Just roll with a rover, bound to have an extensive tool kit
2002 Sequoia Limited 4WD
- Thread starter Sal R.
- Start date
Just roll with a rover, bound to have an extensive tool kit
Yeah. First 4X4 experience was with in High School with my buddies ancient Series IIA 88". No synchro in 1st and second and the Lucas electrical system was constantly failing. We actually spent a good portion of our summer between our JR and SR years replacing the ENTIRE system with an aftermarket kit. That's where we learned the Rover joke "Why do the British drink warm beer?" "Because Lucas makes their fridges".
Sal R.
Active member
np at all.
Sal R.
Active member
MODIFICATION: Fox Coilovers and Durobump Bumpstops
GOAL:
Improve ride quality.
PURPOSE:
With the added weight up front and the added unsprung weight of the wheels, tires, and the Solo hardware, the 2.5 Kings or ICONs couldn't keep up, faded quickly, and rode rather harshly.
DURATION: 4 hours
MATERIALS:
Fox Coilovers 880-06-420
plasticsguy Durobumps for 3gen T4R
COST: $2000
HOW-TO:
Suspension installs is covered in depth all over the internet so I'm going to stick to the highlights.
Mounting surface to eye center comparison pic:
Kings (19-1/4") vs. ICON ET (20-1/4") vs. Fox (20-3/4")
For reference, pictured are:
King CO with 14" 650lb coils
ICON ET CO with 14" 700lb coils (not pictured is original 13" 650lb coils)
Fox CO with approximately 16" 650lb coils
The Fox's approximately 16" spring and 1/2" longer overall extended length than the ICON ET was a huge plus since this makes use of almost all the available travel afforded by the Solo kit.
Because the coil is so long, clearances get tight around the CV axle. Additionally, as mentioned in a previous post, my 13WH calipers with T4R/GX470 rotors will make contact with the coil at full stuff with steering hard over. Going to need to be mindful of that.
Installation-wise, the Fox's was a real pain in the ass to install. Out of the box, the height adjustment collar and lower eye were "backwards." What this means is that if I didn't rotate both to an appropriate position, I'd have to remove the assembly to adjust height and the lower coil would make contact with the axle. Additionally, I needed to clock the reservoir fitting inboard so that it cleared the Total Chaos UCA at full droop.
Because of the Solo spindles taking up so much room, I had to unbolt the UCA to install the CO because clearances got real tight. Even then, it was like playing heavy Tetris to get it to fit.
Awhile back, I installed the Wheelers superbumps made for a 2gen Taco. While it "fit," it rode on my LCA at my desired ride height.
Worked well enough, but I was not satisfied with this solution so I started looking for a replacement. Under low speed, the sides would feel like it was being "lifted up." I surmised that the bumps constantly contacting the LCA was interfering with the suspension doing its job.
Scouring T4R.org, I came across the Durobumps. It's made of a stiffer material, tapered for a more full contact, and approximately 1" shorter.
The difference was night and day. The added space means that the suspension could do its job before contacting the bumps.
Coupled with the Fox, ride quality was greatly improved. I didn't have that floaty feeling anymore and my underdamped oscillation was gone.
Win.
Hope this is the last suspension I purchase for the front.
GOAL:
Improve ride quality.
PURPOSE:
With the added weight up front and the added unsprung weight of the wheels, tires, and the Solo hardware, the 2.5 Kings or ICONs couldn't keep up, faded quickly, and rode rather harshly.
DURATION: 4 hours
MATERIALS:
Fox Coilovers 880-06-420
plasticsguy Durobumps for 3gen T4R
COST: $2000
HOW-TO:
Suspension installs is covered in depth all over the internet so I'm going to stick to the highlights.
Mounting surface to eye center comparison pic:
Kings (19-1/4") vs. ICON ET (20-1/4") vs. Fox (20-3/4")
For reference, pictured are:
King CO with 14" 650lb coils
ICON ET CO with 14" 700lb coils (not pictured is original 13" 650lb coils)
Fox CO with approximately 16" 650lb coils
The Fox's approximately 16" spring and 1/2" longer overall extended length than the ICON ET was a huge plus since this makes use of almost all the available travel afforded by the Solo kit.
