Photog's Lifted Suspension 2009 Roadtrek 190V

[peteco]

It looks to me that the best solution is the original 1617 design. Same unloaded length as OEM. Same number of coils (I think). Just a thicker diameter wire.

Anyone else besides booster and myself have this spring?

Pete
2006 RT210P

 

[booster]

It looks to me that the best solution is the original 1617 design. Same unloaded length as OEM. Same number of coils (I think). Just a thicker diameter wire.

Anyone else besides booster and myself have this spring?

Pete
2006 RT210P

IIRC the original 1617 has more coils, which soften it a bit, but other than that it is exactly as you say, and I agree, it might be the best solution that can be done for us.

edit-changed less coils to more

 

[dicktill]

It looks to me that the best solution is the original 1617 design. Same unloaded length as OEM. Same number of coils (I think). Just a thicker diameter wire.

Anyone else besides booster and myself have this spring?

Pete
2006 RT210P

IIRC the original 1617 has less coils, which soften it a bit, but other than that it is exactly as you say, and I agree, it might be the best solution that can be done for us.

Hi Pete & Jim,

I also have these springs, purchased and installed in 2011. Can't find my notes on the difference in wire diameter (which makes a huge difference), but the attached photo shows the new spring on top, and it has more coils, which would make it softer (not the other way around). It looks like the wire diameter is smaller on the new spring in the photo, but I think that is just because it is further away; pretty sure it was significantly bigger.

edit: old wire diameter = 0.94", new wire diameter = 1.06".

Regards, Dick

 

[booster]

Bad typo or memory on my part. Less coils would stiffen it, not soften it--oops

 

[dicktill]

Bad typo or memory on my part. Less coils would stiffen it, not soften it--oops

Glad I've never done that! : )

 

[peteco]

I am reporting this info for the fellow Roadtrek owner (Bruce) that had troubles when his shop found the new model TufTruck 1617 springs wouldn't work in his 2008 Roadtrek 210.

His shop got a spring, part number SC20470. I found the springs on http://www.huskyspring.com. Husky also lists a couple of TufTruck springs as well. So they must get the springs from somewhere else. It should be nice to know who actually makes the SC20470 springs.

Here are some specs on the SC20470:
ID: 4.068
Wire Dia: 1.031
Rate/Inch: 1570
Load at rated height: 4960
Rated compressed height: 14
Free length: 17.159

Bruce told me he is happy with the ride, though, as expected, it is a bit stiffer than the OEM springs. He got almost 2 inches height increase.

I hope this information helps anyone considering raising their Chevy Express based Roadtrek. I suggest calling Husky to verify exactly what you are getting when ordering this spring.

 

[booster]

Very interesting, thanks for relaying the information.

Compared to the list we have of the other springs http://classbforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1616&start=308#p17469

Wire diameter a bit smaller at 1.031" than the original Tufftruck at 1.050"

Free height over 1/2" shorter at 17.159 vs 17.7 for the original Tufftruk and OEM spring

I am a bit surprised he got that much lift, as he should have lower rate, and a shorter free length than the original Tufftruck, but got nearly the same 2" lift.

It would be interesting to find out why they make the spring so short, as even the Tufftruck originals would go in without a compressor.

Hopefully Photog will drop back in and let us know how his is working. IIRC his last had the second generation longer/lighter Tufftruck in it, which looked pretty good, but did have some bow I think.

Just looked at the link info-didn't see the Tufftruck springs, though.

On the 3 part numbers that came up for our 2007, they look to be identical design, with only the free length changing. Same wire, same rate, etc. If that is the case, I would think the SC20468 would be the best choice, as it is stock length and would give a bit more lift with the same ride quality. That is the one they show for diesel vans.

I also played more with the spring rate chart http://www.pontiacracing.net/js_coil_spring_rate.htm and I can't get to the posted 2026# rate of the Tufftruck spring with the stated wire size and length, unless I go all the way down to 6.5 active coils, which it appears to have more than. The above new one we are looking at comes to the stated rate at 7.7 active coils which makes more sense.

