Hondo's 2006 Roadtrek 210 Popular Build

[markopolo]

Great topic and great job on the upgrades btw.

I was just reading through from the beginning. Your 210 looks pretty awesome lifted up as you've done.

I'm puzzled by the front end weight but you've been to the scales twice now to confirm it. The total weight seems typical for a 210 though. If you max out to the rated GVW you'll be getting closer the rear axle max as it is very hard to get any weight to go to the front. I added 1000 lbs to my van at one point with only 20 lbs of that ending up on the front wheels. http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f5...html#post15012

[booster]

You will certainly need to tell Erb how much your front weight is, with people of course, if that is how you travel. Same is true when you get it aligned, getting similar weight in the front to when people are there can make it more accurate.

[Hondo]

Just got off the telephone with Tuftruck-

These are the specs of their current TTC-1617 Spring LINK

• 18" length
• 1.062 bar
• 8 coils
• Spring rate 1880
• 1 1/2 - 2 inches of lift

This seems to fall in between the -

The original Tufftruck 1617's that Photog and I have (may or may not still be available)

17.7" free length-same as the OEM spring
8 coils of 1.050" wire
2026lb/in spring rate per Photog
Spring compression 2.5"
Spring compressed height 15.2"
Height change at wheelwell 2.0"

and the

The first shot, softer/longer version from Tufftruck (1618?) that Photg got

19.7" free length
1427lb/in spring rate per Photog
number of coils unknown, but probably about 9, wire diameter probably 1.000"
Spring compression 3.5"
Spring compressed height 16.2"
Height change at wheelwell 4.33 "

Thoughts please?

[BBQ]

.

With only 3600 in the front,
how do you carry a bike in the back?
That would lift your front even more.

[Hondo]

Ya know, I didn't even notice it back there with only 5 psi in the bags. The leaf springs in the back are made for the lift, not sure of the specs, I'll find out. Adding more air calmed things down though, still experimenting with that.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Just got off the telephone with Tuftruck-

These are the specs of their current TTC-1617 Spring LINK

• 18" length
• 10.062 bar
• 8 coils
• Spring rate 1880
• 1 1/2 - 2 inches of lift

This seems to fall in between the -



and the



Thoughts?

The 18" is .3 longer than stock and the ratio to wheel is about 2.33 to 1 so all else not changing would give you about 3/4" at the wheelwells. My guess would be that spring would have 1.031 diameter wire, and would be very similar to some of the Husky and Moog versions. I think Marko has link to Moog that shows all the various versions and they are stock items. My guess is that spring would get about 2.0-2.5" of lift and as you said, would fall in between the other two listed. At this point it is hard to say how much rougher it will ride than the Erb spring in 1" wire, as we don't know the spring rate, and he said they are progressive which even harder to predict. They will be better than the stock spring sitting on the bump stop, though, as we all have seen that improvement.

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by markopolo

Great topic and great job on the upgrades btw.

Thanks

Originally Posted by markopolo

I was just reading through from the beginning. Your 210 looks pretty awesome lifted up as you've done.

I'm puzzled by the front end weight but you've been to the scales twice now to confirm it. The total weight seems typical for a 210 though. If you max out to the rated GVW you'll be getting closer the rear axle max as it is very hard to get any weight to go to the front.

After reading about a Dana 70 upgrade that might be a way to gain a little more capacity.

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by booster

The 18" is .3 longer than stock and the ratio to wheel is about 2.33 to 1 so all else not changing would give you about 3/4" at the wheelwells. My guess would be that spring would have 1.031 diameter wire, and would be very similar to some of the Husky and Moog versions. I think Marko has link to Moog that shows all the various versions and they are stock items. My guess is that spring would get about 2.0-2.5" of lift and as you said, would fall in between the other two listed. At this point it is hard to say how much rougher it will ride than the Erb spring in 1" wire, as we don't know the spring rate, and he said they are progressive which even harder to predict. They will be better than the stock spring sitting on the bump stop, though, as we all have seen that improvement.

Thanks for that!

I'd like to try Erb but really work off of specifications and multiple examples of proven lifts.

For me, I'm trying to get close to what Photog did as we both are using the Boulder Offroad 3 inch spindles. I'm not necessarily looking for additional body clearance but need to install a stronger spring in order to get it off of the bump stops thus improving handling.

When I went to the scales this morning I purposely took secondary streets that have very noticeable intersection swells and the bump stop issues really were apparent with opposite body roll (when suspension compressed) and steering wheel deflection, especially over sunken man hole covers.

I'm waiting to hear back from Boulder Offroad in order to get their opinion, hope to hear from them today.

[markopolo]

No recommendations for springs from me but happy to provide info to help solve the puzzle.

