Photog's Lifted Suspension 2009 Roadtrek 190V

[booster]

Originally Posted by Kyronecks

So we now have another lift package to add to the pile - this one I'll attribute to (blame-on ) Southside RV Corvallis, but the air bags are those recommended here - Firestone #2337 in the rear. In front are coil springs from Moog (NCP 277-3437) with a larger spring rate than the originals. The shocks and leaf springs are the unchanged originals - deemed OK.
The Moog springs allow the yellow bumpers to expand to their normal thickness. Before they were compressed to about half that. The air bags lift the leaf spring end at least 3/4 inch above the rebound leaf. The ground clearance at the gate valve low-point has increased from 7 inches to 9 and a quarter inches, so we shall trust our salvation to the extra two and a quarter inches.
The technician did a test drive, judging the ride to be "a nice, firm, stable feeling" without the previous tendency to "bounce".
My own judgment will be reserved until I complete my weekend Willamette Valley winery tour, starting tomorrow. (I intend that my judgment will remain unimpaired.)
The damage
1. Replace cable gate valve and tee assemblies (Parts:$124. Labor: $522.)
2. Install rear Firestone air bags (Parts: $280. Labor: $292.)
3. Install front Moog coil springs (Parts: $377. Labor: $636.)

On with the show!
Bob

Interesting info. I couldn't find any specs on that spring, so it must be relatively new. It is not in any of the catalogs yet.

I do find one thing very odd about where you were running originally, compared to the rubber bumpers. You say yours were compressed 1/2 way? Our front end way down a full 2" from stock, and we were still a bit above the bumper, but hitting it on bumps. I don't recall your year, perhaps it is different than our 07. With the Tufftruk springs we are about 1/2" off the bumpers.

[booster]

OK found it. It is actually a NAPA spring, but may be made by Moog. It looks to be a stock replacement spring for Express 3500 with 6.0 engine.

http://www.napaonline.com/Catalog/Catal ... 380221962#

applications

http://www.napaonline.com/Catalog/Buyer ... er=2773437

[Kyronecks]

The van is a 2007 190 Pop. I looked at the old and new springs before they were installed, and the Moogs definitely had more coils in the spring, though I'm not convinced they were any longer. I'm not clear on where we are riding now. I'll try to attach some images of the new installation. Wish me luck.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Kyronecks

The van is a 2007 190 Pop. I looked at the old and new springs before they were installed, and the Moogs definitely had more coils in the spring, though I'm not convinced they were any longer. I'm not clear on where we are riding now. I'll try to attach some images of the new installation. Wish me luck.

You do seem to be sitting lower than we are with the Tufftruk springs. We have the the new roof style, but that should not affect anything here.

You may want to look at the wheel offset thread, as there are some pics of our van there to compare to.

http://classbforum.com/phpBB2/viewto...t=2084&start=8

Here is another of ours in the garage, sitting level



More coils in a spring make it softer, less coils stiffer, so to get the same spring rate, a spring with more coils would have bigger wire diameter. More coils with bigger wire gives a more uniform, longer lasting spring so it is a good thing, plus they are slightly less progressive on big bumps. It is very common for the aftermarket springs to be of slightly different design, particularly more coils, bigger wire, as OEM springs are not usually very well designed, just designed to be inexpensive to make for the OEM.

[Kyronecks]

So it's 440 miles and eight wineries later.
I have to say that I agree with the assessment of Joe the Techie that the ride of my 190P has a solid, stable feeling, and the tendency to bounce roughly on moderate bumps is greatly reduced. Instead of the lingering lurching I've come to expect, I could feel the rapid damping in two or three cycles. I also think I do less correcting to track the road. I realize the subjectivity of these impressions, and the human tendency to find satisfaction in a costly 'experiment'. As a scientist I regret that I couldn't load up the van with recording accelerometers, and have a robot drive over a fixed course before and after the upgrade, but that kind of 'objective' experiment rarely happens in the real world. Of course improved ride and handling was not the primary purpose of the fix; that was more ground clearance to avoid bottoming out. After crossing over ten or twelve speed bumps (at low speed!) without mishap, I am hoping that goal was achieved.