Because the coil is so long, clearances get tight around the CV axle. Additionally, as mentioned in a previous post, my 13WH calipers with T4R/GX470 rotors will make contact with the coil at full stuff with steering hard over. Going to need to be mindful of that.
Installation-wise, the Fox's was a real pain in the ass to install. Out of the box, the height adjustment collar and lower eye were "backwards." What this means is that if I didn't rotate both to an appropriate position, I'd have to remove the assembly to adjust height and the lower coil would make contact with the axle. Additionally, I needed to clock the reservoir fitting inboard so that it cleared the Total Chaos UCA at full droop.
Because of the Solo spindles taking up so much room, I had to unbolt the UCA to install the CO because clearances got real tight. Even then, it was like playing heavy Tetris to get it to fit.
Awhile back, I installed the Wheelers superbumps made for a 2gen Taco. While it "fit," it rode on my LCA at my desired ride height.
Worked well enough, but I was not satisfied with this solution so I started looking for a replacement. Under low speed, the sides would feel like it was being "lifted up." I surmised that the bumps constantly contacting the LCA was interfering with the suspension doing its job.
Scouring T4R.org, I came across the Durobumps. It's made of a stiffer material, tapered for a more full contact, and approximately 1" shorter.
The difference was night and day. The added space means that the suspension could do its job before contacting the bumps.
Coupled with the Fox, ride quality was greatly improved. I didn't have that floaty feeling anymore and my underdamped oscillation was gone.
Win.
Hope this is the last suspension I purchase for the front.
Last edited:
Kpack
Adventurer
Okay, I've got a couple of questions for you because I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to suspension.
1. How was the ride harsh prior to the Fox coilovers? Were you noticing it only off road, or was it noticeable on road as well?
2. How does unsprung weight affect the ability of the coilovers to function properly?
3. Does the Fox 16" 650 lbs spring hold the front up enough? And did you have a harsh ride with the 14" 700 lbs springs on the Icon's that you used prior? I ask because I'm overdue for a shock rebuild and one of the shops I was talking to thinks I might be oversprung in the front (Icon's with 14" 700 lbs King springs). My ride is pretty harsh right now, but they also said that could be from the nitrogen having gotten past the seal and mixing with the shock oil. If it's a spring issue I may consider a longer 650 lbs spring. You and I probably have a similar amount of weight on the front.
4. You mentioned it was a tight fit with the CV axles. Have you noticed any rubbing on the boots at all?
5. Is there any benefit to running longer bumps like you are, or are the stock bumps sufficient?
1. How was the ride harsh prior to the Fox coilovers? Were you noticing it only off road, or was it noticeable on road as well?
2. How does unsprung weight affect the ability of the coilovers to function properly?
3. Does the Fox 16" 650 lbs spring hold the front up enough? And did you have a harsh ride with the 14" 700 lbs springs on the Icon's that you used prior? I ask because I'm overdue for a shock rebuild and one of the shops I was talking to thinks I might be oversprung in the front (Icon's with 14" 700 lbs King springs). My ride is pretty harsh right now, but they also said that could be from the nitrogen having gotten past the seal and mixing with the shock oil. If it's a spring issue I may consider a longer 650 lbs spring. You and I probably have a similar amount of weight on the front.
4. You mentioned it was a tight fit with the CV axles. Have you noticed any rubbing on the boots at all?
5. Is there any benefit to running longer bumps like you are, or are the stock bumps sufficient?
Sal R.
Active member
Prior to the Fox's, the ride was under-damped once the shock fluid faded and saturated with heat. I would notice/feel an excessive amount of oscillation after large bumps or imperfections on the road. It was noticeable on/off-road. Steering had the tendency to become unstable around highway, high-speed turns due to the excessive oscillation.
What I was experiencing was that the shock not adequate enough to damp out the coil compression in a reasonable amount of time (4-5 vs. 1-2 cycles).
"Function properly" can be subjective. The coilover will still function, but the the question you should really be asking is how long would it take before the coilover would complete it's job and stop the oscillation.
Anytime you add weight, you increase the amount of energy that needs to be dampened out by the shock, regardless of weight supported by the coils (engine, bumper, winch, etc.) or unsprung weight (wheels, tires, spindles, LCAs, etc.).
