ley me ask you something I put the fox shocks on my 04 rubicon with a 3"lift the fox web site has fronts for 3 to 4.5 travel but the shock has way more down then up on the shaft,,,,the rears say 2.5 to 3 I believe an they are perfect in the middle of up or down travel...is this a problem...wht would fox make rears diff.then front?
Up-travel: What's the big deal?
- Thread starter jjvw
- Start date
My head is spinning after reading through this thread, but once everything settles down I think I will have a much better understanding of what I should aim for in my lift plans. Thanks for all the expertise and explanations.
So when people add LOWER shock mount relocation brackets to get more ground clearance, they're losing up travel?
Also, it seems in the three years since this original post, these bolt on UPPER shock mount relocators have been discontinued. Is that something worth pursuing to get a little more up travel, and does anyone make one these days?
Brianj5600
TJ Expert
OP
Raising the lowers without also raising the uppers while keeping the same shock will result in less up travel.
I've been dealing with this issue lately. Having bar pin eliminator front and back reduces about 1 inch of uptravel. Rear shock extensions also reduce about 1/2 of uptravel. These options could be a great way to keep your up/down travel where you want it when lifting your rig. With my mild lift, I try to maintain at least 3.5-4" of uptravel from the shocks. Larger lifts will require 4-8" of travel. If you see more than 8" of shiny bar coming from your shocks, your down travel will prob. be your limiting factor.
LONGJP2
TJ Expert
Thinking of adding BPEs (in the rear) to increase down travel.
Is there any merit to those that say rotating the pin 90° is better for the bushing?
Edit: I'm going to move my question to General Discussion.
Is there any merit to those that say rotating the pin 90° is better for the bushing?
Edit: I'm going to move my question to General Discussion.
Last edited:
Absolutely love this tread bc it explains the purpose of not only uptravel but the benifits of having a 50/50 split.
I recently learned why genright runs a lower lift height and less up travel (they use a higher anti squat to raise the body in high speed stuff to get that 50/50 split) this is only achieved by using coil overs to make coil bind a not issue. While they will say low cog is the way for the rocks and their suspension is the solution for the up travel issue in speed, it really doesn’t. Even in for their idea of making up travel in speed there are benefits mentioned here about having the 50/50 split at ride height that still make the savvy mid arm a better system even in the design perspective genright has made (savvy doesn’t uses a higher antisquat to gain uptravel and uses the proper antisquat to not have wheel hop)
I recently learned why genright runs a lower lift height and less up travel (they use a higher anti squat to raise the body in high speed stuff to get that 50/50 split) this is only achieved by using coil overs to make coil bind a not issue. While they will say low cog is the way for the rocks and their suspension is the solution for the up travel issue in speed, it really doesn’t. Even in for their idea of making up travel in speed there are benefits mentioned here about having the 50/50 split at ride height that still make the savvy mid arm a better system even in the design perspective genright has made (savvy doesn’t uses a higher antisquat to gain uptravel and uses the proper antisquat to not have wheel hop)