Many thanks to those here assembled for giving me the guidance and courage to undertake the solution of a problem that threatened my RV lifestyle.

Bob

[MrRob]

HI Guys, Facinating thread!
I think the time has come to maximise my RT's on road handling and improve ground clearance issues. My van is on the OE suspension and shocks which having only covered 20K miles are 9 years old so I have decided to replace as much of the OE stuff as I can and go the Airbags, Tuftruck Springs and Bilstein route for the suspension and correct offset Wheels with 265/75R16 123 Tyres. Could you confirm I have my shopping list right as I am in the UK so need to ship the bits over from the US?

Airbags
Airlift Loadlifter 5000 - 57205
http://shop.airliftcompany.com/product/ ... VELING_KIT

Front Coil
Tuftruck TTC-1617 2005 and newer- Van G 30/35/45 Duramax Diesel
http://tuftruck.com/products/chevroletgm/

Shocks Rear
BILSTEIN 46mm Monotube Shock Absorber Part Number: 24-025706 Old Part Number: F4-BE5-2570-H0
http://cart.bilsteinus.com/product/24-025706/6459/RWD

Shocks Front
BILSTEIN 46mm Monotube Shock Absorber Part Number: 24-187435 Old Part Number: F4-BE5-G611-H0
http://cart.bilsteinus.com/product/24-187435/6459/RWD

Wheels
04-09 GMC Sierra-2500, 3500, Yukon, Suburban-2500, Chevy Silverado-2500, 3500 Steel COW-5198 #3076
Size:
16x7, 6-Spokes, 8-lug
Silver Finish Steel Wheel
http://www.capitalwheels.com/store/cust ... at=&page=1

Tires
265/275r16
Michelin 86851 LT265/75R16/E 123 R
http://www.michelinman.com/tire-selecto ... re-details

Thanks in anticipation

[booster]

Originally Posted by MrRob

HI Guys, Facinating thread!
I think the time has come to maximise my RT's on road handling and improve ground clearance issues. My van is on the OE suspension and shocks which having only covered 20K miles are 9 years old so I have decided to replace as much of the OE stuff as I can and go the Airbags, Tuftruck Springs and Bilstein route for the suspension and correct offset Wheels with 265/75R16 123 Tyres. Could you confirm I have my shopping list right as I am in the UK so need to ship the bits over from the US?

Airbags
Airlift Loadlifter 5000 - 57205
http://shop.airliftcompany.com/product/ ... VELING_KIT

Front Coil
Tuftruck TTC-1617 2005 and newer- Van G 30/35/45 Duramax Diesel
http://tuftruck.com/products/chevroletgm/

Shocks Rear
BILSTEIN 46mm Monotube Shock Absorber Part Number: 24-025706 Old Part Number: F4-BE5-2570-H0
http://cart.bilsteinus.com/product/24-025706/6459/RWD

Shocks Front
BILSTEIN 46mm Monotube Shock Absorber Part Number: 24-187435 Old Part Number: F4-BE5-G611-H0
http://cart.bilsteinus.com/product/24-187435/6459/RWD

Wheels
04-09 GMC Sierra-2500, 3500, Yukon, Suburban-2500, Chevy Silverado-2500, 3500 Steel COW-5198 #3076
Size:
16x7, 6-Spokes, 8-lug
Silver Finish Steel Wheel
http://www.capitalwheels.com/store/cust ... at=&page=1

Tires
265/275r16
Michelin 86851 LT265/75R16/E 123 R
http://www.michelinman.com/tire-selecto ... re-details

Thanks in anticipation

Welcome to the forum!

What model year is your van? Some of the parts changed with a design change that happened around 2003, when they eliminated the 454 engine option and freshened them up. It looks like most of your parts are for the newer style.

[MrRob]

Hi booster, thanks for the welcome

Mine is a Late November 2002 van built on by RT early 2003 and registered in the UK by March 2003, one of the first of the new shape I think.


2012-08-07-Yorkshire-Dales-P8070062 by BitchinRob ( http://MrRob.in ), on Flickr

wow ... it looks low to the gravel in that pic ... we'd got stuck on a "hump back bridge" just before this photo was taken. I had to reverse 1 mile up a 1:20 hill around tight bends and between dry stone walls to escape.

