Is This The Ideal Sub 2" Lift For a Daily Driver LC250?

[KWLC250]

For the past several months I've been researching suspension options for the ideal sub 2" lift for the LC250. Including digging through discussions here, reviewing technical specifications, comparing owner experiences, and communicating directly with manufacturers Dobinsons and ARB.

I've narrowed things down to a relatively modest 1.5–1.75" Dobinsons IMS lift, but before ordering, I wanted to share what I've learned, and hopefully get some feedback from owners who have firsthand experience with these systems.

I'm certainly not a suspension engineer, so I welcome any corrections or contradictory experiences.

1. Intended Use & Priorities​

Current tires: Toyo Open Country AT III P285/70R17 SL

Driving conditions:

• Approximately 99% paved roads, including highway driving and imperfect urban pavement.
• One or two extended overlanding/off-road trips per year, typically lasting 1–2 weeks.
• Off-road terrain includes washboards, rocky roads, moderate trails, and occasional more challenging obstacles.
• Not building for high-speed desert running, rock crawling, or 35"+ tires.
• Vehicle lives in South Florida, where salt air, humidity, and corrosion are legitimate long-term considerations.

Planned modifications:

• Centric Front Bumper w/center-mounted winch
• Currently has CBI Rock Sliders, considering skid plates
• Roof rack
• Occasional RTT, refrigerator, drawers, and other camping gear

Most of the camping equipment will only be installed or carried during trips. I don't anticipate substantial constant additional weight over the front or rear axles.

My priorities, in order:

1. Ride comfort: Ideally, improve on the factory suspension's response to sharp pavement imperfections, expansion joints, and washboards without introducing unnecessary harshness.
2. Highway handling: Maintain predictable steering, good straight-line stability, controlled body motion, and factory-like handling.
3. Off-road performance: Improve wheel control, damping, and ground clearance without unnecessarily sacrificing suspension travel.
4. Reliability and maintenance: Favor durable components that don't require frequent servicing, adjustment, or rebuilding.
5. Appearance: A modest lift that reduces the factory rake without completely eliminating it.

I'm intentionally limiting the front lift to approximately 1.5–1.75". I don't anticipate wanting to go higher because I want to reduce alterations to the factory geometry and lower the risk of warranty implications and additional modifications.

My goal is essentially an OEM+ suspension, prioritizing ride quality and refinement rather than maximum off-road performance.

2. Suspension Systems Considered — And Why I've Narrowed It Down​

I spent considerable time looking into King 2.5, OME MT64, OME BP-51, Dobinsons MRR, and Dobinsons IMS.

King 2.5 — Excellent Performance, but More Than I Need​

King was initially high on my list. Owners have reported excellent ride quality and improvements in body control, and there's no question that a properly configured King system is capable of substantially more than my intended off-road use.

For example, there's positive owner feedback in:

King shocks suspension build, give me your .02

However, what ultimately moved King down my list was the combination of expense, maintenance considerations, and intended use.

King's rebuildable performance-shock design is an advantage for owners who need that capability, but rebuilding and maintaining high-performance shocks is something I'd prefer to minimize on a vehicle spending almost all its time on pavement.

I'm also unconvinced that I'd take meaningful advantage of the additional heat capacity and performance potential of a King 2.5 compared with a properly selected monotube system.

Conclusion: An excellent option, but the cost and long-term maintenance tradeoffs don't appear justified for my driving.

OME MT64 — A Strong IMS Competitor, but Some Reliability Concerns​

The MT64 was another serious contender.

It has a relatively straightforward monotube design and seemed like a logical alternative to the IMS, without going to the complexity of an adjustable remote-reservoir system.

Unfortunately, I've come across several firsthand reports of clicking, knocking, and front shock/bushing issues with LC250 MT64 installations.

Some particularly relevant discussions:

Old Man Emu MT64 — Awareness Thread

My opinion of ARB is shifting, what's your experience?

These include reports of owners receiving replacement shocks and, in some instances, continuing to experience noises after replacement.

To be fair, there are also owners reporting trouble-free MT64 installations, excellent ride quality, and positive experiences with ARB warranty support. These discussions don't establish that the MT64 is generally unreliable.

