User1213 2006 Roadtrek 210 Popular Build

[markopolo]

I'd guess that the warning note from TufTruck on the TTC1617 & TTC1617A: "Note: Not suited for City/Mini Buses" is about comfort.

Chevrolet/GM Products

It would be worth asking them about the warning as it might be there for some other reason.

I wouldn't want anymore than the 1.031 bar diam. coils in my van unless there were no other options. At best it would be described as a "sport" suspension as it is now. A .975" or 1" bar diameter would probably have been a great mix of comfort & handling for my van.

[User1213]

Originally Posted by markopolo

I'd guess that the warning note from TufTruck on the TTC1617 & TTC1617A: "Note: Not suited for City/Mini Buses" is about comfort.

Chevrolet/GM Products

It would be worth asking them about the warning as it might be there for some other reason.

I wouldn't want anymore than the 1.031 bar diam. coils in my van unless there were no other options. At best it would be described as a "sport" suspension as it is now. A .975" or 1" bar diameter would probably have been a great mix of comfort & handling for my van.

I'm starting to suspect that the specs he gave me are incorrect too. When the comparisons are made and reports analyzed it sure looks that way.

[booster]

It seems like we are all drifting to a similar point, and that is we don't have a clue what is going on.

I am starting to think that comparing the springs between manufacturers, based on specs like wire size, spring rate, predicted lift, etc, isn't accurate enough to make any really informed decisions.

About the only calculated predictions that came really close were the ones that Marko did for his van using the MOOG specs as far as I remember.

If my best guess is right, there may be major issues with the Tufftruck information both initially, and probably now. I think the springrates and amount of lift information have to be suspect at this point.

I hope Erb will be willing to give his calculated springrate information to the public, and maybe an explanation of how the "progressive" properties he mentioned to me come into play, as in at what heights, bumps, etc.

What all this may boil down to is that if you want a predictable lift that is in the "normal" 2" range (more on that down further), we should have a specific vendor spring to recommend, and not try to cross it to others based on specs. This will only happen by getting some much better actual before and after data on what the various springs do and trying to purge the not so good data. If other than the "normal" lift is desired, having it made by the same place that made the normal upgrade spring would probably be the best, as you would know how much you wanted to vary from that spring that they make. Much easier for them than others at that point.

I also think that I, and probably most everyone else, have fallen into a trap of giving data that is, in reality, not the right data. We are always talking about how much lift different springs will give, and this is not what will happen. Different springs will, pretty consistently, put the finished van at the same trim (also wheelwell I think) height, with an adjustment for weight variations at the wheels, but the amount of lift will be determined by where the height started, and be different for every van.

I would suggest that what folks should be seeing when they show up for information, which is happening more and more often would look something like this:

Spring X (vendor,PN, etc defined) will give you a wheelwell height of **.* with a front end weight of **** pounds. Adjust up or down **.* inches for every 100# of difference in front end weight. Or some variation of this.

I think this may be the only way to not lead folks off track, or get pulled off track ourselves into making predictions that could be way off, or not.

For those of us that are data driven, this is very difficult to deal with, as the data all gives different results, it appears.

[User1213]

Originally Posted by markopolo

The coils wouldn't be fully unloaded. They're limited by the maximum extension of the shock absorber. Not sure if or how that factors into your calculations.

looking at this again, it poses a serious issue using a spring with a reported 2 inch lift-that spring might lift my 210 against the shock absorber extension limit and that wouldn't be good.

Booster - I agree, it's confusing and anyone reading this thread should understand that we are not dealing with absolutes other than actual results reported by members using specified springs.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

looking at this again, it poses a serious issue using a spring with a reported 2 inch lift-that spring might lift my 210 against the shock absorber extension limit and that wouldn't be good.

Booster - I agree, it's confusing and anyone reading this thread should understand that we are not dealing with absolutes other than actual results reported by members using specified springs.

I think you will be OK with 2" of spring lift, as I don't think anything that affects shock length has moved with your knuckle lift. 2" is likely to put you just about at factory recommended trim height, which would make the stock length shock perfect. That is how ours turned out.