I think it is the same spec van as your version

[booster]

Originally Posted by MrRob

Hi booster, thanks for the welcome

Mine is a Late November 2002 van built on by RT early 2003 and registered in the UK by March 2003, one of the first of the new shape I think.


2012-08-07-Yorkshire-Dales-P8070062 by BitchinRob ( http://MrRob.in ), on Flickr

wow ... it looks low to the gravel in that pic ... we'd got stuck on a "hump back bridge" just before this photo was taken. I had to reverse 1 mile up a 1:20 hill around tight bends and between dry stone walls to escape.

I think it is the same spec van as your version

A quick look shows that the Tufftruk springs are 2005 and up. Numerous sites show the 2002 as having the 454 engine option, so it is the earlier model. Bilstein also shows a different shock for the front than you list. You won't be able to go from the parts list those of us with later models have used and will have to source parts for the earlier model.

[MrRob]

Originally Posted by booster

A quick look shows that the Tufftruk springs are 2005 and up. Numerous sites show the 2002 as having the 454 engine option, so it is the earlier model. Bilstein also shows a different shock for the front than you list. You won't be able to go from the parts list those of us with later models have used and will have to source parts for the earlier model.

Yep that was exactly why I was double checking before I went ahead, but I think mine is a Model Year 2003 van. I am sure campskunk is running the Tufftruk springs and Bilstiens in the same spec/age van i will double check with him before I go ahead.

Thanks Booster ... I will report back ...

[MrRob]

Here are the stock and TTC-1617 coil springs from campskunk's install. His van seems to be identical to mine age/spec wise.


TufTruk Springs by campskunk, on Flickr

Bilsteins list that part number 24-187435 (Old Part Number: F4-BE5-G611-H0) for the Model Year & spec of my van so I am happy there too ...

I think my parts list is OK for all Chevy RT's on the Newer 2003 or later Chevy chassis.

[campskunk]

rob:

remember, i am running maximum weight - 3800 on the front axle and 5800 on the back. you are probably a lot lighter, especially in the back. when i ordered the tuftruk springs a year or so ago, the guy there was telling me they had made a less stiff but still beefier than stock version because some folks were saying the 1617s were too much. i assured him that at my weight i needed all the spring rate i could get, and i was right. weigh your van, front and back, and call the tuftruk guys up with these numbers. they'll probably recommend the intermediate rate spring. what you want is a level ride. one nice thing about my suspension mods - i can crawl around underneath the whole van now without jacking it up. no need to raise it up to do oil changes, etc, which is nice because as a fulltimer i'm usually changing the oil in state parks, etc. stealth maintenance is one of my new skills.

i also have different numbers for the front shocks - mine are BE5-2480-H1 front and BE5-2570-H0 rear. i bought them 4+ years ago so they may have changed the recommendations, but they work fine for me.

are those used OEM wheels? if so, they probably have the right offset. if they're aftermarket, check the offset against the spec - i think it's negative 38 mm or something like that. i am still running the zero offset American Racing aluminum wheels that Rt put on mine, but i am on my third right wheel bearing assembly at 120k miles, and will switch to the stock chevy wheels with the correct negative offset if i lose another one.

here's a photo i just took from the same angle as the one of your rig, showing ride height.



campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

[MrRob]

Thanks for the info campskunk

I would guess I am not far behind you weight wise in running order as we always run full of water and there are normally 3 adults in the van ... and I prefer a firmer ride so i think I will try the heavier springs first. If they are the only part I get wrong I will be happy.

Your front shocks appear to be listed for the 1996-2002 van @ http://cart.bilsteinus.com/productsearch/BE5-2480-H1 and our vans are 2003 MY spec I think.

The wheels are the (singe rear wheel) Silverado 3500 16x7 inch steels discussed here http://classbforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2084 and seem to be the correct offset and spec for the bigger tyres.

My van is still below 20K miles from new ... so no bearing issues and I don't want any hence the wheel swap.

