@Mtn40
Really appreciate the detailed follow-up. That's exactly the distinction I've been trying to establish.
Your observation that highway tracking improved slightly after reaching nominal caster is encouraging.
Your points about the rear sway bar are also helpful. Given your experience flexing and measuring multiple suspension configurations without encountering a meaningful restriction from the factory links, I'm becoming less inclined to replace them preemptively for only 0.5–1" of rear lift.
I'd appreciate reviewing any measurements you have for the various setups if you still have them and are open to sharing.
I also agree with your comment regarding preload collars vs other suspension setups.
Almost immediately after purchasing my LC250, I almost rushed out and bought the WD kit after seeing so many users with them. They're probably the most prevalent LC250 lift across forums and social media groups.
For me, I agree with both you and
@Bad1975 and even roadventure. The LC250 performs so well right out of the box, and if I'm going to modify or change something I want to make sure I'm improving and not limiting any of those capabilities. While as you pointed out maximizing the opportunities where I get to push the truck, and my own, limits.
GR8Santini previously shared this video from Westcott Designs:
Westcott Designs — Suspension Droop Demonstration
I watched it several times because the demonstration initially seemed to contradict much of what I'd read about preload collars reducing available droop.
Westcott removes the coil spring from a Tundra's front strut and measures the distance from the center of the hub to the bottom of the fender at full extension.
They report:
- Factory configuration: 24"
- Westcott configuration: 24 9/16"
- Increase in maximum extension: 9/16"
At first glance, that seems like convincing evidence that the Westcott kit actually
increases droop.
However, there's an important detail in the video:
the Tundra setup includes a 1/2" upper strut spacer in addition to the lower preload collar.
My understanding is that the upper spacer moves the entire strut assembly downward relative to the chassis, allowing the suspension to extend approximately 9/16" farther before reaching the shock's extension limit.
The preload collar itself isn't responsible for that additional extension.
More importantly, the test measures
maximum extension relative to the chassis, not how much droop remains available from the truck's new static ride height.
For example, if the suspension gains 9/16" of maximum extension but the preload/spacer combination raises the actual resting ride height by 2.5", wouldn't the net reduction in available droop still be approximately 1 15/16"?
In other words, both statements could be true:
- The suspension can extend 9/16" farther than stock at its absolute maximum.
- The suspension has nearly 2" less droop available from its new, higher resting position.
That's assuming the advertised lift is actually achieved, of course.
The other inconsistency I noticed is that Westcott's LC250 kit apparently doesn't include the same upper strut spacer demonstrated on the Tundra.
Their current LC250 product listing specifies:
- Two lower front preload collars
- Two rear spacer pucks
There's no mention of an upper strut spacer.
Westcott Designs — LC250 Preload Collar Lift Kit
If the LC250 kit is strictly a lower preload collar setup, and the original shock continues to determine maximum extension, wouldn't the reduction in available droop be approximately equal to the actual lift achieved?
That seems substantially different from what the Tundra video demonstrates.
I'm not suggesting Westcott's measurement is inaccurate. Rather, I think the video demonstrates an increase in
absolute maximum extension resulting from the upper strut spacer, which isn't the same as establishing that the suspension retains its original usable droop travel after lifting.
I'm also not convinced the results can be directly applied to the LC250 if its kit uses a different configuration.
Your point about the tradeoffs between preload collars and moderate strut-top spacers makes sense in that context. Neither increases the shock's actual stroke, but they change where the suspension operates within its available travel and potentially where its mechanical limits occur.
That's also why I've been leaning toward a full suspension setup. Although I'm only targeting small amount of lift, I want to preserve as much usable suspension travel as possible while improving ride quality.
Of course,
I realize a replacement shock doesn't automatically solve the droop issue either. Its actual extended length, compressed length, mounting geometry, and final ride height determine how much travel remains available.
One thing I'd really like to establish is how the standard-travel IMS59-60660 compares to the factory LC250 strut in terms of maximum extension and the amount of usable droop remaining at approximately 1.5–1.75" of lift.
Given your experience measuring suspension travel on multiple setups, I'd be interested in your interpretation of the Westcott demonstration and whether I'm overlooking something.
The goal isn't to criticize Westcott. I've heard plenty of positive experiences, including GR8Santini's. I'm just trying to separate what the demonstrations actually establish from the broader claims about maintaining factory articulation.
@Bad1975
Given the number of different manufacturers and systems you've tried, your positive long-term experience with Dobinsons certainly carries a lot of weight.
One of the things that attracted me to Dobinsons was their willingness to provide specific recommendations for my intended vehicle weight, spring selection, and lift height rather than simply recommending a standard 2–3" package.
I think
@Sugarloafer80 was talking to me. Sugarloafer I know you're joking but the last two weeks we've been inundated by historic King Tides. The flooding across the island were the highest recorded for "Non-Storm" flooding.
