[Daz7]

Are the shocks on a 1.3 Sierra ute (SJ50T) the same length as the Hardtop and softtop SWB versions?

The OME shocks on my Zook on the rear appear too short (The dust covers sit higher than the shock body and show exposed shaft) although I've not flexed the thing to see if they are.

Anyway, ordered a set of OME shocks to suit their 2" lift kits and their the same shock as what I currently have. On going through their catalogue if appears they use the same shock to suit both standard and lifted Zooks.

I was told the springs on the car were TJM with a 3" lift but I've never heard of TJM selling a spring with over 2" lift. So just trying to suss out if the ute has different shocks and I need to go looking for a shocks based on open and closed lengths or the OME ones are just short (or maybe the springs really do provide 3" of lift!)

[SierraDan]

Are the shackles longer than standard?

[Gwagensteve]

3" of lift is the problem. Sierras are deigned for 6" of rear travel, with roughly 3 up and 3 down as stock. 3" of lift means there's no room left in the spring or shock design for there to be any droop - the shock is topped out.

My guess is that if you flex the car up, it will be almost impossible for the spring to compress far enough for the axle to reach the bumpstop, and if you let it droop with the shocks disconnected, I bet there's not much droop left int he springs because the shackles will want to invert.

Unless you want to change the shock mounts, I'd lower the car by taking some leaves out.

You can run longer shocks, but you'll need bumpstop spacers to stop the shocks bottoming, so you won't necessarily gain much wheel travel.

To get the springs to work as you have now, In my opinion, you'd want to change the upper shock mount, increase the shackle length, but pull the shackle hanger on the chassis forward. This will increase the droop available. Obviously, this is a fabrication job.

I'm not a fan of 3" lift springs.

Steve.

PS before SWB owners recommend shocks, it's worth noting that Utes have the shocks mounted vertical and around the other way to SWBs. They mount to the chassis and not on the crossmember. There's less scope for a longer shock without changing mounts or adding bumpstop spacing. It's the same shock AFAIK, just mounted differently.

[Daz7]

Looks like the culprit could be 3" lifted springs then....

[SierraDan]

That dust cover seems to exacerbate things a bit too as it looks pretty short.

[Gwagensteve]

Hmm - from your description Daz7 I was expecting something much worse than that.

Those look to be not over 2" of lift - there looks to be less than 5" of compression travel to the bumpstop, maybe 4." That looks fine to me.
Yes, that's a very short dust cover. Interesting - I think that's a reasonably recent change. My guess is it's been shortened to stop the brake line bracket on WT sierras snagging the dust cover when they are fully compressed, which used to happen a lot.

Jack the chassis up and check for droop. I think the spring and shock will run out of travel at about the same time.

I think those springs are appropriate for a LWB ute - after all, they are designed for carrying stuff.

Steve.

[SierraDan]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Yes, that's a very short dust cover. Interesting - I think that's a reasonably recent change. My guess is it's been shortened to stop the brake line bracket on WT sierras snagging the dust cover when they are fully compressed, which used to happen a lot.

Steve.

By ARB? or with a grinder?

Just the sticker seems to be made for that dust cover.

[Gwagensteve]

No, by ARB. Definitely looks as manufactured.

Steve.

[Daz7]

I'd say thats how the shocks came with the short dustcover, they haven't been trimmed.

As I said will have to flex the thing up and check everything but it didn't look right and just presumed I needed longer shocks. Glad my first thought that its got 2" lifted springs isn't too far out too.

[SierraDan]

Gwagensteve wrote:

No, by ARB. Definitely looks as manufactured.

Steve.

Well that's nice of them!