Quote:
Originally Posted by jambalayas
Can probably reduce the water, although we ride a lot and that ups intake. And there will be times where we're out for days.
As I said, being really conservative. We haven't tested the setup yet as we don't have the drawer system. That weight is also an estimate from the owner, not sure what it actually is.
70# is for stove, pots, pans, cutlery, dry goods, propane, chairs. Again not sure what this number will actually be.
Table is included with the drawers.
We'll definitely be refining and reducing the list as we test things out leading up to the trip, but that's my initial list.
|
You got some great replies from experienced people but I will add something else.
First of all, reality check.
Payload is 1,550lb. Carrying 1,200-1,300 is totally fine. We went up and down the Maze district of Canyonlands fully stock with about 1,000 lb total weight with zero issues of any kind. I got sick so the one trail left was the hardest one but I walked the hardest ledge since we camped nearby and it would not have been a problem.
If you drive something like Elephant Hill with 1,200lb on stock suspension, you would have to be careful with the bumpers on a number of spots but it can be done. Some scraping is likely.
I am giving those examples because those are areas where you actually have to carry heavy weights for any camping. In the Maze you carry your own toilet with the contents as well on the way out.
Usually, you will be driving difficult trails with little weight.
And it can be done fully stock. I doubt you are driving the Rubicon on your first trip anyway.
NOW, with reality in place, while stock does the job, it also sucks. And I am as big of a fan of stock as anyone. How bad stock is you will realize once you replace the springs. I did springs first on stock shocks and then a full upgrade so I could understand very well the various differences. I am on my 4th set of front springs.
The problem with stock springs is that although they technically carry the weight over pretty rough terrain, they do that at the very bottom of performance, meaning that 1/ if you make one mistake on a rougher trail, you will scrape a bumper and 2/ if you dare pick up any speed much higher than walking speed in undulating but not hard terrain, you will bottom out often and sometimes badly.
The problem with just replacing the springs is three-fold 1/ mismatch with the shocks as the shocks are too weak to control the springs, 2/ potential longevity issues for the shocks, 3/ lost travel in the front--and travel matters! plus failure to gain travel in the rear.
This is, then, the argument for upgrade. But lots of people here then go all the way into racing setups.
The following will do the job for you offroad and on, judging from reading a lot and talking to people here while also making changes to my suspension.
1/ Eibach shocks and rear springs with your choice of front springs (no need to go for their huge front lift). I have 1" Eibach rear springs and zero issues whatsoever with sagging even with a bike carrier in the back. Worst case, I am at the height of an empty stock vehicle.
2/ Dobinsons twin tubes with Dobinsons springs all around. I had Dobinsons front springs and they were PERFECT. I liked them better than my 600lb Bilsteins, which were too soft, and better than my 650lb current Bilsteins which are a tad too stiff.
3/ Bilstein 6112 with 600lb front springs (unless you do a lot of offroading in the Southwest in which case 650lb are much better) and your choice of rear shocks and springs, which includes Icon 2.0 (which is what I have), Fox 2.0, Bilstein 5160, and Eibach as well.
In any case, you will not be racing with those weights so an Eibach or a Dobinsons setup will be very useful for WAY less than 1,000.
The best price you can possibly get on the mid-range setup I have is about 1,150 for the shocks and springs, assuming you don't pay extra for another set of front springs like I did. That said, I am not sure my setup actually adds any value over Eibach or Dobinsons except for being more adjustable in the front. I have not tried either of those.
Next, you don't need a monster lift. I have 1.25/1 and I will drive all but a handful of trails people with 3" would. What you do need is stiff enough suspension, so that the front does not dive onto rocks and that it does not hit if the terrain surprises you when driving a little faster.
Finally, most of the good info you will find is too specific to racing or too related to racing. I have found out that contrary to what racing knowledge suggests, the springs are much more important than the shocks on an adventure vehicle, which is also what a lot of old timers say. You are not moving at some crazy speeds with 1,200 lb of cargo or with kids or with a dog. But you do want to move at decent speeds and not crawl some unremarkable terrain. The springs get that job done. The shocks just need to be a good enough complement for the springs.
When it comes to overheating, I got my 6112s and Icon 2.0 untouchable by bare hand after less than an hour on an easy dirt road. A mildly climbing dirt road in Arizona in August can do that!
EDIT: one more thing, I don't think you need aftermarket UCAs to gain extra wheel travel though you would if you want a lot extra tarvel. Toyota advertised 0.75" front wheel travel extension with the TRD Bilstein and I have found this to be true with my 6112s. They also advertised 1.5" of extra rear travel, which is true with my Icon 2.0 shocks as well. You may not get that benefit from Eibach or Dobinsons. Travel is extremely important. I had a Subaru before so I never cared but this is a different beast and while much more capable it is also much less stable so travel helps with both capability and safety.
Linear Mode
