance further still.
Since the Lower A-Arm and Torsion Bar are what regulate the ride-height of the vehicle, then it is reasonable to assume that this lower assembly is relatively unaffected when adding the BJF(&S), so, logic says that it would instead actually raise the Upper A-Arm.
Granted, we are not talking about a huge increase in distance here… nonetheless, if you agree with me so-far, then howza`bout THIS:
Since the Upper A-Arm and the Upper Bump-Stop/Droop Snubber are what control the amount of down-travel you have, and the additional distance between the A-Arms has likely raised the position of the Upper A-Arm, then even slightly (probably less than an inch) wouldn’t that translate into more down travel?
If so, then that brings me to another part of the whole equation…
For some of you who have been here a while, you may recall Rubo’s experiences with KYB shocks on his (then) Rodeo. --- The problem that he kept running into (with a couple or more sets) was over-extending and rupturing them. --- This eventually lead him to acquiring a different set of shocks. (ProComps?)
At the time, Rubo had his T-Bars cranked-up a lot… and I mean A WHOLE LOT! --- Between the 4.5+ inches of crank, and those over-extending KYBs, he started looking mighty carefully at how much down-travel he had… and with the shocks removed, and the front suspension raised and at full-extension, he saw evidence that suggested that the Upper A-Arm was allowing more drop than his ‘recommended-size’ shocks could handle. (And he went on to note that they had almost exactly the same extension figures as a set of RS-99214s!)
In a nutshell, Rubo discovered that his KYBs were actually limiting the amount of down-travel that he had (and in the process, they were failing on him because of this). --- If the two shocks truly do share the same basic travel figures, then one could reasonably assume that there are not many (if any) similar failures reported with the RS-99214, because of their presumed superior construction.
If Rubo is right, then it is quite possible that those of us with a BJF(&S) might have a bit more down-travel available to us, and perhaps it is merely the Full-Extension figure on our front shocks that is preventing us from utilizing it.
If all of this is true, then (with ¼-inch less up-travel, ½-inch more down-travel, and a total of ¾-of-an-inch more overall travel than a set of 99214s) the abovementioned RS-99295s might be just the thing to reclaim some of that unrealized down-travel. --- Yes, the fittings are different, but at the very worst, the hole in the upper mounting plate might have to be drilled-out for the larger diameter shock post, and you'll probably have to do a little grinding on the lower shock bushings to narrow them a bit… But other than that, mounting them shouldn’t be a problem at all.
“But Smiley… What about that ¼-of-an-inch of lost up-travel???”
Oh, so I actually HAVEN’T put you to sleep yet! 
OK, here’s the thing about the up-travel…
Our Torsion Bars have a progressive rate, right? --- If what I understand about them is correct, they become more-and-more stiff as they reach the limits of their rotational cycle (at the point where the A-Arms come into contact with the Bump-Stops; upper or lower).
It is commonly stated that cranking the T-bars simply relocates the center-point at which the vehicle rests. --- This is actually only partially true… Calling it the ‘center-point’ is only accurate when we are talking about the original stock ride-height, where the up and down travel figures are virtually the same… After cranking, the ‘center-point’ is still located exactly where it was before; the fact is, the position of the Upper and Lower A-Arms is what changed (biasing everything closer to the lower part of the suspension’s range of travel). --- Think of it like this: Doing the T-Bar Crank pushes your suspension down, thus forcing the vehicle upwards… The total amount of available travel remains the same… You are simply trading-in some of your down-travel for lift, and translating the lost down-travel into a directly proportional amount of additional up-travel.
But remember that part about the T-Bar having a progressive rate… The more it turns, the more resistance it gives. --- If doing the T-Bar Crank increases the amount of available up-travel, then it’s no wonder that there are so many people reporting that their suspension seems stiffer afterward… Equally so, compared to the stock set-up, it’s hardly a leap-of-faith to assume that the increase in up-travel creates more resistance as you approach the limit of the upper travel range. – After all, the A-Arm end of the Torsion Bar has to rotate farther in order to achieve the same suspension position as before, right?
