Are there any 2" lift load bearing rear coils?

[jmferg]

I've looked around a few months now at just about every manufacturer and it seems my only options are the OME 906 or 890.
I recently installed some 99 coils. Turns outThe fronts were talls and the rears were not so I have a Cali lean.
I want to put some pair the 99 fronts with bilstein 5100s on the second perch and swap the rears for something around 2" and the ability to handle 300-500lbs and cargo. FYI the majority of the cargo hauling time will off the asphalt (canoeing, fishing, camping).
According to one rep, 906 provides the ride amount of lift but will only hold 200lbs without sagging. The 890s are 3" of rear lift but up to 400lbs of capacity. He said they may settle over time to 2.5" unloaded.
For the time being I don't plan on adding any weight besides a front skid and sliders in place of the limited running boards.

I guess this means my only option is the 890s with more lift then I'd like unless there's a better option im unaware of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[traben27]

According to one rep, 906 provides the ride amount of lift but will only hold 200lbs without sagging. The 890s are 3" of rear lift but up to 400lbs of capacity.

That doesn't sound right to me. From everything I've read, the 906s (220# spring rate) should compress less than the 890s (190# rate). They're shorter to start off with, but compress less under load.

 

[pauldub]

How about air bags?

 

[R Marra]

906 vs 890

I have actually been debating the same thing. I am going to be using the 4 Runner bilstiens with the 99 talls in the front on the second setting . As for the rear I am leaning towards the 890 's with air bags which should give me the best of both worlds I hope . Please post pics when you are done . Very curious to see where this goes.

 

[jmferg]

That doesn't sound right to me. From everything I've read, the 906s (220# spring rate) should compress less than the 890s (190# rate). They're shorter to start off with, but compress less under load.

I've that as well but why would OME and toytec claim more load carrying ability with the 890s?
Just because of the additional height?

How about air bags?

I forgot to mention I want to avoid bags as they seem to be a bad idea offroad. Bags, lines fitting can all leak and then leave you SOL without onboard air

I have actually been debating the same thing. I am going to be using the 4 Runner bilstiens with the 99 talls in the front on the second setting . As for the rear I am leaning towards the 890 's with air bags which should give me the best of both worlds I hope . Please post pics when you are done . Very curious to see where this goes.

I will probably lean towards the 890s unless anyone with real world experience



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[phattyduck]

I've that as well but why would OME and toytec claim more load carrying ability with the 890s?
Just because of the additional height?

The OME catalog states that both the 890's an the 906's are 50mm (2in) lift springs. Without the constant extra load that the 890's call for, they are 3" lift springs...

The 906's are also progressive (stiffer when compressed more) and the 890's are linear.

So, the 906's will sag less than the 890's but start out at a lower height unloaded. Your choice on what will work best for your situation.

edit, catalog link: http://www.arbusa.com/Uploads/PDF/onlineManualsGuides/OME_Guide_current.pdf

-Charlie

 

[GeoFlory]

I recently installed OME 2906 rear springs and Bilstein 5100's all around, with original factory front springs. My rear height increased from 21.0 to 22 1/8 after about 1/8 inch settling. My front height increased from 20 1/2 to 20 7/8 with just the Bilsteins in the zero-lift setting. I tested it by loading the vehicle to GVWR with 1300 lb including myself as follows: 400 lb front seat, 400 lb back seat, 500 lb rear. The rear dropped 1.75 inches with load and the front dropped 1/4 inch. Loaded to GVWR, the vehicle road and handled well on the highway with a slight bouncing in the rear going over a rise at a bridge crossing, no hitting the bump stops.

With the factory springs, I was riding on the bump stops at GVWR. Apparently factory height and final height with the 2906 springs will vary.

 

[Cuco]

I have a 98 V6 4x4 4Runner with 99 tall on the front with stock shocks and OME 906 on the rear with Tokico GE3536 and I love my ride, my lift and no sag. Recommended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[reelamin]

I just put on a 880/906 with 4 Runner 5100's. I will qualify I think Bilsteins Customer Service and provided parts suck. Their shocks might be good, but so far my combo is very sharp on rough roads, potholes, etc. I have been offered 4600's to try by another member....but I don't want to dick with it swapping them out. Plus the Bilstein Bias on here is huge....maybe justified...maybe not....only time will tell for me.

I weigh 215 and my 906's did not move at all when I stood on the hitch. They don't compress at all and probably make the ride as stiff as it is. I went with the 5100 and sent back the 4600's because of the belief they would not work with the lift. I had priced out some OEM shocks...and they were too expensive.

Just the other day someone posted Camelback had the OEM shocks for under 40!! Heck I would have been all over that. Also the only way to really find the ride you want is to actually drive the set up as everyone describes everything so different. This is not a truck...its a smooth riding Soccer Mom mini SUV...I already miss my worn out 255K ride as soon as I head off the pavement.

 

[jmferg]

Anyone with 890s care to chime in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[repo]

I've loaded my 906s with 800+ lbs before and they were level or higher with the 99s in the front. With the spare wheel and a bikerack they have about an inch of rake.

 

[octanejunkie]

Anyone with 890s care to chime in?

I put 890s in the rear of my 99 2WD and got almost a 3" inch lift initially (empty cargo area) but even after loading it up (regular load is about 200# of tools in the rear) I have a great ride and 2" taller than non-sagging stock stance in the rear. I also have 1" blocks up front.

Toytec told me unless I was heavily loaded, like aftermarket rear bumper, 890s were better for my application. They were right. I also swapped to taller rear shocks with a longer rear brake hose and 2nd gen front sway bar end links on the rear.

 

[SpidermanGeek]

Anyone with 890s care to chime in?

Here are 890's with a load of interlock stones.

Truck usually sits like this:

 

[octanejunkie]

Here are 890's with a load of interlock stones.

Looks like your rear lock cylinder dropped

 

[SpidermanGeek]

Looks like your rear lock cylinder dropped

The key hole you mean? Nope, just grimy. Still works perfectly.

 

[Cuco]

I've loaded my 906s with 800+ lbs before and they were level or higher with the 99s in the front. With the spare wheel and a bikerack they have about an inch of rake.

Hi, repo! Which shocks you are running all around with the 99s and 906s?


Cuco-TheOriginal
I am using Tapatalk on my Iphone

 

[repo]

Hi, repo! Which shocks you are running all around with the 99s and 906s?


Cuco-TheOriginal
I am using Tapatalk on my Iphone

Tundra 5100. It's 22" hub to fender in back with no load. They feel like strong springs, way stronger than stock. I have E load KO2s and poly bushings and the ride is probably too harsh for most people but I don't mind it.

 

[Cuco]

Tundra 5100. It's 22" hub to fender in back with no load. They feel like strong springs, way stronger than stock. I have E load KO2s and poly bushings and the ride is probably too harsh for most people but I don't mind it.

Thanks


Cuco-TheOriginal
I am using Tapatalk on my Iphone