Probably better to get new ones, some simple insurance, I was going to go with energy suspensions lo-pro style.

 

Those low profile poly ones are still gonna be harsh as hell. It's pretty much just one quieter step up from metal on metal. I'd stick with the stockers IMO.

And thanks for that link to Atomics thread! Wow, almost missed that. Looks like nice alternative to Brenthels mid travel kit, minus the boxed UCA and no King CO.

 

Thanks for the input on that, I went and looked again and found the 'competition' style ones look like the better choice.

I feel that the stockers are just too mushy for me.

 

Not posting for the sake of argument, but too mushy? Do you want a harsh hit at the end of the compression stroke? Stiffer bumpstop might require unnecessary increase in rebound damping to prevent bouncing when bottoming out too, that is if your rebound is adjustable separately.
If mellower increase in progression (mushy) is possible I'd rather have that instead of a steep spike like the poly bump will be, but if that's the last resort than at least that's better than metal on metal which could break parts, shocks, mounts... the mellower that curve increases (to a certain point) the better it might hide the transition from your shocks compression damping to the actual impact of the bumpstop, therefore better hiding the fact that you're actually bottoming out!

 

Been there done that

 

Well here is another mod to add to the list for the winter for the new project..

Good info in here, thanks for posting

 

Well when you put it like that it makes perfect sense! I guess I didn't fully understand what exactly the bump stop does.
And really, I appreciate your advice, thanks.

So the next thing I'm wondering about is, are they supposed to rest on the control arm? I can't remember where I heard that, don't know if its true.

And as you can see from the pic I posted I had to trim the bump stop and part of the metal surround - so I should probably cut that back all the way so it's just the rubber correct? - Trying to minimize metal to metal contact.

 

Yeah. I took mine off because they rested on my lca at 4". Guess I'll put them back on.

 

Hey when you bought the Ridetechs for $250 each, did that include the Stud upper mount?
Are they the HQ adjustable series?
I see on their site that the HQ series is $250/PC, but upper Stud mount for adjustable series is $75/PC on top making them $325... or is there a deal to get them without eyelet mount for same price??

Also, what length Stud mounts did you guys get, 2", or?
Does that actually add 2" more to overall length or what's the deal?

I might try to call Ridetech tomorrow but just want to see if I can clarify some things here beforehand.

I might go with some of the 4.1" travel coilovers with. 10" spring and gamble that it'll clear my CV shaft!

After much research it seems the Ridetechs Mono tube developed with fox is a far superior product over QA1 and Strange and many other twin tubes...
Just wish I could justify splurging on the Triple adjustable with remote reservoir, but at over twice the cost.... idk.

 

The stud mount was a $25 add-on, so they were $275 a piece. And it was the standard length stud mount that they ship them with, I think you would have to order them separate if you wanted a taller stud. - Looking at the catalogue they list 3 different sizes 2" being the shortest and looks like what I have/what they ship with.

(what I got) And you can see the difference in length between the two, not much 0.3".


Yup HQ single adjustable. (would be nice to splurge on the triples/remote reservoir but $$$) Also never really liked the QA1's I had, and RideTech's/Fox are better quality/fit and finish.

Looking at Atomics set-up there seems to be plenty of room even w/o the lower bracket.

It's kind of hard to tell from the pic you posted, do you know how much room you have between the shock and CV?