However, when comparing two otherwise appealing monotube systems, these experiences made me somewhat more comfortable choosing the IMS. And when I reached out to ARB USA and Dobinsons USA with specific questions, Dobinsons went above and beyond to answer my questions while ARB failed to even respond.

Conclusion: Still a capable option, but the reported issues and my positive experience dealing directly with Dobinsons pushed me toward the IMS.

OME BP-51 — Possibly the Strongest Alternative for Ride Comfort​

Of all the alternatives, the BP-51 has been the hardest for me to eliminate.

The internal bypass design is particularly interesting because it allows different damping characteristics throughout the shock's stroke, with independent compression and rebound adjustment.

In theory, the ability to provide comfortable damping around normal ride height while increasing control nearer the ends of travel could be very beneficial for the exact combination of highway comfort and occasional rough-road driving I'm seeking.

There are also firsthand reports of excellent ride quality from LC250 owners.

My opinion of ARB is shifting, what's your experience?

2" front lift and Caster Correction

The concerns that moved me away from the BP-51 were:

• Additional complexity associated with the remote reservoirs and adjustment mechanisms.
• Uncertainty about whether I would actually benefit from adjusting compression and rebound for occasional off-road trips.
• Commonly advertised lift configurations are taller than my desired 1.5–1.75", although owners have achieved more modest heights.
• My experience communicating with ARB USA was considerably less useful than the technical guidance I received from Dobinsons.

That last point isn't a reflection of the product itself, but it matters to me when making a substantial investment in a suspension system that I intend to keep for years.

Conclusion: I still think the BP-51 could potentially deliver the best combination of small-bump comfort and control. What I haven't found is convincing evidence that it would provide a meaningful enough improvement over the IMS to justify the additional expense and complexity for my usage.

I'd welcome any direct comparisons from owners who have driven both.

Dobinsons MRR — Excellent Adjustability, but Not Recommended by Dobinsons USA for My Lift Height​

The MRR was initially one of my leading candidates, particularly because of its adjustability and potential to fine-tune ride quality.

I spent considerable time researching the system and corresponding directly with Dobinsons USA about its configurations, travel characteristics, and suitability for my intended lift height.

The MRR's primary advantages over IMS are its remote reservoirs and independent high-speed compression, low-speed compression, and rebound adjustments.

These features are appealing, particularly when trying to balance everyday pavement comfort with improved damping on rough, washboard roads.

However, Dobinsons USA specifically advised me that they do not recommend the MRR for lifts under 2".

This was one of the most significant factors in eliminating the MRR from consideration.

My target lift is only 1.5–1.75".

While that recommendation doesn't necessarily mean it's physically impossible to configure an MRR at a lower lift height, I'm reluctant to choose a configuration that the manufacturer specifically advises against for my application.

I also investigated the standard- and extended-travel MRR configurations. Based on Dobinsons' guidance, the extended-travel configuration I was considering introduces additional UCA and differential-drop considerations that I'd prefer to avoid.

Beyond those technical considerations, I came across firsthand accounts suggesting that getting the MRR dialed in can take considerable experimentation.

For example:

Ice Cap 1958 Build in VA — Page 2

Several owners describe significant changes in ride quality after experimenting with the adjustments, with excellent results once properly dialed in. Some were considerably less impressed with the initially recommended settings.

I don't view that as a defect. Adjustability is one of the MRR's strengths, but it also means that achieving the best ride may require additional effort.

This left me with three considerations:

1. Dobinsons USA expressly recommends against the MRR at my intended sub-2" lift height.
2. The MRR's additional travel and adjustability may provide relatively little benefit for a vehicle driven 99% on pavement.
3. The added cost, maintenance considerations, and tuning complexity are difficult to justify if the IMS can deliver the ride characteristics I'm after.

Conclusion: The MRR may be an excellent choice for someone running a taller lift, needing greater suspension travel, or wanting to fine-tune damping for different driving conditions. However, given Dobinsons' direct recommendation against using it below 2", I feel the IMS is the more appropriate option for my particular build.

I'd still be interested in hearing from anyone successfully running MRRs at less than 2" of lift, especially regarding actual ride height, available travel, and alignment.

