Question about bump stop vs available travel

[Derek b]

I was wondering your alls thoughts on the following.

Assuming there isn't anything else causing interference in the front suspension and I am able to fully utilize my available travel with nothing rubbing or binding:

Would it be better to have a slightly shorter shock that gives me 6 inches of up travel and 3 inches down, and uses 2 inches of bump stop?

Or would it be better to get a slightly longer shock that allows for 4.5 inches up and 4.5 inches down, but requires 4inches of bump stop.


Is there any dis advantage to having that much bump stop in the front? It would be like having 3 hockey pucks on the pad plus the rubber jounce in the cup. Or maybe I could more even distribute that between the top and bottom with a longer upper bump stop.

And assuming having that many inches of bump stop isn't going to be bad, I'm assuming the only differences between those 2 would be based on the kind of off roading you do?

This is just more of a technical question. I'm just mostly curious of if there's any major downsides of having that much bump stop to achieve an even spread of available travel.

 

[toximus]

How do you feel about raising the towers?

 

[Derek b]

How do you feel about raising the towers?

Id rather not. This was just more of a technical question based around those limitations to understand if there's pros or cons to more or less bump stop. I know with more modifications I could make it all around better.

 

[jjvw]

Are these actual shock length options that you have available?

My thought is that the stock travels ought to be maintained as a minimum. While I like up travel, your hypothetical 3" down does not achieve that.

 

[Derek b]

Are these actual shock length options that you have available?

My thought is that the stock travels ought to be maintained as a minimum. While I like up travel, your hypothetical 3" down does not achieve that.

yeah these would be actual lengths that are available. With where my jeep sits with my current springs, I have around 8 inches of travel before my bump stops hit. With one shock, i would need a 2 inch bump stop because it would only allow me about 6 inches of up travel. And about 3 inches down.

Theres a longer shock though that would give be about 4.5 up and 4.5 down, but it would require longer bump stops. about 4 inches.

Those are rough estimates right now because I dont have my actual measurements with me. So i was just wondering, in a perfect world, without me having to change any mounting points, would having 4 inches of bump stop, and an even distribution of up and down movement be better, than less bump stop but with more up movement than down.

 

[xxdabroxx]

Usually a longer shock has more travel, can you get a longer version of shock "A" and get a little less up but even more down?

What lift do you have and what shocks are you looking at?

In other words, I would want more than 3" down travel while maintaining as much up travel as possible.

 

[Sundowner]

Why is the amount of bumpstop a consideration past necessity?

 

[Derek b]

Usually a longer shock has more travel, can you get a longer version of shock "A" and get a little less up but even more down?

What lift do you have and what shocks are you looking at?

In other words, I would want more than 3" down travel while maintaining as much up travel as possible.

I have a 3 inch lift. Im looking at the rancho rs9000xl's They have one on their site that says its for a 2.5 inch lift and it matches the shocks that currently have, in terms of compression and extension lengths. But they also have a shock that says its for a 3.5 inch lift. That is the one that would give me a more even spread of up and down travel, but would require more bump stop to keep me from bottoming out the shock.

 

[jjvw]

Why is the amount of bumpstop a consideration past necessity?

Agreed. I've worked to have just enough bump stop. Though, recently I have come to understand that even my previous ideas of "just enough" might be a bit excessive.

 

[Derek b]

Agreed. I've worked to have just enough bump stop. Though, recently I have come to understand that even my previous ideas of "just enough" might be a bit excessive.

Well thats my whole thing. I want just enough bump stop. But that "just enough" will be a different amount depending on which shocks i choose. If i want to have an even spread of up and down travel with the longer shocks, then i will need to have about 4 inches of bumps stop. I just want to make sure theres not any downsides to doing that. that 4 inches would be just enough to keep the shock from bottoming out, and would let me have a shock that give me an even spread of up and down movement, but i want to make sure that having that much bump stop isnt a smart idea. if so, then i would go with the other shocks and have more uptravel, and less down travel, but also less bump stop (but still jsut enough to keep from bottoming out that particular shock)

 

[xxdabroxx]

Front 2.5" lift 9000 shock:

• Compressed Length: 14.640
• Extended Length: 23.090
• Travel Length: 8.450

Front 3.5" 9000 shock:

• Compressed Length: 16.110
• Extended Length: 25.970
• Travel Length: 9.860

The latter has over an inch more travel than the former which to me is a fair bit of difference and changes your calculation a bit.

Front 2.5" 5000x shock:

• Compressed Length: 14.430
• Extended Length: 23.840
• Travel Length: 9.410

Front 3.5" 5000x shock:

• Compressed Length: 15.690
• Extended Length: 26.420
• Travel Length: 10.730

The 5000x series shocks get you almost another inch of travel and the compressed length is even shorter than the 9000's. I have the 5000x series and am fairly happy with them until I go to something fancier that I can have custom valved. With your 3" suspension lift I would go with the 2.5" lift version as Rancho's shocks tend to be a bit on the long side particularly on the front. My rears seem to be fine but the front needs about an extra inch of bump stop over my previous shocks.