 

[Photog-ClassB]

Hello Everyone,
Sorry for the silence. We have been very busy this summer; but not as much camping as I would like.

There have been questions about how the longer/lighter springs have been doing. They are great! They have not had any problems except for the shock feeling overtaxed on extension.

Compared to the RT Factory setup or the original TuffTruck 1617 springs, these longer springs will feel a bit wallowy (not a real word :wtf: ). The factory setup (short/soft spring) allowed the springs to compress enough to rest on the "overload" bumper. This urethane bumper increases the effective spring rate of the suspension, while in contact with this bumper. Our current springs (long/soft) get the suspension off this bumper and allow the suspension to travel through normal ranges without contacting the bumper. If this was the only change on your RV, the front suspension would feel softer, and it would move easier through its new range of motion. This will feel comparatively wallowy, but the RT Factory setup feels stiff and tight. The addition of a rear sway bar is a big help here, since there is so much weight on the rear axle.

I wonder how a typical Chevy work-van would drive/feel, after being loaded up. I suspect they feel a bit wallowy compared to the typical commuter car. My modified Toyota 4Runner feels that way compared to our Honda CRV, but our 4Runner and our RT feel similar (front suspension anyway). I don't know if there is a way to get the suspension up and soft, and still drive like the the RT Factory setup. That is the normal issue with sports cars trying to corner faster; the suspension has to be stiffer in a number of ways (springs, shocks, sway bars). No longer a comfortable ride.

 

[peteco]

I wonder if Roadtrek has considered special ordering from GM the gas engine Express van with the diesel front springs. Maybe the rear springs are different too. Since the weight difference is over 800 lbs (5567 vs 6409 lbs) I assume the diesel springs would raise the vehicle like the TufTruck or Brian's springs do. RT would need to add airbags like we have. I think RT190 and 210 buyers would be glad to pay to get the extra clearance.

I have not heard of anyone trying the GM diesel springs.

Pete
2006 RT210P

 

[booster]

Hello Everyone,
Sorry for the silence. We have been very busy this summer; but not as much camping as I would like.

There have been questions about how the longer/lighter springs have been doing. They are great! They have not had any problems except for the shock feeling overtaxed on extension.

Compared to the RT Factory setup or the original TuffTruck 1617 springs, these longer springs will feel a bit wallowy (not a real word :wtf: ). The factory setup (short/soft spring) allowed the springs to compress enough to rest on the "overload" bumper. This urethane bumper increases the effective spring rate of the suspension, while in contact with this bumper. Our current springs (long/soft) get the suspension off this bumper and allow the suspension to travel through normal ranges without contacting the bumper. If this was the only change on your RV, the front suspension would feel softer, and it would move easier through its new range of motion. This will feel comparatively wallowy, but the RT Factory setup feels stiff and tight. The addition of a rear sway bar is a big help here, since there is so much weight on the rear axle.

I wonder how a typical Chevy work-van would drive/feel, after being loaded up. I suspect they feel a bit wallowy compared to the typical commuter car. My modified Toyota 4Runner feels that way compared to our Honda CRV, but our 4Runner and our RT feel similar (front suspension anyway). I don't know if there is a way to get the suspension up and soft, and still drive like the the RT Factory setup. That is the normal issue with sports cars trying to corner faster; the suspension has to be stiffer in a number of ways (springs, shocks, sway bars). No longer a comfortable ride.

Thanks Photog, we had been wondering how it went wit them. Well stated, and certainly in line with what one would expect them to do. Wallowing describes very well I think.

It all boils down to having a lower spring rate for comfort makes the spring compress, and the wheel move, further on the same bump, corner, dip, braking, etc when compared to a higher rate spring. More wheel movement means more rocking, steering geometry changes, porpoising. As Photog says, that's just the way it is, and there isn't a lot you can do about it. If you increase shock or swaybar rates, you get harshness back, so it is a tough balance.