The fact is, there are those who believe that once you’ve done the BJF(&S), and relocated the ‘at-rest’ position of the front suspension, that you’re A-Arms will NEVER again see the top of their travel range… The belief is that the T-Bars offer so much more resistance than before that you can’t force-compress the suspension to the point that the lower Bump-Stop will ever be touched.
--- I don’t know if all of this is true, but for the purpose of choosing replacement shocks, it does pose a few things to think about, doesn’t it?
Now, let’s assume for the moment that all of the things I’ve just talked about actually ARE true…
If the A-Arms are farther apart, and therefore, they allow for a bit more down-travel – while the up-travel is somewhat limited by an effective increase in T-Bar stiffness… in all likelihood, the ¼-of-an-inch of lost compression on the RS-99295 wouldn’t be noticed or missed, while at the same time, its additional ¾-of-an-inch of overall travel WOULD come into play.
--- And remember, because of where the shocks mount to the A-Arm (half-way between the fulcrum and the wheel-end), whatever amount of additional travel a shock has is DOUBLED at the outer end of the A-Arm. --- In other words, ¾-of-an-inch of extra shock travel equals roughly 1½-inches of additional suspension travel at the wheel.
If all of this theorizing is in-fact correct (and until someone actually tries a set of RS-99295s, that’s all this is… theorizing!), then these shocks SHOULD compensate for some – or perhaps all – of the additional down-travel created by the BJF(&S).
OK… Moving right along to the REAR…
The traditional Rancho application for the rear is the RS-99179. --- However, as noted in the chart above, the RS-99247 offers almost a full inch more overall travel… but, it achieves this, in-part, by taking away almost ¾-of-an-inch from the up-travel.
Unlike the front, on the rear, the shock mounts are NOT as close to the half-way-point between the fulcrum (in this case that would be the centerline of the differential) and the outermost end… This means that you don’t actually achieve a full doubling effect, but just for the sake of keeping my sanity, let’s pretend that ¾-of-an-inch of extra shock travel really DOES equal 1½-inches of additional suspension travel.
--- And by the way, bear in mind that the traditional RS-99179 has 1.125-inches more shock travel than the recommended stock-height RS-99186. – If you went straight to the RS-99247, you’d gain a full 2-inches of shock travel (or roughly 4-inches of available suspension travel) ---
The real question with the RS-99247 is whether or not they will bottom-out. --- You already loose a little more than ¾-of an inch of compression when going from the 99186 to the 99179… The difference between the 99186 and the 99247 is a full 1 ½-inches of lost up-travel.
In order to prevent bottoming-out, you might have to extend your rear Bump-Stops, but in my opinion, that’s a relatively small price to pay to gain the additional travel.
Ahhhhh… But then there’s always the possibility that the rear suspension (particularly on a leaf-sprung rig) can’t take advantage of the additional shock travel. --- This is something that I simply do not know, so again, this is all merely theoretical speculation on my part… Until someone actually tries-out a set of RS-99247s, we have no facts to go on.
So, FWIW, there you have it. – My Rancho Application Chart Book Report. 
(And don’t bother checking to see if it’s longer than Wayne’s ‘Test-Drive’ post… Trust me; IT’S NOT. )
Cheers! 
Smiley
|
chasespeed
Body Damage is Cool
Reged: 10/09/03
Posts: 1318
Loc: Monson, MA
|
|
Smiley,
Brother, you just got my gears turning, in a major way..
I think I am going to PM wareagle with another question or 2...
Chase
--------------------
Chase
|
Rodeo Guy
Body Damage is Cool
Reged: 12/07/02
Posts: 1074
Loc: woodbridge, va
|
|
Anyone else have any thoughts on Smiley's findings?
