ome 2895 vs 2895e

Z

zerge916

New member
Is there a difference between these 2 springs or is it the same spring? I just ordered from ebay 2895e for my rear bilsteins with no added weight.
edit: rears not fronts
 
Register to hide this ad
Did some more researching and found that they are in fact different. 2895(e) give you less lift. I'm going to leave this post here in case someone else has the same question.
 
Yep, they’re the same specs, except the “e” version is a bit shorter. I just installed a set myself to fix a sagging rear on mine, and I’m super happy with how it sits now. I carry tools full time that caused sagging with the stock springs, plus I tow a boat, which I did for the first time this past weekend, and it was perfect. I have a slight lift in the front with what I believe are Tacoma springs (were installed before I got it, so not positive), but these still sit about 2” height than the front, so I’m glad I went with these, or it would’ve looked ridiculous with my current front lift.
 
Installed 885s on the front and 895s on the rear of mine this weekend.

Glad I didn't go with the 895e as the rear would be sitting lower than the front. It's pretty much level right now
rZQxRBQl.jpg
 
I have been running 883 springs up front and 895e on the rear for the past couple of years. Last weekend swapped up to the 895 in the rear to compensate for some saggy butt when loaded. It adds a bit of rake empty but I like that better than level anyway. Same spring weight just 1/2" taller.
V6 with sliders, drawers and a roof rack.
 
970mtnrunner said:
I have the 895e springs and 5100's in the rear and this is how she sits.
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/4th-gen-t4rs/120012-galactic-gray-thread-11.html#post2469099
Actually came out a little taller than i expected
Click to expand...

That’s roughly how mine sits with the “e” version, and I carry quite a bit of weight back there constantly. I was also surprised at how tall it sat with the shorter version. I have about a 2” difference in height front to rear when measured from wheel centers to wheel wells. At first I thought it was too much rake, but now it’s grown on me, and my step rails sit almost perfectly level. If I raise the front at all, I will probably just go an inch to still keep a bit of rake. My front is raised already with what I believe are Tacoma springs and bilstein yellow struts.
 
i have 5100s with 883 fronts and 895e rear going on my v6 at some point...

common combos for v6 with no bumpers or rtt

883/895e
884/895

set billies to zero - not good to notch it up with a lift spring like OME
 
MN4RNR said:
I have been running 883 springs up front and 895e on the rear for the past couple of years. Last weekend swapped up to the 895 in the rear to compensate for some saggy butt when loaded. It adds a bit of rake empty but I like that better than level anyway. Same spring weight just 1/2" taller.
V6 with sliders, drawers and a roof rack.
Click to expand...

How do you find the 895 unloaded? I’m torn between the 895’s(45% stiffer) and Icon 2” (10% stiffer.)
 
Whytey said:
How do you find the 895 unloaded? I’m torn between the 895’s(45% stiffer) and Icon 2” (10% stiffer.)
Click to expand...
I have em on my V6 and they're fine. Maybe a tad too stiff, but I'd rather that than saggy when I load her up. Also planning on more weight in the rear in
the future.
 
kcdehart said:
I have em on my V6 and they're fine. Maybe a tad too stiff, but I'd rather that than saggy when I load her up. Also planning on more weight in the rear in
the future.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Still very comfy on the street, but I can jump up and down on the hitch and the rear only compresses about 1".
 
I too am running the 895E. I specifically picked the “E” for some of the same reasons expressed here. Yes, they provide a slightly less lift than the non-E. At first, I felt I had a reverse rake, but the front settled in after a couple weeks.
ff645dd698415aed2ea440079d97e377.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
884 fronts btw. Bilstein 5100s all around. Billy setting up front at “0”.

If you’re curious, those are 285s. Oh, and I love my Bilstein/OME combo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm running the 2895 rear with a 6112 up front (one down from the highest setting)

The 2895 in the city feels great, even with the truck unloaded or loaded, but off-road, it feel a lot better with some weight in the rear.

With a load it levels out nicely, it's got just the right amount of rake. The stiffer springs really handle loads well when you are working the suspension, I don't feel under-sprung during compression. Unloaded off-road, it feels a little "bucky" when really pushing it over things like whoops.

moDj4n5.jpg
 
SI2IS2T4R said:
I too am running the 895E. I specifically picked the “E” for some of the same reasons expressed here. Yes, they provide a slightly less lift than the non-E. At first, I felt I had a reverse rake, but the front settled in after a couple weeks.
ff645dd698415aed2ea440079d97e377.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What size rims and tires are you running? I like that a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 292 (members: 2, guests: 290)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,063
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top