As I have said in the past, to me, our van feels that the pieces fit. In other words the springs, shocks, swaybars, etc match the forces that the weight and size of the van generate. Nothing is overpower something else. My 1996 Buick Roadmaster wagon rides a lot smoother, but it leans, bounces, etc a lot more than the van does. With height and weight of the van, I really like having the tighter suspension as it is much easier to drive. While smoother ride would always be nice, personally, I wouldn't be willing to accept "wallowing" to get it, I think. Others put a higher rating on ride over handling and might like it very much. All back to personal preference.

 

[bellbuoy]

I bought my 2005 Roadtrek 170 a couple of years ago and immediately noticed the low ground clearance and the less than stellar handling. I began researching solutions on the internet and came up with several things to do. First I installed some stock Chevy aluminum wheels. The wheels that Roadtrek install are offset almost 1 3/8 inch to the outside. This may make them look appealing in the wheel opening but it has detrimental effects on the loading of the front wheel bearings and on the steering geometry. The wheels helped some but it was not the total solution. Next came Bilstein Shocks. Aside from the shocking price, the ride actually got worse. They were too "springy". I would "bound" down the road over small dips and rises like a deer bounding through a field. Then came the FIX.
I had been following this exhaustingly long thread on Class B Forum regarding lifting the front suspension of Chevy 190"s. The springs being discussed would not work for me because my 170 is much lighter on the front wheels. They did, however, mention Bill Erb who operates Valley Spring Works near Sacremento. I made an appointment for when the weather got cool enough for us (we are northwest cool weather wimps) and we turned our car appointment into a two week camping trip. When we arrived, Bill showed us the suspension bump stops that we were practically riding on. The tie rods were not level which resulted in "bump steer". We were well below the factory specified "trim height". We figured that we needed to raise it about two inches. Bill had previously made up a set of springs based on our discussions that were constructed of a slightly larger diameter of wire. They were waiting for us when we arrived. After we got there he made some measurements, did some adjustments to the springs, installed them and after four hours the FIX was completed. The height ended up at two and three eights inches (how he does that is magic). That small increase in height completely transformed the handling. The larger diameter wire apparently has more internal resistance because now the "bounding" is gone. The ride is infinitely smoother due to no longer hitting the bump stops, and I am no longer "scraping by" in deep driveways or acute speed bumps. He did this for $500. I retired from owning an auto repair shop and I can assure you that this is a bargain! Bill knows more about springs and suspension than anyone I have ever encountered. Besides that, he is a genuinely nice guy.
Steve

 

[booster]

Very nice to see someone who is happy with how the spring change turned!

Did you happen to see the springs at all? It would be interesting to know if they were longer than the originals.

 

[Photog-ClassB]

Also, did you do anything to lift the rear, matching the 2" front lift?

 

[markopolo-ClassB]

I am reporting this info for the fellow Roadtrek owner (Bruce) that had troubles when his shop found the new model TufTruck 1617 springs wouldn't work in his 2008 Roadtrek 210.

His shop got a spring, part number SC20470. I found the springs on Husky Spring - Home. Husky also lists a couple of TufTruck springs as well. So they must get the springs from somewhere else. It should be nice to know who actually makes the SC20470 springs.

Here are some specs on the SC20470:
ID: 4.068
Wire Dia: 1.031
Rate/Inch: 1570
Load at rated height: 4960
Rated compressed height: 14
Free length: 17.159

Bruce told me he is happy with the ride, though, as expected, it is a bit stiffer than the OEM springs. He got almost 2 inches height increase.

I hope this information helps anyone considering raising their Chevy Express based Roadtrek. I suggest calling Husky to verify exactly what you are getting when ordering this spring.

I've been researching coil springs this week and found some info that would apply to 2003 & newer Express 3500 / Savana 3500 vans

I found some interchange part numbers for the Husky SC20470 springs peteco posted:

Husky SC20470
Moog 81006
ACDelco 45H0341
Napa 277-3436
Raybestos 585-1341

A choice for a bit more lift on 2003 & later model Savana and Express vans might be the Moog 81004.