(with procomp es3000s, whatever Matt sent me)
As far as losing front downtravel due to the shocks, I've found in my first gen (short a arms) the shock only starts to stop downtravel after you disconnect the balljoint and tie rod.
I have found that it stops uptravel though. Well sort of. I took out those bumpstops completely. That added another inch or so of uptravel, but it still doesn't hit the metal. It sure looked like the shock was all the way compressed, but i didn't bother to pull the boot off and check. But that may be the limit that it is too stiff to compress anymore.
I also trimmed down the rear bumpstops. It still hits em, so shock compression is good. I think I need more extension though. Maybe I'll go disconnect the shocks and take some pictures.
But I'm thinking about using the traditional 99214s in front (and possibly playing with the placement), and being the guinea pig for 99247s in the rear.
--------------------
Mike
"Damn the carnage! Full throttle ahead!"
95.5 rodeo, 37" Trxus MT, dana 44/9", coil-overs, lockers..... http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/550454
|
Smiley
Trail Leader
Reged: 12/12/01
Posts: 5911
Loc: Back in BFE, WV
|
|
(Digging this old thread out of the vault…)
After reading Oleg’s report about his bad handling likely being caused by a set of dysfunctional Rancho 9000x shocks – and noting how his problem sounds exactly like mine - I decided to take another look at the Rancho Application and Specification Charts…
Given that the up-stroke on mine still seems to be working fine – but that the down-stroke might not be (I haven’t had a chance to check them yet) – I’m still thinking that the RS-99295s, might be the way to go in the front, with their ¼-inch shorter compression versus ½-inch longer drop - both figures will be roughly doubled at the wheel, meaning a ½-inch less up-travel, and 1-inch more down-travel.
* BTW, Mike – Did you ever follow through on checking out the 99295s?
But the main reason that I’ve re-upped this thread is to report another possible REAR Rancho shock choice…
I’ll have to wait until I get home, in order to double check the wear marks on my RS-99179s – but if there’s enough room at the top of the shaft, there’s a possibility – I stress: a possibility that a set of RS-99017s might work in their place… I’ll admit that it’s a pretty big ‘IF’, but *if* I see that there’s enough unused up-travel on the shaft (I know that there’s some – I just can’t remember how much), then the 99017s might be feasible.
And ‘Why the sudden interest in the 99017s’ you ask?
Well, on the down-side, they have quite a bit less compression (an inch-and-a half less, to be exact - so I have my doubts), but their extension figure is 1.75-inches longer (equaling roughly 3 to 3.5-inches of extra travel at the wheel - *assuming the leaf springs and shackles will allow them to drop that far – which they probably won’t – but it would certainly allow you to take advantage of every single bit of drop that they do allow!)
Anyway, this is all wishful supposition until I see how much room is left at the top of my 99179s.
I’ll post my findings tonight.
--------------------
My CarDomain Garage
`97 Rodeo
`99 VX (sold)
`98 SLX
`95 Trooper
|
BigSwede
Roll Me Over
Reged: 06/12/00
Posts: 3702
Loc: Minnetonka, Minnesota
|
|
Dunno about a leaf spring Rodeo, but 2nd gen Troopers use the shock to limit downward travel, so you have to be careful that your brake lines etc. can handle the extra travel...
--------------------
Steve Carlson - 95 Trooper LS expo rig
Serenity now!
|
Rodeo Guy
Body Damage is Cool
Reged: 12/07/02
Posts: 1074
Loc: woodbridge, va
|
|
Quote:
* BTW, Mike – Did you ever follow through on checking out the 99295s?
I did go ahead with the 99214s in the front. I'm happy with their performance, but I did have the common leak down in my air adjust system. Then my compressor broke, so I switched it back to knobs. I'm going to have to relocate the lower mount to install my DOR Tie rod shieldz, as is with all aftermarket shocks.