Additionally, added weight will compress a given coil more under the same impact.
To give you an idea...
Before bumper, winch, and spindles with Kings/Icons: 2-3 oscilations before damping out coil compression
After bumper, winch, and spindles with Kings/Icons: 4-5 oscilations
After bumper, winch, and spindles with Fox: 1-2 oscilations
To dampen out the extra energy added by weight, more fluid friction is needed and more fluid mass is best to resist fade (heat saturation).
650 vs 700 is subjective. My goal is minimal lift so the preload on either is small.
Personally speaking, I found the 700s stiff and didn't really allow the suspension to cylce on-road. Off-road, it felt like one side was being "lifted up," but I could also attribute that to the Wheeler's bumps stops riding the LCA.
I also didn't like that it exerted more load on the LBJ.
I think this may one of those things you just need to feel out for yourself. A 14" 650 coil might be the ticket, based on your description.
No rubbing here.
The coil on the Fox's are so long (~16") that it reduces clearance near the axle. If the lower eye spacer on the Fox's are not facing aft when installed, the axle will hit the coil when the suspension compresses.
Adding the longer bumps makes it less jarring when the suspension compresses completely. You don't get the "bang" feeling when coming off a ledge or similar.
Additionally, longer bumps can limit your upward travel, which could be a good thing if you don't want your tires hitting the upper fender or wheel well.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
Fox, ICON, King Coilover comparison feedback.
To save myself some time regarding messages, here's my feedback on all the above.
ICON Extended Travel (E: 20-1/4"):
This was the first suspension I tried based on user feedback. Configuration was stock with 295/70R18 (34s). Out of the box, it came with 13" 650 lb coils. Guessing from the wrap count, it's a linear rate coil. They rode okay. I did not feel they did well on relatively flat desert terrain, but were okay.
After the tube bumper, winch, brakes, and Solo spindles, I had them rebuilt with 700lb linear rate coils. Was not happy at all. The coils were too stiff and didn't compress well. They also faded quickly with the higher spring rate and all the added weight for on/off-road highway driving.
Kings (E: 19-1/4"):
This was purchased to replace the ICONs with the 13" coil. Configuration was stock with 295/70R18 (34s). Out of the box, it came with 14" 650 lb linear rate coil. The ride was way better and handled desert terrain better.
After the tube bumper, winch, brakes, and Solo spindles, the Kings rode much better than the ICONs on 700 lb coils. They faded too, but not as quickly as the ICONs on/off-road highway speeds.
Fox (E: 20-3/4")
This was purchased to resolve the fade issue. Out of the box, it came with a 16" 650lb linear rate coil. It rides as nice as stock with Kings before all the added weight. Has the most usable wheel travel of the three systems.
I'd estimate about 300lbs of added weight up front when factoring in the Group 31 battery, bumper, winch with synthetic rope, Solo spindles, hi-lift, 18s, and 295/70s.
To save myself some time regarding messages, here's my feedback on all the above.
ICON Extended Travel (E: 20-1/4"):
This was the first suspension I tried based on user feedback. Configuration was stock with 295/70R18 (34s). Out of the box, it came with 13" 650 lb coils. Guessing from the wrap count, it's a linear rate coil. They rode okay. I did not feel they did well on relatively flat desert terrain, but were okay.
After the tube bumper, winch, brakes, and Solo spindles, I had them rebuilt with 700lb linear rate coils. Was not happy at all. The coils were too stiff and didn't compress well. They also faded quickly with the higher spring rate and all the added weight for on/off-road highway driving.
Kings (E: 19-1/4"):
This was purchased to replace the ICONs with the 13" coil. Configuration was stock with 295/70R18 (34s). Out of the box, it came with 14" 650 lb linear rate coil. The ride was way better and handled desert terrain better.
After the tube bumper, winch, brakes, and Solo spindles, the Kings rode much better than the ICONs on 700 lb coils. They faded too, but not as quickly as the ICONs on/off-road highway speeds.
Fox (E: 20-3/4")
This was purchased to resolve the fade issue. Out of the box, it came with a 16" 650lb linear rate coil. It rides as nice as stock with Kings before all the added weight. Has the most usable wheel travel of the three systems.