3. Why I've Settled on Dobinsons IMS​

The IMS seems to occupy the middle ground I was looking for.

It provides a substantial monotube shock design with an internal floating piston, better heat-management potential than a conventional smaller twin-tube system, and application-specific valving and spring options.

Unlike the MRR, it doesn't have external reservoirs or multiple damping adjustments.

The appeal is having a well-matched, fixed-damping suspension that I can install and largely leave alone.

Importantly, Dobinsons USA confirmed that the IMS could be configured for the 1.5–1.75" lift I'm targeting, whereas they specifically discouraged using the MRR at that height.

That distinction carries considerable weight in my decision.

There have also been encouraging firsthand experiences here.

Relevant owner reports:

2026 Trail Dust LCLC Camping Build

Member @sprnkls installed Dobinsons IMS and reported smoother ride quality, particularly off-road, and satisfaction with the system after comparing options including King.

Yanu's Build

@RideWithYanu documented an IMS setup with Dobinsons UCAs and an extended-travel configuration. Although his lift and intended off-road use differ from mine, it's a helpful example of how these components can be configured.

My opinion of ARB is shifting

Also includes positive feedback from IMS and MRR owners.

Of course, ride quality is subjective, and many of these owners are running different spring rates, tire constructions, pressures, and lift heights.

I don't take these reports as proof that IMS will ride more comfortably than the other systems. But they provide enough encouragement, combined with Dobinsons' technical guidance, to make it my leading choice.

Dobinsons also publishes a useful technical comparison of its shock designs:

Dobinsons — Twin Tube vs. IMS vs. MRR

4. The Exact IMS Setup I'm Planning​

After researching the available options and communicating directly with Dobinsons USA, I've arrived at the following proposed component list.

Front suspension:

• IMS59-60660 — 2.6" IMS front struts
• C59-882 — Stock-load front coil springs
• Target spring-seat setting: 230–234mm
• Estimated lift: 1.5–1.75"
• Standard-travel configuration

Rear suspension:

• IMS59-60441 — IMS rear shocks
• C59-885V — Stock-load rear coil springs, approximately 0.5" lift on the U.S.-spec LC250
• Possibly PS59-4035 — 15mm rear coil spacers, targeting approximately 1" total rear lift

Other components:

• Retain the factory front differential position
• Retain factory rear panhard rod and suspension links
• Retain factory sway-bar links unless actual lift height or geometry makes replacement beneficial
• Upper control arms: Still undecided

Dobinsons' current U.S. LC250 IMS component listing is here:

Dobinsons USA — Land Cruiser 250 IMS Suspension

One important detail is the rear spring selection. I've found that Dobinsons part numbers and advertised lift heights differ between some international applications and the U.S.-spec vehicle.

For my U.S. LC250, Dobinsons identifies C59-885V as the approximately 12mm/0.5" stock-load spring.

I'd rather use that spring, potentially combined with the small spacer, than a significantly taller or heavier-rate rear spring when most of my additional cargo weight is temporary.

5. What Dobinsons Told Me Directly​

I exchanged a number of emails with Dobinsons USA regarding the IMS and MRR, lift height, suspension travel, alignment, and additional required components.

Their answers were particularly helpful because my intended lift height is lower than the standard 2" configuration generally advertised for the C59-882 spring.

Front lift height and spring-seat adjustment

Dobinsons confirmed the following approximate relationship between spring-seat setting and lift height:

• 237mm — approximately 2" lift
• 234mm — approximately 1.75" lift
• 230mm — approximately 1.5" lift

They specifically confirmed that reducing the IMS spring-seat setting to target 1.5–1.75" would not inherently create a problem.

Actual achieved lift will obviously depend on vehicle weight and configuration.

This was important because I initially questioned whether the C59-882 spring, advertised for 2" lift, was appropriate for a lower-height build.

Their guidance suggests that I can retain the intended stock-load spring while adjusting the static ride height.

MRR suitability below 2"

One of the clearest distinctions in Dobinsons' guidance was that they specifically did not recommend using the MRR for a lift of less than 2".