[booster]

Originally Posted by campskunk

rob:

remember, i am running maximum weight - 3800 on the front axle and 5800 on the back. you are probably a lot lighter, especially in the back. when i ordered the tuftruk springs a year or so ago, the guy there was telling me they had made a less stiff but still beefier than stock version because some folks were saying the 1617s were too much. i assured him that at my weight i needed all the spring rate i could get, and i was right. weigh your van, front and back, and call the tuftruk guys up with these numbers. they'll probably recommend the intermediate rate spring. what you want is a level ride. one nice thing about my suspension mods - i can crawl around underneath the whole van now without jacking it up. no need to raise it up to do oil changes, etc, which is nice because as a fulltimer i'm usually changing the oil in state parks, etc. stealth maintenance is one of my new skills.

i also have different numbers for the front shocks - mine are BE5-2480-H1 front and BE5-2570-H0 rear. i bought them 4+ years ago so they may have changed the recommendations, but they work fine for me.

are those used OEM wheels? if so, they probably have the right offset. if they're aftermarket, check the offset against the spec - i think it's negative 38 mm or something like that. i am still running the zero offset American Racing aluminum wheels that Rt put on mine, but i am on my third right wheel bearing assembly at 120k miles, and will switch to the stock chevy wheels with the correct negative offset if i lose another one.

here's a photo i just took from the same angle as the one of your rig, showing ride height.



campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

Hi Campskunk! Just noticed the comment about max weight on the front, and the one about 3800#. Our OEM door sticker shows 4300# max front, but I have heard others say theirs are 4100#. What does yours say?

[campskunk]

i am at maximum overall weight with full tanks - 9600 pounds. the individual limits for both front and rear axles are higher - 4300 front, as you said, and 6084 rear (exactly double the tires' 3042 weight rating, so that tells you what the weak link is). however, if you load both axles to the max, they will add up to way over the overall weight rating of 9600. i guess that's to give you some flexibility in how you load your cargo. i have 284 pounds to go to hit the rear limit, and 500 pounds to go to hit the front limit, so i could stand to shift some weight forward. i keep telling the mrs it matters whether she sits in the front seat or lies on the bed as we drive, but then she gets mad at me for some reason. i just don't understand these women.

campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

[booster]

Originally Posted by campskunk

i am at maximum overall weight with full tanks - 9600 pounds. the individual limits for both front and rear axles are higher - 4300 front, as you said, and 6084 rear (exactly double the tires' 3042 weight rating, so that tells you what the weak link is). however, if you load both axles to the max, they will add up to way over the overall weight rating of 9600. i guess that's to give you some flexibility in how you load your cargo. i have 284 pounds to go to hit the rear limit, and 500 pounds to go to hit the front limit, so i could stand to shift some weight forward. i keep telling the mrs it matters whether she sits in the front seat or lies on the bed as we drive, but then she gets mad at me for some reason. i just don't understand these women.

campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

Gottcha--you need the passenger seat moved to a front hitch receiver . It probably is conceivable that those of us without hitch carriers, an extra rear battery, solar, etc might actually have more weight on the front than you do, because of less weight behind the rear axle that unloads the front. I think I remember Photog saying he had something like 4500# on the front.

[campskunk]

what's really nice about oregon is that they leave the scales turned on in all these unmanned roadside weigh stations - you just drive up, weigh each axle, and drive off. there's a big digital display right in front of you. nice public service.

the info from rob about me having the shocks for the 2002 model year solves a little mystery that has been puzzling me - when i put the bigger springs in the front, i noticed when checking shock and suspension travel that the suspension would travel further down than the shock would allow. i solved the problem by shimming the top shock mount down about an inch, but always wondered why this was. i guess the 1998-2002 front end had shorter shocks than the 2003 and later models. with the stock springs and all that weight, i was down on the bump stops and length of travel was never a consideration, since the shocks were compressed so far most of the time. with the new springs i am riding high. i also wondered why everyone else was cussing the top rubber mounts that came with the bilsteins- mine have been working great. the problem must have surfaced with the later shocks.

campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

[booster]

Originally Posted by campskunk

what's really nice about oregon is that they leave the scales turned on in all these unmanned roadside weigh stations - you just drive up, weigh each axle, and drive off. there's a big digital display right in front of you. nice public service.