Looking again at the wire sizes, which primarily control springrate, and your front weight, the 1" may truly be the best so it doesn't get too harsh. You do need to determine the right spring to do that though, and information I get from Erb and our van should help that and be available in about a week.

I looked back at your pix and did some very rough calcs based on measuring the computer screen and it appears you will lose almost the entire weight of the bike and the much of the carrier off the front wheels when you have it on the back. Losing another 300# (if that is the right number) of front end weight is certainly not desirable and will certainly affect harshness and understeer tendencies. Another reason to stay softer on the springrate, I think.

[User1213]

Originally Posted by booster

I think you will be OK with 2" of spring lift, as I don't think anything that affects shock length has moved with your knuckle lift. 2" is likely to put you just about at factory recommended trim height, which would make the stock length shock perfect. That is how ours turned out.

Looking again at the wire sizes, which primarily control springrate, and your front weight, the 1" may truly be the best so it doesn't get too harsh. You do need to determine the right spring to do that though, and information I get from Erb and our van should help that and be available in about a week.

I looked back at your pix and did some very rough calcs based on measuring the computer screen and it appears you will lose almost the entire weight of the bike and the much of the carrier off the front wheels when you have it on the back. Losing another 300# (if that is the right number) of front end weight is certainly not desirable and will certainly affect harshness and understeer tendencies. Another reason to stay softer on the springrate, I think.

it's going to interesting seeing what I will get. Hopefully all of this brainstorming and working with vendors will get us some answers. Regardless I will be open with what I use & find in order to help other owners who might be lurking.monitoring this discussion.

Re the bike on the back, adding extra air to the air springs (to increase aft lift) can be used to counter the weight. "Jacking" it up some will steepen the forward lean geometry and keep the right amount of weight on the front wheels.

I may load the finished carrier and motorcycle onto the 210 and do a before and after weigh in. Check the front axle weight with the 210 clean and then load it up, see what weight is on the front end. Using the Wireless air I could work with the scale operator, adding air in the rear springs until I see the same front end weight. It might take a bit of time but I would at least know where to set the air pressure to.

Another option would be to measure the distance from the front bumper to the pavement with the 210 clean, then add the bike and remeasure after jouncing the front end and allowing it to settle. Then add air to bring the front end down to the original height.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Re the bike on the back, adding extra air to the air springs (to increase aft lift) can be used to counter the weight. "Jacking" it up some will steepen the forward lean geometry and keep the right amount of weight on the front wheels.

I may load the finished carrier and motorcycle onto the 210 and do a before and after weigh in. Check the front axle weight with the 210 clean and then load it up, see what weight is on the front end. Using the Wireless air I could work with the scale operator, adding air in the rear springs until I see the same front end weight. It might take a bit of time but I would at least know where to set the air pressure to.

Another option would be to measure the distance from the front bumper to the pavement with the 210 clean, then add the bike and remeasure after jouncing the front end and allowing it to settle. Then add air to bring the front end down to the original height.

Adding air to the bags is not going to move a significant amount of the weight from the rear axle to the front as the angle is so tiny the center of gravity will barely move at all.

Best to do a before and after on the scales to see for sure, as all the dimensions we really know are the wheelbase at 155", and not where the CG for add on carrier and bike fall.

If you have 300# of bike and carrier, I wouldn't be surprised that you see near 500# added to the rear and 200# removed from the front, but those are guesses.

[AZ ADVenturist]

Hey Hondo, welcome to the 'B' world. Great read about your 210 & the build you have done so far. G.L. w/ your suspension lift. I went through some of the same gyrations a couple years ago w/ our '02 RT- ended with a half@$s job after to much time & $ experimenting . Drove it like that a while but was never happy. Finally sold it then search for another found a barely used '13 model. We love it, but I'm thinking about the lift "thing" again. I read all the lift threads, especially 'Booster's" posts (he is the Guru!) Just don't know if I'm ready to start that dance again. I'll be following your posts!
BTW, it's good to see a fellow ADVenture Rider on this forum.
Regards, Ric. in Arizona.