By contrast, they confirmed that the IMS could be configured for my 1.5–1.75" target using a lower spring-seat setting.

I consider that an important distinction because I would rather select a suspension that the manufacturer considers appropriate for my intended ride height than try to adapt a more elaborate system to an application outside its recommendation.

Standard versus extended travel

Dobinsons recommended the standard-travel IMS configuration for my desired height.

My understanding is that the placement of the IMS front strut's droop spacer determines the standard- versus extended-travel configuration.

For standard travel, the spacer is installed above the strut mount rather than below it.

That arrangement is also discussed in this thread, where Exit Offroad provided a recommended IMS setup using the same front struts and springs:

King shocks suspension build, give me your .02 — Page 3

Exit Offroad's recommendation included:

• IMS59-60660
• C59-882
• IMS59-60441
• C59-885V
• Standard-travel droop-spacer positioning
• Optional 15mm rear spacers

They indicated that factory UCAs and no differential drop were acceptable in that configuration.

This closely mirrors the setup I've independently arrived at.

UCAs and differential drop

Dobinsons advised that neither an aftermarket UCA nor a differential drop is required at approximately 1.5–1.75" lift with standard-travel IMS struts.

They also advised that their fixed-correction UCAs add approximately 3° of caster correction, which may be excessive at this modest lift height and could create alignment difficulties.

That guidance is one of the main reasons I've intentionally stayed below 2" and avoided the extended-travel configuration.

My interpretation is that I can achieve the desired height while retaining most of Toyota's factory suspension geometry and avoiding additional components.

However, I recognize that being able to align a vehicle within specification doesn't necessarily mean the alignment is optimal for steering feel and highway stability.

Which brings me to my biggest remaining question.

6. The Unresolved Question: Do I Really Want to Retain the Factory UCAs?​

This is the one area where the research has left me somewhat conflicted.

The argument for retaining factory UCAs:

• Dobinsons says they're sufficient at my lift height.
• The standard-travel configuration is specifically intended to work without additional geometry modifications.
• Factory Toyota arms and joints are already proven for daily driving.
• Retaining OEM parts avoids introducing new maintenance, corrosion, noise, or durability considerations.
• My lift will be lower than the 2" threshold where many owners start recommending aftermarket arms.

Several forum members have suggested that factory UCAs are perfectly acceptable at approximately 2" lift, although achievable caster may be limited.

Should I get UCAs for 2" lift?

2" front lift and Caster Correction

The argument for aftermarket UCAs:

There are also firsthand reports of owners struggling to achieve desirable caster settings after lifting their LC250s.

This thread was particularly relevant:

Alignment Issues after 2" lift

The owner reported light, flighty steering following a Dobinsons installation. The discussion raised questions about the caster achieved, the limited available adjustment with factory UCAs, and whether the shop was using the correct LC250 alignment specifications.

That doesn't establish that aftermarket UCAs are necessary at 1.5–1.75", particularly since alignment quality appears to have been an issue in that case.

However, it reinforces my concern about preserving steering stability.

SPC 35475 adjustable UCAs

For a time I considered SPC 35475 UCAs as an option because it offers more flexible caster/camber adjustment than a fixed 3° correction arm.

The advantage, as I see it, would be the ability to achieve an optimal alignment for my actual lift height rather than accepting whatever caster the factory adjustment range permits.

There's also an interesting discussion here:

The most beautifull UCA on earth — SPC 35475

Some owners praise the adjustability and design, while others report concerns about long-term SPC corrosion resistance and durability based on earlier Toyota platforms.

Given my coastal South Florida environment, those concerns are important.

I'm also reluctant to introduce additional ball-joint or bushing maintenance unless there's a tangible handling or alignment benefit.

I've also discovered several posts across reddit and ih8mud detailing issues with the SPC UCAs on different vehicles.

My current thinking:

If the factory UCAs can achieve an alignment that preserves factory-like steering stability, return-to-center, and predictable handling, I can retain them.

But if aftermarket UCAs would noticeably improve those characteristics, even at only 1.5–1.75" lift, I'd rather install them from the beginning.

I don't want to confuse getting alignment numbers into the acceptable range with getting the best possible driving characteristics.

