Figuring out Tahoe 2door suspension...

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Moresnowdays

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Central NY
For downward travel, what should be the limiting factor? Metal on metal stop, or the shock?

I would think neither is a great idea, but maybe it's supposed to be the shock? I would think the shocks wouldn't last long that way though.

I jacked up the frame till the upper control arm hit the stop. The frame didn't even go up an inch.
 

CrustyJunker

Is STILL Here?
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
382
Location
Indiana, USA
I haven't looked in awhile, but I think I know what you're talking about. I don't believe these trucks have rebound bump stops, just compression. I'm not sure what the factory had in mind as far as stopping travel... My personal opinion, a stop is always the best.

In every other application I've seen, shocks have their parameters of travel but should never bottom or hyperextend at any time. If you find your 4600's are too short, they're too short. I actually broke a stock shock on my current truck, managed to actually snap the piston out of the body. Oily mess and could've been dangerous because the sharp metal was gouging on my rubber brake hose!

Not sure how heart-set you are on Bilsteins (or your return policy), but I'm running Rancho RS7000MT's on all fours. I like them, but bought them mostly for application. Mine were rated for a 0"-2" lift in the front, 0"-3" in the back. It was Rancho part number RS7152 for the front, RS7190's in the back. Worked good for minor lifting on stock components like us.

If you do decide to change your mind for the Ranchos, compare extended length specs to the Bilsteins (I don't have time to check up on it now). Let me know which one is longer. Because now I'm wondering if my fronts are a hair short, too? I don't remember if I jacked up my truck to install them. It's been a few years. I remember having like maybe 3/4" upward travel left...It wasn't much.
 

Moresnowdays

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Central NY
So here is what I've found Crustyjunker...
-Shock / Compressed Length / Extended Length
-Originals / 11-3/4" / 16-1/2"
-4600's / 11-3/4" / 16-1/2"
-RS 7152 / 12.14" / 18.11"

It would seem your Rancho 7000's are ideal length.

Measuring mounting point to mounting point on my 98 tahoe, I get
-Compressed length of about 13" (16"-distance from LCA to 3/4 into Lower Bump stop (3"))
-Extended length of 17"
 
Last edited:

Moresnowdays

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Central NY
Just got off the phone with Bilstein Tech. They say that If I leave the TB's cranked and top out the shock, it wasn't designed for that. And if I go with a longer shock I may allow the suspension to go all the way down, but that may cause the damage to CV joints as they will be over extended. They said my best option is drop the suspension back down (Uncrank) and install the 4600's.
 

CrustyJunker

Is STILL Here?
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
382
Location
Indiana, USA
Sorry about the delay, been busy at work. But good research, by the way! At least that information is out there for anyone else wanting to do the same thing.

I have my Ranchos installed on a regular cab stepside. Upon looking it up, your 2 door should take the same part numbers (RS7152's and RS7190's respectively).

The choice is up to you if you decide longer shocks or lower your ride height. Lower ride height is usually better for steering components and aligning.

I'm not saying the Bilstein tech is wrong, but I've never witnessed CV binds on our particular trucks at full drop on stock suspension. Should the front become airborne whether by off road conditions or even an emergency maneuver, I think GM would account for that by their welded stops. This is solely my opinion, I'm not trying to bias you one way or another! Just sharing what makes sense to me.

If you can jack up the front of your truck by frame somewhere, like between the control arms or behind the front wheel and still be able to rotate your wheels freely, that should answer your bind question. You can also check rotation with your steering lock-to-lock for maximum angle torture test.

Again, not trying to persuade. If you need a wheel alignment anyway, now is the time to adjust your ride height.

The first GMT400 I lifted, I maxed out against those said metal stops. The truck rode terribly harsh. There was no downward motion possible, bad CV angles, torn CV boots, bad upper control arm geometry, and long-term I would have had accelerated upper ball joint wear. I would never lift a truck like that again, and probably express my concern if I saw someone else do it. Haha.

Your pictures you uploaded don't look to me like they'd cause that kind of problem.
 

Moresnowdays

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Central NY
Well, I guess I'm doing both. I already have the Bilstein 5100's installed on the rear. I also swapped out the 2.5"blocks in the back and put in 1.5" blocks.

Here's a shot with the above done, uncranked six turns on the adjustment bolts. This gives me a Z height on the front of 6.5" (Stock being 6" - 6.4") Dropped the front just over an inch. No front shocks installed. You can see the level just under the truck that was on the ground on the other side.
You must be registered for see images attach


I'm not sure if this is to much rake at the moment. Measures 36-1/4" at front wheel wells, and 38 at the rear. The rear wheel wells are an inch lower on the body, so that's 39 in the back. That leaves a 2.75" rake.

I went ahead and ordered the Rancho 7000's (RS7152) for the front. I'm convinced they should be the best for the front. I still have the Bilstein 4600's just so I can compare them before I return them. I'm also leaving the Bilstein 5100's in the rear, I find no real difference between them and the Rancho 7000's as far as the rear shocks go.

Hopefully I'll get the Rancho 7000's on the front Thursday and play a bit more with torsion bars before I get it aligned Friday. Not sure if the Rancho shocks will cause the front to lift just a bit, so I'll wait till their in to finalize the front height. I can't decide if I like the current rake, or going to crank back up one or two turns. I should be under 7" Z height reguardless, which is better than the 8" Z height I was at.
 

CrustyJunker

Is STILL Here?
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
553
Reaction score
382
Location
Indiana, USA
Sounds like you have it all figured out. Taking Z height into account is definitely the right way to do it. I know one day I'd like to buy a real lift kit and decrank my front end. Should allow me to retain my ride height, but have better ride and steering/suspension geometry.

The Ranchos will likely make a negligible difference in your ride height. So you may want to go up a turn if you want less rake. Looks good!
 

Moresnowdays

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Central NY
My hope is to really go through the whole truck in 4-5 years after we finish paying off debts. Then I'll do a real lift as well.

For now I'm just trying to decide if it looks silly with the rake like this, or leave it to keep the front optimal.
 
Top