First some Moog data:

Moog 81004 to 81012.JPG

and a link with info: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8...html#post38933

That person installed Moog 81006 coils. My guess is that most would go with the taller 81004 if starting from scratch and adding airlift in the rear.

Also guessing both of those could be/might be too much for Hondo's already lifted 210. Just guesses here. Do your own research before buying.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Ya know, I didn't even notice it back there with only 5 psi in the bags. The leaf springs in the back are made for the lift, not sure of the specs, I'll find out. Adding more air calmed things down though, still experimenting with that.

Do you have the bags with the internal bump stop, or the plain hard stop bags?

The bags are going to take care of the back, with the springs, but they won't have any effect on the reduced front wheel weight and increased more than the bike weighs rear axle weights. I think that is what BBQ was referring to, and would a concern to me, as it will increase understeer and make the van more prone to wandering and wind push.

Nobody really knows what actual capacity of the Dana 60s is, if that is what you have. (just count the cover bolts, 12 would be the 60s as far as I know as long as it is a semi floater). They basically just rated the rear axle capacity at the tire max rating. The 60s is an upgrade of an upgrade to an upgrade of a 4000#ish axle from 50 years or more ago, so tough to tell. What we haven't seen is wholesale earlier failures in them, which is a bit surprising with how hot the wheel bearing run, except for a bad batch of housing in 2007, of which we had one. They often failed twice in less the 20K miles. You know they have pulled all the toys out of the bag when the wheel bearing is changed to a roller bearing that uses the axle itself as the inner race

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Thanks for that!

I'd like to try Erb but really work off of specifications and multiple examples of proven lifts.

For me, I'm trying to get close to what Photog did as we both are using the Boulder Offroad 3 inch spindles. I'm not necessarily looking for additional body clearance but need to install a stronger spring in order to get it off of the bump stops thus improving handling.

When I went to the scales this morning I purposely took secondary streets that have very noticeable intersection swells and the bump stop issues really were apparent with opposite body roll (when suspension compressed) and steering wheel deflection, especially over sunken man hole covers.

I'm waiting to hear back from Boulder Offroad in order to get their opinion, hope to hear from them today.

I don't want to complicate this more for you, but what you are describing could also be bump steer, which is pretty common in knuckle lifts, as the geometry changes, especially with the different offset wheels. It may get better with different springs, but may not, or even could get worse, I think. Bump steer makes for driving a tall vehicle on a road with bumps and dips wicked scary sometimes especially in the wind.

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by booster

Do you have the bags with the internal bump stop, or the plain hard stop bags?

The bags are going to take care of the back, with the springs, but they won't have any effect on the reduced front wheel weight and increased more than the bike weighs rear axle weights. I think that is what BBQ was referring to, and would a concern to me, as it will increase understeer and make the van more prone to wandering and wind push.

Nobody really knows what actual capacity of the Dana 60s is, if that is what you have. (just count the cover bolts, 12 would be the 60s as far as I know as long as it is a semi floater). They basically just rated the rear axle capacity at the tire max rating. The 60s is an upgrade of an upgrade to an upgrade of a 4000#ish axle from 50 years or more ago, so tough to tell. What we haven't seen is wholesale earlier failures in them, which is a bit surprising with how hot the wheel bearing run, except for a bad batch of housing in 2007, of which we had one. They often failed twice in less the 20K miles. You know they have pulled all the toys out of the bag when the wheel bearing is changed to a roller bearing that uses the axle itself as the inner race

The bags are older Air Lift models so I'm sure that they are not the newer bump stop springs.

As far as the leverage goes with the bike on the back, the weight of the bike is about 280 lbs, the rack maybe 50 lbs. I'm not sure if the weight & leverage were really a factor though on the trip - there was a squirrelyness that I attributed to a bad front tire (both tires that were on the front were replaced yesterday after isolating the wandering problem with the unloaded RT)

After the tires were changed driveability/stabilty was markedly improved. My independent alignment shop checked the alignment after the lift (I thought it was off) and it was spot on. They have seen many a tire (in business 60 years) whose internal bands were crooked or misaligned, and this caused the wandering according to them.

The axle rating for the Dana 60 is interesting. When I chose my wheels & tires I specifically looked at load capacity-

The ATX Ledge wheels are rated at 3,600 lbs each, 7,200 per axle.

The BFG All Terrain T/As KO2s are rated at 3,415 lbs each, 6,830 per axle.

With today's rear axle weight at 5,540 lbs they are good to go.

[booster]

Originally Posted by markopolo

No recommendations for springs from me but happy to provide info to help solve the puzzle.

First some Moog data:

Attachment 4532

and a link with info: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8...html#post38933

That person installed Moog 81006 coils. My guess is that most would go with the taller 81004 if starting from scratch and adding airlift in the rear.

