Should I return these Rancho RS5000X shocks for the 2-4 inch version?

FJQue

FJQue

TJ Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
229
Location
Kansas City
My lift is starting to arrive today & I'm checking part numbers on my phone and now I'm seeing that the shocks that I thought I read were recommended are too short?!? Damn.
I read & read, seems like my luck, I got these RS55128s and the ProComp 2" springs, should I return the shocks for the 2-4s??? I wanted those bit I read someone's comment about spring falling out bc too much droop..

IMG_20200317_183309.jpg
 
I don't remember the part numbers, but Ranchos tend to run long. So for <2.5" lift you often want the 0-2" lift shocks. I have the 2-4" lift ranchos and they are too long for the current 2" OME springs.
 
That makes me feel a little better I think. The lift springs are 2" ProComp & I'm gonna assume there's no way in hell they lift anywhere near as high as OMEs. This should yield about 2" or under from what I'm reading. Hoping the 0-2" Ranchos not only ride good but offer flex on the trail. It's all about the droop.. Crossing fingers.
 
FJQue said:
That makes me feel a little better I think. The lift springs are 2" ProComp & I'm gonna assume there's no way in hell they lift anywhere near as high as OMEs. This should yield about 2" or under from what I'm reading. Hoping the 0-2" Ranchos not only ride good but offer flex on the trail. It's all about the droop.. Crossing fingers.
Click to expand...

From my experience it seems to be all about the up travel (while allowing some amount of droop) :)
 
rasband said:
From my experience it seems to be all about the up travel (while allowing some amount of droop) :)
Click to expand...
Thank you both for reassurance, I guess with droop I feel like you have a better chance of keeping 4 wheels in contact and with ups you may be limited but you'll still have all 4 planted, no?
 
FJQue said:
Thank you both for reassurance, I guess with droop I feel like you have a better chance of keeping 4 wheels in contact and with ups you may be limited but you'll still have all 4 planted, no?
Click to expand...

If @jjvw can weigh in, I think we will all benefit. He can likely articulate it better than me.

My understanding is mostly around when the tub is pushed out of the way (Which shifts the balance). It seems better to keep the weight on the high side verses the low side.
 
rasband said:
If @jjvw can weigh in, I think we will all benefit. He can likely articulate it better than me.

My understanding is mostly around when the tub is pushed out of the way (Which shifts the balance). It seems better to keep the weight on the high side verses the low side.
Click to expand...
I can see where you're going with that..
 
50/50 travel is the ideal goal, but not always possible on stock mounts. Given a choice, I might lean towards more up than down, especially if more down meant adding more bump stop extension for the longer shock body.

Up travel gives the tire somewhere to go before moving the body up and out of the way. Less up travel is causing the body to be pushed and leads to instability. This is one of the reasons LCoG is a misguided idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJQue and rasband
I have the 2" ProComp spring with the 0-2" shocks and they are just the right length. See my build (in my signature) for all the details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJQue
jjvw said:
50/50 travel is the ideal goal, but not always possible on stock mounts. Given a choice, I might lean towards more up than down, especially if more down meant adding more bump stop extension for the longer shock body.

Up travel gives the tire somewhere to go before moving the body up and out of the way. Less up travel is causing the body to be pushed and leads to instability. This is one of the reasons LCoG is a misguided idea.
Click to expand...
The crusader of uptravel himself, Josh, is correct here. LCOG builds are only viable if they preserve the same amount of uptravel as a standard suspension lift. This is difficult to achieve and requires cutting and reworking the body to fit the parameters. The trade offs are extreme. Ask me how I’m feeling on 1” suspension 1.25” BL on 33”s. Bad. I’m one free night away from putting the 4” spring I had back in :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FJQue and rasband
jjvw said:
50/50 travel is the ideal goal, but not always possible on stock mounts. Given a choice, I might lean towards more up than down, especially if more down meant adding more bump stop extension for the longer shock body.

Up travel gives the tire somewhere to go before moving the body up and out of the way. Less up travel is causing the body to be pushed and leads to instability. This is one of the reasons LCoG is a misguided idea.
Click to expand...
That makes sense, I am shooting for LCOG as possible, that's way down the road. I appreciate this because the physics of wheeling intrigues me quite a bit.. and I'm just now in a place in life where I can wheel & also own the toys to do it.
 
CodaMan said:
I have the 2" ProComp spring with the 0-2" shocks and they are just the right length. See my build (in my signature) for all the details.
Click to expand...
I used your profile as a guide actually, thanks! At the last minute I switched to the Rancho 2-4" because I was thinking I'd get more droop and knew I'd be doing a 1" BL.
I for some reason switched my cart back to what you have and when the shocks came in I googled the part numbers real quick instead of trying to find your profile, just to make sure the correct parts arrived and 3/4 of the first threads I ran were guys recommending the 2-4s. I was like oh man, dammit at first but sounds like it's going to be fine..
 
  • Like
Reactions: CodaMan
BuildBreakRepeat said:
The crusader of uptravel himself, Josh, is correct here. LCOG builds are only viable if they preserve the same amount of uptravel as a standard suspension lift. This is difficult to achieve and requires cutting and reworking the body to fit the parameters. The trade offs are extreme. Ask me how I’m feeling on 1” suspension 1.25” BL on 33”s. Bad. I’m one free night away from putting the 4” spring I had back in :)
Click to expand...
Didn't work out??? That's my ideal tire size, 33s. I plan to eventually spend more money on MetalCloaks or something that will give me stuffing room but whatta I really know, haha
 
FJQue said:
That makes sense, I am shooting for LCOG as possible, that's way down the road. I appreciate this because the physics of wheeling intrigues me quite a bit.. and I'm just now in a place in life where I can wheel & also own the toys to do it.
Click to expand...

LCoG as a specific goal is misguided. Better to build a well functioning, balanced suspension where the various movements are controlled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taylormade73 and FJQue
FJQue said:
Didn't work out??? That's my ideal tire size, 33s. I plan to eventually spend more money on MetalCloaks or something that will give me stuffing room but whatta I really know, haha
Click to expand...
33”s are a great tire size. But don’t get suckered in to thinking less than 4” of suspension lift is a good idea for that tire size. You should shoot for equal up and down travel like @jjvw is saying. Metalcloak is a lot of money for 1” more up travel over stock fenders :)
 
BuildBreakRepeat said:
33”s are a great tire size. But don’t get suckered in to thinking less than 4” of suspension lift is a good idea for that tire size. You should shoot for equal up and down travel like @jjvw is saying. Metalcloak is a lot of money for 1” more up travel over stock fenders :)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I've just always really liked them, thanks for the 4" tip, this will be a long slow build so I should have a lot of time for trial & error..
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuildBreakRepeat
Top Bottom
Back