ID: 4.068
Wire Dia: 1.031
Rate/Inch: 1570
Load at rated height: 5934
Rated compressed height: 14
Free length: 17.78

Interchange part numbers for it:

Moog 81004
ACDelco 45H0340
Napa 277-3435
Husky SC20468
Raybestos 585-1340

The Moog 81004 looks to be just a bit softer than original Tuftruck 1617's that may or may not still be available. I'm basing that opinion on Booster's compiled data here: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f...ion-2009-roadtrek-190v-1552-32.html#post17158

Verify all the above info for yourselves before buying or trying as I just turned this up through web searches.

 

[Fenix]

Hello

what swag bar did you used? Any modification? Does it fit without moving the generator

tkS

Fenix

 

[Fenix]

Any one used this kit on his Roadtrek

Chevy Express 3500 2004

http://www.boulderoffroadvans.com/2wd-chevy-and-gmc-van-lift-kits

 

[Photog-ClassB]

Hello

what swag bar did you used? Any modification? Does it fit without moving the generator

tkS

Fenix

Fenix,
Sorry for the delay, it has been a while since I had time to check in here.
I removed my front sway bar, and added a rear sway bar. The front sway bar made the ride very harsh, on rough roads, as the vibrations from the tires would be transmitted directly to the frame, when hitting a bump. The rear of our 190V is heavier than the front. The end with more weight generally gets more sway-control. Our suspension now has a fair amount of flex, but the handling characteristics are not like an SUV.

 

[Photog-ClassB]

Any one used this kit on his Roadtrek

Chevy Express 3500 2004

2wd Chevy and GMC Van Lift Kits

My 3" lift spindles came from Boulder Off Road. They look like the ones in their photo, using 4 bolts to retain the bearing unit (you can see the square, 4 bolt pattern on the spindle). This would be the heavy duty, 8-lug suspension. Their description says "6-lug, light duty".
The 6-lug suspension uses 3 bolts to hold the bearing unit. I think they have their photos mixed up. All the vans in the photos on that page, are all 8-lug. They do have a set of HD 8-lug spindles also.

 

[hanesworthy]

Is this Sept 2012 summary a relatively current summary of the results of your valiant efforts? With over 30 pages it's hard for those of us not yet retired to read everything!

Appreciate the assist!

Sept 2012 - Current stature of our R/T 190. The front is about 1" taller than the rear. This will be corrected, when I have the rear springs replaced.

Sept 2012: Otto-Max TTC-1617 front springs, Boulder Offroad 3" front knuckles, Bilstein Shocks all around, 4" blocks under factory rear leaf springs, extended rear brake lines, added rear sway bar.

Each of these modifications is discussed in detail, in the posts and pages that follow.

Cheers

 

[booster]

The whole evolving process is still doing it a bit, I think. Our solution with Tufftruk springs was not liked by some people who thought the front was too stiff. We like it firmer, so good for us. In the rear we have airbags, which is the most common way to lift the rear, with new springs the next best. Some also think that gets too stiff, but not a lot of folks. With airbags, you get the option of balancing weight and height, which is nice. It also allows you to have the overload leafs on the rear spring to be dearched a bit (1/4") which allow lower air pressure in the bags while still staying off the very harsh overloads.

I would say the current go to setup for Chevies is to use airbags in the rear, and Bill Erb custom springs in the front. Erb's springs are the same spring rate as stock springs, but longer (as long as you can go without bowing), so you get the lift. Some have noted that they thought they were a bit soft and porpoised some, others haven't thought so. No one has used springs that are between the Tufftruk we have and the Erb springs, but I think they could be made and be what some folks would like (Erb could probably make them). They would be stiffer than the Erb springs that have been used, and softer than ours.

We have been lifted for years and very happy with the setup, and handling.

As a side note, going up two inches in a 190 or 210 Chevy Roadtrek is actually not even a lift. It just gets you back to the GM recommended ride height, so all the steering and suspension work better, with improved geometry over stock.