7. Other Suspension Geometry Considerations​

My assumption is that a modest lift using the standard-travel IMS setup should minimize the need for additional geometry correction.

Differential drop: Dobinsons indicates this isn't necessary at my lift height and travel configuration.

Rear panhard bar: At approximately 0.5–1" rear lift, I wouldn't expect enough axle displacement to justify an adjustable panhard bar, although I'm open to correction.

Rear sway-bar links: I initially considered the Dobinsons SE59-591 adjustable links but am now leaning toward retaining the factory links unless there's a demonstrable geometry or handling benefit.

Full droop clearance: I'd want the installer to verify UCA-to-coil clearance, ball-joint articulation, CV angles, and brake-line clearance at full extension rather than relying solely on nominal lift height.

Again, the objective isn't to avoid necessary upgrades. It's to avoid adding components that don't meaningfully improve this particular setup.

8. Where I've Landed — And What I'm Hoping to Validate​

After all this research, the conclusions I've reached are:

1. Dobinsons IMS appears to be the best overall fit for my intended use.

It offers a meaningful suspension upgrade without the complexity and adjustability of a remote-reservoir system that I may not need. Dobinsons also explicitly confirmed its suitability for my targeted lift height.

2. A 1.5–1.75" front lift seems like the best compromise.

It offers a modest clearance and appearance improvement while reducing the suspension-geometry changes associated with taller lifts.

3. C59-882 stock-load springs with the IMS spring seat set at approximately 230–234mm appear to be the correct front configuration.

This is based on direct guidance from Dobinsons, although I'd still like to see actual owner measurements.

4. C59-885V with an optional 15mm spacer seems appropriate for the rear.

It should provide a modest rear lift without selecting springs intended for significant permanent additional weight.

5. Standard travel is preferable to extended travel for this build.

I value reliability, useful suspension movement, and factory-like behavior more than increasing droop however I don't want to decrease droop. Dobinsons also recommended that I install the Diff drop with the extended travel, and I'm looking to avoid that.

6. The MRR is no longer a serious contender for my intended lift height.

While the MRR offers greater adjustment and performance potential, Dobinsons USA specifically advised against using it below 2" without a diff drop. I don't see a compelling reason to disregard that recommendation given my priorities.

7. Aftermarket UCAs may be beneficial, but I haven't established that they're necessary or worth the tradeoffs.

This is the last major decision I need to make.

Questions for LC250 Owners​

I'd particularly appreciate feedback on the following:

1. Dobinsons IMS ride quality: For those who have the IMS, how does it compare with stock over broken pavement, expansion joints, and washboards? Is it noticeably more compliant, firmer but better controlled, or roughly equivalent? Any owners who've directly compared IMS with BP-51 or MRR?
2. Spring-seat settings: Has anyone installed C59-882 springs with the IMS59-60660 spring seat set at 230–234mm? What actual lift did you achieve after settling?
3. Factory UCA alignment: Has anyone achieved approximately 1.5–1.75" lift while retaining factory UCAs? I'd be especially interested in before/after caster, camber, and toe measurements, along with your impressions of steering feel.
4. Adtermarket UCAs: For those running the aftermarket UCAs on a 2" or less lift on the LC250, what UCAs are you running? What caster settings have you achieved? Any improvements in steering feel? Any longer-term concerns involving ball joints, bushings, corrosion, or maintenance?
5. Rear suspension: Any experience with C59-885V springs and the 15mm spacers? Would you recommend that combination for maintaining a modest amount of rake?
6. Additional components: Has anyone found that an adjustable panhard rod, sway-bar links, or a diff drop provided a measurable benefit or are required at a lift this modest?
7. Long-term IMS durability: For owners with significant mileage, have the shocks remained quiet, consistent, and trouble-free?
8. MRR below 2": Dobinsons USA specifically recommended against the MRR at my intended ride height. Has anyone received similar guidance or successfully run an MRR setup at less than 2"? If so, what actual lift height and available travel did you achieve? And did you utilize a diff drop or any other components?

I'm very open to being persuaded that some of my conclusions are incorrect, particularly if you've got firsthand experience with these exact components.