the info from rob about me having the shocks for the 2002 model year solves a little mystery that has been puzzling me - when i put the bigger springs in the front, i noticed when checking shock and suspension travel that the suspension would travel further down than the shock would allow. i solved the problem by shimming the top shock mount down about an inch, but always wondered why this was. i guess the 1998-2002 front end had shorter shocks than the 2003 and later models. with the stock springs and all that weight, i was down on the bump stops and length of travel was never a consideration, since the shocks were compressed so far most of the time. with the new springs i am riding high. i also wondered why everyone else was cussing the top rubber mounts that came with the bilsteins- mine have been working great. the problem must have surfaced with the later shocks.

campskunk

2003 Chevy 190 Popular - retired and fulltiming
we are here: http://map.datastormusers.com/user1.cfm?user=13303
our photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81571751@N00/sets/

Others have mentioned the lack of extension travel in the front shocks,also. It would be interesting to confirm that the Bilsteins have the same travel as the OEM shocks did. I did do a little reading on shock lengths for Chevy trucks. It was not really complete, but the composite seemed to be that they use a metal hard stop on the extension end of the front suspension (no rubber bump stop). The consensus was that the last thing you wanted was to have the suspension stop on the hardstop because it would bend or break things, so stopping on the shock is better. With the Tufftruk springs, our van is right at what the factory says the front height should be, so I doubt you are much off being right where GM says you should be. I wish I hadn't pitched our OEM shocks so I could compare. On the top mounts, if they look exactly like the OEM mounts, they are the right ones. Big washers, steel sleeves, rubber bonded to metal parts. If they are small, loose rubber parts with no metal sleeve, they are what they are sending now.

[MrRob]

Originally Posted by campskunk

the info from rob about me having the shocks for the 2002 model year solves a little mystery that has been puzzling me - when i put the bigger springs in the front, i noticed when checking shock and suspension travel that the suspension would travel further down than the shock would allow. i solved the problem by shimming the top shock mount down about an inch, but always wondered why this was. i guess the 1998-2002 front end had shorter shocks than the 2003 and later models. with the stock springs and all that weight, i was down on the bump stops and length of travel was never a consideration, since the shocks were compressed so far most of the time. with the new springs i am riding high. i also wondered why everyone else was cussing the top rubber mounts that came with the bilsteins- mine have been working great. the problem must have surfaced with the later shocks.

I noted earlier in this tread http://www.classbforum.com/phpBB2/vi...art=120#p10714 that AZ ADVenturist had a 2002 van and found the 1175's too stiff / big, so as they fitted I'd guess the dimensions of shock and springs are about the same but the leverage differs, probably because of longer suspension arms on the later vans.

Originally Posted by booster

Others have mentioned the lack of extension travel in the front shocks,also. It would be interesting to confirm that the Bilsteins have the same travel as the OEM shocks did. I did do a little reading on shock lengths for Chevy trucks. It was not really complete, but the composite seemed to be that they use a metal hard stop on the extension end of the front suspension (no rubber bump stop). The consensus was that the last thing you wanted was to have the suspension stop on the hardstop because it would bend or break things, so stopping on the shock is better. With the Tufftruk springs, our van is right at what the factory says the front height should be, so I doubt you are much off being right where GM says you should be. I wish I hadn't pitched our OEM shocks so I could compare. On the top mounts, if they look exactly like the OEM mounts, they are the right ones. Big washers, steel sleeves, rubber bonded to metal parts. If they are small, loose rubber parts with no metal sleeve, they are what they are sending now.

I'll make sure my OE shocks are kept & measured when we do the swap.

Booster can you confirm that you using Part Number: 24-187435 ( Old Part Number: F4-BE5-G611-H0 ) on the front of your van?

I must admit I am a little confused by the blue bit ... how do I get the "right" shocks? or have Bilstein changed the spec and the "right" ones are no longer available?

[peteco]

Originally Posted by campskunk

i noticed when checking shock and suspension travel that the suspension would travel further down than the shock would allow. i solved the problem by shimming the top shock mount down about an inch, but always wondered why this was.

campskunk

How were you able to shim the top mount down an inch? I need to shim mine down but it looks like I would only get 1/2" if I took the entire top bushing out and used washers on the shock shaft to push the shaft down.

Pete
2006 RT210P