I'd estimate about 300lbs of added weight up front when factoring in the Group 31 battery, bumper, winch with synthetic rope, Solo spindles, hi-lift, 18s, and 295/70s.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
Regarding Kings coils, I'm not really sure. The coils are too tightly wound to be linear with the amount of uptravel required to compress the suspension.
Considering that the ICONs were originally valved for linear rate springs, if the King's are a progressive coil, it could be too much for it. So, no surprises there.
EDIT: Heard back from a rep for Kings and all their coils are linear rate.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
MODIFICATION: Home Depot Hidden Snorkel
GOAL:
Reduce chances of water ingress during water crossings.
PURPOSE:
Not really a fan of the traditional snorkel "look," so I opted to follow seanpistol's and a few other first gen Tundra/Sequoia example with the hidden snorkel modification.
DURATION: 4 hours
MATERIALS:
3"x3' ABS piping
3" tight 90deg elbow coupler
3" 45deg elbow coupler
COST: $30
HOW-TO:
The basic steps are:
When enlarging the hole on the fender, I thought it best to enlarge downward to minimize the angle of the ABS piping to the airbox.
When enlarging the hole on the airbox, I also enlarged the hold downward. This way, I was sure that the top of the ABS piping would clear the air filter.
I used about 5.5" inches of the 3" ABS piping to make the new inlet for the airbox.
I left about 1.5" sticking out past the fender to accept the 90deg elbow.
Once that was complete, I assembled the rest of the snorkel.
All the joints were glued together and the airbox-ABS inlet pipe joint was sealed using JB weld.
Clearances were tight since I opted to mount it as high as possible. As a result, I shaved down the mating sections to increase clearances between the snorkel intake and the outer fender piece.
I didn't terminate into the cowling behind the firewall like all others who have done this mod. I, personally, didn't think it was necessary for my intended use.
The waterline would have to be up to the door pulls to ingest water. If the water is that high, chances are, I'm not crossing it.
In hindsight, I could've saved $7 if I skipped the 45deg elbow. Don't know why I didn't think of it when I was mocking it up.
GOAL:
Reduce chances of water ingress during water crossings.
PURPOSE:
Not really a fan of the traditional snorkel "look," so I opted to follow seanpistol's and a few other first gen Tundra/Sequoia example with the hidden snorkel modification.
DURATION: 4 hours
MATERIALS:
3"x3' ABS piping
3" tight 90deg elbow coupler
3" 45deg elbow coupler
COST: $30
HOW-TO:
The basic steps are:
- Remove stock airbox.
- De-couple stock inlet from airbox.
- Remove fender.
- Enlarge hole on airbox to 3.5" to accept 3" ABS piping.
- Enlarge hole on fender to 3.5" to accept 3" ABS piping.
- Assemble snorkel.
- Gravy.
When enlarging the hole on the fender, I thought it best to enlarge downward to minimize the angle of the ABS piping to the airbox.
When enlarging the hole on the airbox, I also enlarged the hold downward. This way, I was sure that the top of the ABS piping would clear the air filter.
I used about 5.5" inches of the 3" ABS piping to make the new inlet for the airbox.
I left about 1.5" sticking out past the fender to accept the 90deg elbow.
Once that was complete, I assembled the rest of the snorkel.
All the joints were glued together and the airbox-ABS inlet pipe joint was sealed using JB weld.
Clearances were tight since I opted to mount it as high as possible. As a result, I shaved down the mating sections to increase clearances between the snorkel intake and the outer fender piece.
I didn't terminate into the cowling behind the firewall like all others who have done this mod. I, personally, didn't think it was necessary for my intended use.
The waterline would have to be up to the door pulls to ingest water. If the water is that high, chances are, I'm not crossing it.
In hindsight, I could've saved $7 if I skipped the 45deg elbow. Don't know why I didn't think of it when I was mocking it up.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
Initially, I was going to do what you had done, but in the end, I did not feel confident about cutting a precise enough hole for the rubber 90deg elbow on the airbox side for a good seal.
I thought about opening up the hole on the fender more to push the 90 inward, but I figured it was easier to just shave the pipes.
Close enough is good enough.
?