My overarching goal is a Land Cruiser that is more comfortable and composed than stock, maintains excellent highway manners, performs better on rough roads, and remains mechanically straightforward and reliable.

I'd rather put together the right 1.5–1.75" suspension than install a more elaborate 2.5–3" system whose capability I rarely use.

Thanks to everyone who's shared their builds, technical knowledge, and experiences here. A number of those discussions have been instrumental in narrowing down this setup.

 

[D-mac]

Just to complicate your analysis I would throw in the other OEM Toyota suspension suppliers such as Bilstein, FOX, and KYB/JAOS. All three are going to have products for lower lifts that provide OEM levels of handling and durability, with low overall maintenance.
Radflo is another specialty US based manufacturer that gets great reviews and can even customize their adjustable height shock/spring combos to match your build goals. Arizona Desert Shocks (ADS) is another builder similar to Radflo.

 

[GR8Santini]

Your question is exactly the wheelhouse of Matthew @ LC250mods

Hello from LC250Mods!

Hey folks, I'm Matthew from LC250Mods and it's an honor to be a part of this community. I've had a blast interacting with many of you on my personal account and with some over on Instagram. Now, I'm privileged to be a supporting vendor too! As a life-long Toyota truck geek, my obsession seemed...

www.landcruiserforum.com

 

[Pazich]

I'll be following your choice and feedback closely as I am also only considering a 1-1.5" lift if I and when I replace my factory springs and dampers. The biggest concerns I have are not losing/trading suspension travel for ride height, and balancing that with risk reduction on CV angles, in addition to the costs/labor associated with different CV shafts or diff drops. Gaining height, travel, and not reducing reliability aren't easily achievable without trading one variable for another. I do wish KYB/JAOS made a kit for the US Spec LC250 but they don't as of now.

 

[Mtn40]

I'll throw out some info and some of my experience.
I've run the following:

• Stock
• 8mm front spacer
• 8mm spacer replaced with RC 2" lift (left off one 1/4" front spacer to stay just under 2" lift), stock UCAs
• added OME UCAs to the above lift
• OME BP-51 (with OME UCAs)

For ride comfort, you want shocks with a linear or progressive valving. A lot of them have digressive valving which helps with handling, but gives that harsher hit over small bumps.
My BP-51s are a dream over smooth bumps (whoops, and the dips going into parking lots and driveways for example), but are still kinda harsh over square-edged bumps. It's way better than stock and the RC shocks, but I think a square-edge bump, like a 2" rock in the trail or pothole, is always going to be kind of a hard hit and aired-down tires are the way to smooth those out, at lease at the slower speeds I usually drive.
I think I found some info about Dobinsons valving at one point when I was looking, but can't remember now what it was.

You can definitely run <2" lift with factory UCAs. And it's easy to add them later if you decided you need them (UCA to spring contact, or alignment issues).
You don't need trackbar correction etc. at <2" lift.
If you want to help your rear sway bar angle, the best value is the OME rear sway bar brackets that drop the mounting point down about 1.5". They're something like $30.
Extended links are technically better, but at <2" lift you really won't need either.

You mentioned salt air and corrosion, but I didn't see what the dobinsons shocks are made of. Obviously aluminum will do better than steel here.

 

[GR8Santini]

Your 99% on road & limited off road trail excursion doesn’t require the system you about to spend. Westcott or Peak might do you great service. Lots of opinions, but if money matters.

 

[Bad1975]

Nice work, someone did their research!!

Not adding rear sway bar links will move the sway bar out of it's proper angle, limiting how much it can control vehicle roll which is effectively the same as running a lighter bar, if factory rake is retained by a product of the F to R lift height no change will occur however reduced side to side articulation due to maintaining factory length links F and R will occur.

Will probably not be noticeable but could increase understeer when cornering on the highway by a slight amount if not maintaining factory rake.

Since the front is also not being changed because there are no options readily available on the market for the front. The sway bar effectiveness will typically decrease more than the rear (most lifters remove rake or eliminate it) due to differing lift heights between F and R which will decrease understeer and likely result in oversteer bias in these situations. Normal factory bias is slight understeer on pretty much any non-performance car being sold today (as it's considered to be safer).