[User1213]

Thanks Ric!

[User1213]

Heres the email I got from Tuftruck-

Here below are the current specs on the TTC-1617 that will not be changing. This coil is for the Diesel engine. We have a one year warranty, if you were to order them and you felt they were wrong you can have them returned. These coils need to be compressed to install and therefore a Spring shop would be needed to do the work

TTC-1617 Chevy/GMC Van G 30/35/45 Duramax Diesel Cab & Chassis 2003-2017 (2wd) Front Heavy Duty Coils with a 1.5"-2" Lift 1.062 bar size 1880 spring rate
Free length- 18 inches
Coils - 8 coils

[Mat Mobile]

Hi Hondo!

Welcome to the forum. You really are jumping straight into the action.

Your thread really gets all the members curious and excited! I also plan to lift my van with a kit from Weldtec designs. Unfortunately my van is a 1998. But I will keep a close eye on the results.

It did get me curious about my coils. Jeremy, the owner at Weldtec had told me there really wasn't a viable option for coil springs. After looking at my favorite source for parts, Rockauto, I found only one Moog option for my 1998 3500, the 81012:


But, after looking at other combinations (year, 2500 vs. 3500, engine, etc.) I also found the following of the same size (especially ID):

81004:


81006:


81008:


81010:


Just adding to the collective information.

As for me, for sure I will swap the coils when installing my lift spindles, but which one I will choose... I have no idea for now!

[booster]

I am sure Marko will jump into this, as he did his previous version Chevy with Moog springs.

Here is a link to a post in this thread of the springs he considered. The cross references to others is also around previously, so you should be able to get something pretty readily.

http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8...html#post60419

I couldn't find his thread on the project, but will look more if he doesn't jump in. Found Marko's thread.

http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f8...ings-4136.html

[Mat Mobile]

I summarized the Moog information given in post #111 in one table (I wish a moderator would let me edit the original post and remove all those images... Sorry... )



You can also download the attached files which have all the info, links and applications.

Also, at the end of this link "MOOG UNIVERSAL COIL SPRING SPECIFICATIONS", (or once you've selected your filters) you will find all the information about the values given in the table.

Hopefully this is useful for other people looking for information on coil springs.

[markopolo]

Mat - I opted to try the 81008 over the 81012 in my 1997 3500 van. (1997-2002 series) I ended up with 2.25" lift measured at the wheel well. It was right at the upper limit (into the plus number of the plus minus range) for Z trim specs. I was prepared to cut the spring if it ended up being too high. Thankfully I didn't have to do that. Booster helped me through the entire process.

There are various opinions out there about cutting coil springs. TuffTruck told me they didn't recommend it.

A newer van owners (2003 & up) like Hondo would likely only be interested in 81006 & 81004 specs.

[User1213]

Received the replacement LED light
bulbs" for the interior today, bright and warm-

[Deano]

Hey Hondo,
How about some links for the LEDs and the florescent replacement tube?
Thanks

[User1213]

Ok, sure-

For the overheads- (I needed 10)

10X G4 12V 2W SMD5050 Cabinet LED Spot Light Spotlight Bulb Lamp Warm White | eBay

The LED tubes- you will have to bypass/rewire/remove the ballast-

12-30V DC-LED F8T5 Tube Light-T5 12" (Overall 11-7/8")-4W Warm 3000K for RV | eBay

[User1213]

Still researching the coil springs....

but...

Got my RV Superbag today!

I ordered the King Size bag with sheets, Imperial Gold. The great thing anout the bag is it has a summer and a winter side- just flip it over.

It came in a reusable plastic zipper bag-



I laid it out in the Roadtrek 210 -



Nice interior pattern as well -



The sheets are designed to velcro into the Superbag -



Ready for some snoozin' (well, need a few pillows)-



Very high quality, made to order in the USA by a family owned business, recommended if you are looking for an easy solution!

[Deano]

Hondo, tell us about the head board at the rear doors. I've been thinking about something like that.

[User1213]

The headboard is just the seatback, behind the cushion a plywood wall.

While you can sleep in the van lengthwise, the king set is from side to side.