I did go with 99247s in the rear, but my findings won't apply to most Zu's. I didn't install them until I went to SOA, so I was able to position my own lower shock mounts. Unfortunately the shock mount for the drivers side was placed very much off and the shock does not fit. I did find that running SOA with one shock handles alright and controls axle wrap fine for around town and light offroading. It is less than desireable however when trying to climb up a nasty ledge on Daniel and everyone keeps telling you to 'just bump it up'
--------------------
Mike
"Damn the carnage! Full throttle ahead!"
95.5 rodeo, 37" Trxus MT, dana 44/9", coil-overs, lockers..... http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/550454
|
Smiley
Trail Leader
Reged: 12/12/01
Posts: 5911
Loc: Back in BFE, WV
|
|
Quote:
Dunno about a leaf spring Rodeo...
On leaf-sprung rigs, it's the shackle that limits the extended position of the suspension
(unless of course you're running some really short shocks   )
--------------------
My CarDomain Garage
`97 Rodeo
`99 VX (sold)
`98 SLX
`95 Trooper
|
Smiley
Trail Leader
Reged: 12/12/01
Posts: 5911
Loc: Back in BFE, WV
|
|
OK… The plot thickens.
The RS-99017s are a no-go - mainly because it looks like I bottomed-out my current RS-99179s in Uwharrie…
However, my FRONT shocks are another story entirely. --- In support of my previously (detailed) theory above, about how a set of cranked T-bars could limit up-travel, what I just saw under the boots indicates that A WHOLE LOT of up-travel is going to waste. --- The upper-most wear marks show about 1.5 to 1.75-inches of shaft going unused (which might explain why the down-stroke is shot – assuming that it is).
I know that the upper bump stop will remain the limiting factor for how far down the IFS will cycle, but what if… WHAT IF – on a ball joint-flipped vehicle, with that extra space from the flip itself being added to the total range of motion - the fully extended length of the shock’s travel is being reached first, before the A-arm ever reaches the bump stop? --- Or (perhaps more likely) what if the two figures are virtually the same?
There appears to be very limited signs on mine that the lower bump stops have been touched recently – but what contact has been made MIGHT have occurred as a direct result of the down-stroke being blown-out on my 99214s.
True or not - if the upper limits on my set of 99214s are so far from being reached, and there’s even a remote possibility that the lower limits are making a close call with the overall limits of the suspension itself… 99214s might not be the best Rancho for the job – at least maybe not on an Isuzu with a ball joint flip (w/wo the spacer).
After another trip to Rancho’s online Shock Specification Chart (.pdf), I may have found a shock that is better suited to the task…
If I’m thinking straight (and that’s the biggest ‘IF’ of the day! ), a longer up-travel figure will offset that unused space on the shaft of my 99214s… If so –while still allowing a margin of error – a set of RS-99136s might be the way to go.
Here are how the specs look between the two:
____shock__________(t) fittings (b)______compressed__extended____total travel____
Front:_RS-99214_____S42____LS23_______10.375_____14.500_______4.125______
-versus-
Front:_RS-99136_____S42_____L1________11.375_____16.750_______5.375______
Assuming that the lost inch of up-travel is actually warranted – the only real concern that I would have is that the lower fitting is a sleeveless L1 instead of a sleeved LS23 (or something reasonably close/comparable). --- On thing is for sure – on an IFS Isuzu, unless you removed the upper bump stop entirely - you would never reach the bottom of that 99136! --- Remember, because of the shock mount placement on the lower A-arm, that additional 1.5-inches of down-travel equates to almost exactly 3-inches of available drop at the wheel… the bump stops would come into play way before you ever got there.
The good news is this…
Since I intend to replace all four of my shocks – and since the rear 99179s have the same L1 lower fitting as the proposed front 99136s… I’ll be able to check whether or not the L1 fitting will work in the front mount as soon as I remove them. --- If it turns out that it’s too tight (or whatever), I can still always go with another set of 99214s – they just might end-up needing to be replaced again somewhat soon afterward, that’s all.
So, unless something comes up, I guess I’ll be posting another report tomorrow evening.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