Also guessing both of those could be/might be too much for Hondo's already lifted 210. Just guesses here. Do your own research before buying.

The 81004 looks to be a stock spring in bigger wire, maybe a few extra turns and probably would give him the small lift he wants, in the 1.5-2.0" range. It is interesting that it has a different springrate than the nearly identical Tufftruck spring Hondo posted about.

I didn't catch the type in Hondo's post about the Tufftruck spring. 10.06 wire must be 1.06 wire, but that would make it the same as the original Tufftruck springs that many have, and are in the list, rated at 2026# by Tufftruck. Very confusing, no wonder everyone gets different results, as going off the specs is really random between brands.

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by booster

I don't want to complicate this more for you, but what you are describing could also be bump steer, which is pretty common in knuckle lifts, as the geometry changes, especially with the different offset wheels. It may get better with different springs, but may not, or even could get worse, I think. Bump steer makes for driving a tall vehicle on a road with bumps and dips wicked scary sometimes especially in the wind.

From what I read Photog had none of that with the spindles and the taller springs? I remember he had a photo that showed his bumper up & away from the lower control arm stop, looked like 1-2 inches.

While I was out I stopped and took a pic of a new Chevy Express- not sure what model, it wasn't marked. The bump stop is just touching on the lower control arm-

[Hondo]

Just a thought....

Would removing the front anti roll bar effect the bump steer that I'm seeing?

[Hondo]

Originally Posted by booster

I didn't catch the type in Hondo's post about the Tufftruck spring. 10.06 wire must be 1.06 wire, but that would make it the same as the original Tufftruck springs that many have, and are in the list, rated at 2026# by Tufftruck. Very confusing, no wonder everyone gets different results, as going off the specs is really random between brands.

I fixed that-

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Just a thought....

Would removing the front anti roll bar effect the bump steer that I'm seeing?

I think that could go either way as it will increase the wheel travel on a single wheel bump on one side and decrease it on the other. Wouldn't hazard a guess on that one.

Removing the front swaybar should reduce understeer and make the steering more responsive to steering wheel inputs. It will also make the front ride smoother on one wheel bumps. On the downside it will increase sway and possible bump stability on stuff that happens on one side or the other.

I certainly don't want to put words in Photog's mouth, but I got the impression from his various posts over time that the van handled OK, and good enough to not outbalance the extra clearance gained and front wheel comfort increase. He mention that it didn't handle like an SUV, which has been a common comment, the other way, for many of us that feel they can get very similar to an SUV when they are handling well.

My guess would be that with a knuckle lift and different offset wheels (which may help or not help the scrub radius changes from the knuckle change), plus the extra height, there is likely not a way to get the van to handle as well as one that did spring lift/airbag 2" or so lift, especially if the bigger tires on wheels at factory offset are used. Depending on your tolerance of handling weaknesses, you may find it OK, as Photog has, or it may not be comfortable for you, as it likely would be for me.

Our van currently handles very well, and I would say SUV like. It is truly a two finger drive at 70+, even in all but the very worst gusty winds, then we don't have to slow down, it just takes a bit more attention. I find it fine to drive all day, up to about 12 hours, which is good for me and much longer and easier than when it was stock. Going higher is not something we need, so we won't have to make any compromise to get more lift.

[Hondo]

Sure, it is drivable as is but the bump steer issue is something I need to solve.

After reading about bump steer it seems like the cause is steering linkage not being parallel. As the Chevys don't have drag links & such that isn't a possibilty. I'm going to learn more about bump steer issues for sure.

I would be fine with a more truck like way of handling vs a suv, it just needs to be stable.

[Hondo]

Pic of the bump stop on the RT, not much different than the stock van that I looked at-



Here is Photog's post about his results-

http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8....html#post9284

His bump stop after the lift-

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Pic of the bump stop on the RT, not much different than the stock van that I looked at-



Here is Photog's post about his results-

http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8....html#post9284

His bump stop after the lift-

The only true way to tell if the trim height is correct is to measure it, which may not work with the knuckle change, I think, as it is the dimension from the lowest point of the ball joint casting to the center of the control arm pivot, and they may have moved, or not. I can say that everyone who has measured the trim height, and got it correct at 4.3" +/-.5" has the bump stop clearing by about 3/8" like the Photog pic. Were are nearly exactly on 4.3" and that is what ours looks like. I actually just measured it about a week ago when I was doing some more calculations trying to sort out the weird spring results.

The forums are full of stories of low and lopsided GM pickups, too, even when new, so it seems to be a common problem. I think with the vans it may be more likely that the right front would be low in stock form, but with all the rear weight, the Roadtreks and other loaded vans seem to be 3/4" low in the left rear. I have 3/4" of spacer under our RR spring on the axle, and now we sit level with matching airbag pressures.