Spacer lift vs. Spring lift

[MAC_Detail]

There is always some misconceptions about spring vs. spacer lifts.

Figured I would throw this out there to get some information in the forum.

Spacer Lifts-
Pros - cheap, first to market, doesn't change static position of shock
Cons - You just added the spacer thickness of droop, and are now added more angle into the CV's then was designed for. This can be said for bushings, sway bar end links, tie rods, etc. (true for struts, multilink rear may or may not have these problems depending on what is actually done)

Spring Lifts-
Pros - Does not change suspension travel/droop. Rate can be increased/decreased for load/ ride comfort.
Cons - Increases static ride height and position of shock, limits droop. Too much rate increase and overwhelm OE valving.

Do people combine these two? Yes, should they? Absolutely not, but that hasn't stopped crosstrek owners lol.

At the end of the day lifting an SUV, or in our case "truck" that is based off of a car platform will have limitations. 1.5"-2" of lift is about all you will get out of it with longevity and ride quality in mind.

Sponsored

 

[bgn]

Thanks for the writeup. 1.5-2" would give me about 10.1-10.6" of ground clearance with the 235 Falken Wildpeaks, so I'm fine with that.

 

[Camodude]

Thanks for the writeup. 1.5-2" would give me about 10.1-10.6" of ground clearance with the 235 Falken Wildpeaks, so I'm fine with that.

I agree, a modest spring lift and larger tires (235/70) will get me the ground clearance and truck height I am looking for.

 

[vezpa]

I plan on a 1.5-2 inch lift as soon as I get my truck. 2 inches with a slightly beefier tire is the best way to go on almost any rig without any real adverse effect.

 

[D K]

The same amount of lift with a spacer or a spring are going to have the same effect on CV angles and droop.

The difference is the spring will give you more theoretical compression and will have a better ride as long as it was tuned correctly.

With only an inch or 2 lift, its going to be mostly for looks anyway.

There is always some misconceptions about spring vs. spacer lifts.

Figured I would throw this out there to get some information in the forum.

Spacer Lifts-
Pros - cheap, first to market, doesn't change static position of shock
Cons - You just added the spacer thickness of droop, and are now added more angle into the CV's then was designed for. This can be said for bushings, sway bar end links, tie rods, etc. (true for struts, multilink rear may or may not have these problems depending on what is actually done)

Spring Lifts-
Pros - Does not change suspension travel/droop. Rate can be increased/decreased for load/ ride comfort.
Cons - Increases static ride height and position of shock, limits droop. Too much rate increase and overwhelm OE valving.

Do people combine these two? Yes, should they? Absolutely not, but that hasn't stopped crosstrek owners lol.

At the end of the day lifting an SUV, or in our case "truck" that is based off of a car platform will have limitations. 1.5"-2" of lift is about all you will get out of it with longevity and ride quality in mind.

 

[staryoshi]

Useful post, thanks. I dream of a Maverick Tremor.

 

[MaverickAngler]

Be nice if Beilstien 5100s ended up being available

 

[MAC_Detail]

The same amount of lift with a spacer or a spring are going to have the same effect on CV angles and droop.

The difference is the spring will give you more theoretical compression and will have a better ride as long as it was tuned correctly.

With only an inch or 2 lift, its going to be mostly for looks anyway.

I think what you are getting at here is that at 2" of ride height the CV angles will be the same, regardless of how the lift is achieved. This is definitely true.

To clarify, with a spacer lift on the front strut you are 100% adding droop to the front suspension. You are physically pushing the suspension down by the spacer amount. A spacer lift in the rear, since it is multilink will not. You just add the amount of spacer thickness to spring block height which can pose its own problems.

There is no way you change total travel using a spring to either lift or lower using OE struts/shocks, or OE length struts/shocks (Bilstein/koni/ect.). The only way possible is with a bad spring design that goes to block before the shock hits full compression, at which point you have much worse things to worry about.

Not sure what you mean about more "full compression". You could have a lift spring that creates the same force at full compression as the OE spring by having less spring rate.

An extra 2" of ground clearance will make a big difference with some small obstacles off road, coupled with some good tires. Its defintely not going to make it into a hardcore offroading machine.

 

[MAC_Detail]

Be nice if Beilstien 5100s ended up being available

I would think between this and the bronco sport, there would be enough demand for Bilstein to roll out something eventually.

 

[More w/Les]

Wonder how long it will take for the AM to offer some type of load compensating spring/shock arrangement for the rear suspension. Will be carrying a mid size mtc in the bed area, this will require the rear tire to be on the back edge of the tailgate.

Developed a mount to attach to the trailer hitch (4K tow pkg w/AWD) that allows a plate to extend from the hitch attachment to the bed of the truck. This removes the load from the tailgate, but does extend the load weight rearward thus creating more sag on the rear suspension.

Feel I will need some type of load compensation package to minimize handling problems. Short local trips might not be a problem, but know (don't ask) there will be issues on multi-day runs. Not going off road doing this, just gravel roads occasionally, most miles will be on paved roads. That said, there are a lot of 'paved' roads out there that are in very poor condition.

IIRC, many years ago, well maybe more than many, Monroe offered a set of load compensating shocks for pick-up trucks. Had a set on my C-10, no pumps, compressors, hoses or wiring required. As you drove, the internal shock valving was able to sense an imbalance in the load, front to rear and side to side. After a short distance it was able to self correct each rear shock to adjust for the imbalance. Didn't do a lot of heavy loads over long distances, so can't say they would have been adequate for commercial use, but for the type of weekend chores and mtc hauling I did, they worked exceptionally well, and did not adversely affect the ride quality, at least what ride quality there was in a 50 YO C-10.

Expect the ride quality and handling of my new Maverick will be LIGHT years ahead of my old C-10.

 

[MAC_Detail]

Useful post, thanks. I dream of a Maverick Tremor.

I'm not staying mustang s550 coilovers will work but maybe haha

 

[justiz00]

.

 

[ziggystar84]

So is there a consensus here on the best way to do this, all of the terminology is giving me headaches as a non-gearhead.

But I would love to get 1-2 inches of clearance.

 

[MAC_Detail]

As an alternative, a spacer lift like the Subaru crowd uses where you space the subframe down, then add an additional spacer to the top of the strut. This moves the suspension package down and allows for larger tires (more ground clearance), with essentially stock CV angles.

Ive seen crosstreks with subframe spacers, lift spacers, and springs. At 60kish miles they are clapped out, go figure haha.

The rear subframe spacers, you are also moving the rear diff down and now your drive shaft is out of alignment.

 

[D K]

with no increase in ground clearance

As an alternative, a spacer lift like the Subaru crowd uses where you space the subframe down, then add an additional spacer to the top of the strut. This moves the suspension package down and allows for larger tires (more ground clearance), with essentially stock CV angles.

Sponsored