 

[jjvw]

I suggest that you identify what the minimum bump stop requirement is separate from the shock. That will focus your options by telling you what the shortest compressed length really is. Ignore the recommended lift heights entirely.

The 9000's have a long compressed length compared to others with similar travel. I mention that because the long term value of the compression adjusters seems to be questionable.

Beyond that, just enough bump means just enough to prevent damage. It is what is. Build around what that is. Some amount of rubbing might not result in damage. Slow speed contact might not result in damage either. Sometimes the pursuit of preventing damage means (re)moving things out of the way.

 

[Alex01]

My .02 is go with the rancho rs5000x for the 2.5 inch lift. You will get a bit smaller of a compressed shock body and about 1" more in travel over the rs9000.

 

[Derek b]

Front 2.5" lift 9000 shock:

• Compressed Length: 14.640
• Extended Length: 23.090
• Travel Length: 8.450

Front 3.5" 9000 shock:

• Compressed Length: 16.110
• Extended Length: 25.970
• Travel Length: 9.860

The latter has over an inch more travel than the former which to me is a fair bit of difference and changes your calculation a bit.

Front 2.5" 5000x shock:

• Compressed Length: 14.430
• Extended Length: 23.840
• Travel Length: 9.410

Front 3.5" 5000x shock:

• Compressed Length: 15.690
• Extended Length: 26.420
• Travel Length: 10.730

The 5000x series shocks get you almost another inch of travel and the compressed length is even shorter than the 9000's. I have the 5000x series and am fairly happy with them until I go to something fancier that I can have custom valved. With your 3" suspension lift I would go with the 2.5" lift version as Rancho's shocks tend to be a bit on the long side particularly on the front. My rears seem to be fine but the front needs about an extra inch of bump stop over my previous shocks.

So when you say you would go with the 2.5, you mean in the 5000x version, right? Is there any downside of having the 9000xl in the rear, and the 5000x in the front? My rear shocks are absolutely shot and Ive got some 9000lx ordered for that already. The ride has been so rough for a while, that I was skeptical to lock myself into the 5000x because i wouldnt be able to make it softer. I havent gotten them yet, so I could return them and get the appropriate 5000x, if that would be better to have a matching set.

 

[Alex01]

So when you say you would go with the 2.5, you mean in the 5000x version, right? Is there any downside of having the 9000xl in the rear, and the 5000x in the front? My rear shocks are absolutely shot and Ive got some 9000lx ordered for that already. The ride has been so rough for a while, that I was skeptical to lock myself into the 5000x because i wouldnt be able to make it softer. I havent gotten them yet, so I could return them and get the appropriate 5000x, if that would be better to have a matching set.

I don't see a problem mixing the shocks front to rear. The rancho rs5000x are very nice riding shocks compared to the OME nitrochargers and bilstein 5100 I've ran in the past. If you can return the rs9000x for free I would since the rs5000x are cheaper....

 

[xxdabroxx]

I wouldn't be afraid to mix them, but you could probably return them and pay for all four shocks for what the adjustable ones cost.

I would go with the 5000x for the 2.5" lift personally. It's up to you though, I look at the rancho's as an intermediary shock. They are 100% better than the pro-comp shocks I had and ride better than my GMC pickup with bilstein shocks but I plan to replace them someday with something better. The something better is likely years away though.

 

[jjvw]

I don't know this first hand, but I doubt the 9000 can be adjusted softer than the arguably too soft 5000x.

The rear is hard enough to get decent travels out of the stock mounts. The sizes of the 9000 don't help with that at all.

 

[Derek b]

I wouldn't be afraid to mix them, but you could probably return them and pay for all four shocks for what the adjustable ones cost.

I would go with the 5000x for the 2.5" lift personally. It's up to you though, I look at the rancho's as an intermediary shock. They are 100% better than the pro-comp shocks I had and ride better than my GMC pickup with bilstein shocks but I plan to replace them someday with something better. The something better is likely years away though.

yeah they hadnt shipped yet so im canceling the order to go with the 5000x for front an rear. I was just nervous about not being able to adjust it if they were too hard. But Im pretty sure my fear of a rough ride is just coming from having had bad shocks for quite a while now, so anything will be a step up. And ive seen a lot of praise here for the 5000x. Thanks for the help guys!

 

[xxdabroxx]

What shocks do you have now?

My Jeep is no cadillac thats for sure but it rides pretty darn good for a lifted solid axled short wheelbase vehicle.

Something else that can have a tremendous affect on ride quality, what size tires and pressure are you running?

 

[Alex01]

Don't forget if you spend over $200 you get $50 back. So make sure you're not buying a set for $199

Link was old.... Ill look for a new one.

ENDED MAY 31st