The more the factory rake is maintained while lifting the less the cornering geometry will be changed. Decrease rake and you shift the bias towards oversteer. Maintaining factory length links when lifting results in the bars being less effective and is equivalent to running a smaller bar.

Since OEM length links reduce articulation when lifting and for this reason alone, I'm running adjustable links. If you don't have SDM the front articulation will be permanently reduced unless someone comes out with front adjustable links. All that said I've effectively reduced front bar effectiveness (3" front 2-1/4" rear and 3/4" rale) which will maintain the rear bar effectiveness while decreasing the fronts while connected from the higher lift and decreased rake and I notice no change in cornering characteristics. Admittedly I installed the lift shortly after break-in so not much pre-lift miles either to compare to.

Moral of the story: Adjustable links outside of G force measurements (can't feel it seat of the pants) really only effect articulation when offroad so 99% probably wouldn't notice that either unless they were to measure it before and after with the aftermarket lift already installed to see the slight differences.

Reducing rake also increases aero drag and contributes to loss of MPG and changes braking performance shifting the bias more rearward than factory. Just a few things that are normally overlooked when lifting and changing rake, not to mention the Yaw rate gyro should be re-zero'd (zero-point calibration) when changing rake which affects traction control, VSC and ABS functions. Tundras are especially known to be overly sensitive when removing the rake, requiring Zero-point Cal to keep the traction control from constantly engaging under medium and heavy throttle.

 

[cruiser_ss396]

Just a comment about upper control arms. I ran them on my 2008 Tundra with an 8 inch BDS lift, some coach maker ties rod ends and 37 inch tires. They allowed that lift with fox coil overs to get a perfect alignment but the ball joints were complete garbage. I would get 25K to 30K tops out them and the internals were worn out. I replaced the hose ball joints 4 times !! The saving grace was great alignment and replacement ball joints did not cost much and were very easy to replace. Like about 15 minutes each easy. But then a new alignment of course LOL!!

 

[KWLC250]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses! This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to generate. There are a few considerations you've brought up that I hadn't fully investigated, and a couple of areas where I'd love to dig a little deeper.

@D-mac

Thanks for throwing a few more options into the mix! As if I haven't already gone far enough down this rabbit hole!

I haven't investigated Bilstein, FOX, or KYB/JAOS nearly as much as the other options. The OEM-supplier connection and emphasis on low-maintenance durability are certainly appealing.

@GR8Santini

Thanks for the recommendation to reach out to Matthew at @Matthew@LC250Mods . I'd definitely welcome his perspective on the IMS configuration and whether there are other systems I should consider.

Regarding your point about Westcott or Peak, I completely understand the argument. For the amount of off-roading I actually do, I certainly don't need an expensive suspension system.

However, my primary motivation isn't actually the lift itself. I'm interested in improving the ride quality, particularly over broken pavement, sharp bumps, and washboard roads.

If I were simply trying to gain 1.5" of height, I'd be much more inclined to use Westcott's preload collars. However I've heard mixed feedback regarding a decrease in articulation/droop as well as small bump compliance and an increase in ride stiffness.

I'm willing to spend more on a complete suspension replacement if it delivers a meaningful improvement in damping and ride comfort. The challenge is determining which system actually accomplishes that without introducing unnecessary stiffness.

That's also why I've been hesitant to move toward the more elaborate remote-reservoir systems.

@Pazich

We're approaching this with almost exactly the same concerns.

One of my biggest objectives is to gain a little ride height without unnecessarily sacrificing droop travel or articulation. I want to avoid the situation where I've gained ground clearance but actually reduced the suspension's ability to keep the tires in contact with the ground.

The CV angles are another major consideration. That's part of why I settled on the 1.5–1.75" target rather than 2" or more, and why I'm leaning toward the standard-travel IMS configuration.

I do recognize that increasing static ride height changes the available bump/droop travel unless the shock dimensions and travel are changed accordingly. So one thing I still want to establish is how the actual extended and compressed lengths of the standard-travel IMS compare with the factory struts, and what that translates to in available wheel travel at my intended height.

I'd be perfectly happy with a modest improvement in ride height if it means maintaining as much useful articulation and factory reliability as possible.

@Mtn40

This is especially helpful given that you've actually driven several different setups.

Your comments about linear, progressive, and digressive valving are particularly interesting because small-bump compliance is probably my single biggest priority.

Your experience with the BP-51 is also interesting. It's the suspension I probably had the hardest time eliminating because of its internal bypass design and the potential for excellent compliance around normal ride height.

One of the reasons I ultimately moved away from the BP-51 was a specific technical question I raised with ARB USA that I never received a satisfactory answer to.

Because the BP-51 uses a position-sensitive internal bypass system, I wanted to understand whether adjusting the spring seat to achieve only 1.5–1.75" of lift would place the shock piston outside its intended damping zone at normal ride height.

My concern wasn't whether the BP-51 could physically be adjusted to that height. ARB confirmed that it could. Rather, I wanted to establish whether the shock would still operate within the intended portion of its internal bypass system, particularly during the relatively small suspension movements encountered during everyday pavement driving.

Unfortunately, ARB never directly addressed that question or provided any engineering information showing how the bypass zones correspond to piston position at different static ride heights.

That uncertainty was one of the factors that led me toward Dobinsons IMS. In contrast, Dobinsons specifically confirmed the suitability of their IMS for my intended lift height and provided the corresponding spring-seat measurements.

I certainly haven't concluded that the BP-51 performs poorly below 2". I just haven't been able to establish whether its position-sensitive damping operates as intended at that height.

If anyone has technical information from ARB or firsthand experience that sheds light on this, I'd be very interested.

I'm curious about your experience with the OME UCAs. When you switched from factory UCAs to OME at just under 2" of lift, did you notice a meaningful difference in steering feel, return-to-center, or highway stability? Or was the primary benefit achieving better alignment numbers and additional clearance?

If you have your before-and-after caster measurements, I'd be really interested in seeing them.

Your suggestion about retaining the factory UCAs initially and upgrading only if necessary makes a lot of sense. That's probably where I'm leaning now.

I also appreciate the recommendation regarding the inexpensive OME rear sway-bar relocation brackets. That may be a good middle ground between leaving everything stock and installing adjustable links.

Regarding corrosion, from what I've found, the IMS uses a heavy-wall steel shock body with EDP surface protection rather than an aluminum body. That's certainly a consideration in my environment. When I installed the CBI rock sliders I was shocked by the amount of rust present under the LC250 after just 2 years.

@Bad1975

Really appreciate the detailed explanation. You brought up several points I hadn't fully considered.

My tentative plan is approximately 1.5–1.75" front and 0.5–1" rear, which would reduce but retain some rake.

I'd originally been leaning toward retaining the factory sway-bar links simply because the lift is so modest. But your explanation makes a compelling case for looking at them from an articulation and geometry standpoint rather than only whether they're strictly required.

I realize the differences may be relatively small and difficult to detect during normal driving, but if the goal is to improve the suspension without unintentionally compromising other characteristics.

That brings up a question: At my proposed lift height, do you think the adjustable rear links would provide enough benefit in articulation or sway-bar positioning to justify installing them? Or would the OME relocation brackets Mtn40 mentioned accomplish most of what I'd need?

 

[corywf]

@KWLC250 I'm running the Dobinson IMS. Here are some notes. If you have any other specific questions on my setup, let me know.

• Are you still around 1.75" front and rear? - Yes, that number was after it settled. I did have to lower the front a bit as it was actually higher than the back.
• Which exact front IMS part number/spring are you running?
  • Front springs C59-882
  • Front Struts IMS59-60660
  • Rear springs: C59-883V - I don't remember exactly why I went with the heavier spring; might have been a mistake on my part
  • Rear shocks: IMS59-60441
  • BOTCK panhard bar bracket
• Is yours configured as standard travel or extended travel? - Standard
• Are you running a diff drop? - No
• What UCA did you ultimately end up with, and did it improve the steering/alignment issue you were having?
  • Ironman forged UCAs; it totally resolved the caster issue.
• The suspension is a lot smoother over small bumps without feeling too floaty. It's still stiff and has the truck feel but is way more forgiving over small bumps. It helped a lot on washboards too.