Ome 887

[jsmith21]

So I did some searching and can't find anyone running OME 887's on a fourth gen. Apparently from what I've read it falls in between the 885 and 886. Would this work to run while saving up for a bumper? How much lift would I get out of them? My tacoma fronts are sagging pretty bad and will be getting replaced before too terribly long. Thanks!

 

[Range]

I have an 03' with the 886 up front and the 895 in the rear. According to ARB's site the 887's fall into the 2010 years and up with 3' of lift compared to the 03-09's which give 2.5" of lift.

 

[jsmith21]

Do you have a big bumper up front? How's the ride with the 886? I have superflex in the rear and have some major rake going on so just trying to fix that

 

[Range]

Yes. I have a Shrockworks single hoop bumper, no winch and the ride is definitely more stiff than when I didn't have any lift and everything was stock with the XREAS. I have pro comp 9000 shocks and the ride quality is comfortable but it's definitely less rigid when there's extra weight in the back. From what I've read, the difference in the rear shocks from medium to heavy is just the length of the coil, not the weight allowance but I also know there's a super heavy duty rear coil which is for constant loads acceding 600lbs. The truck is perfectly even from front to back. I never planned on getting a rear tire fold out carrier nor did I plan on hauling anything on a regular basis so that's why I got the medium coils in the back. The fronts though I knew I was going to be adding 200+ lbs permanently with the bumper and soon to be bought winch so that's why I got the heavy duty.

 

[jsmith21]

Yes. I have a Shrockworks single hoop bumper, no winch and the ride is definitely more stiff than when I didn't have any lift and everything was stock with the XREAS. I have pro comp 9000 shocks and the ride quality is comfortable but it's definitely less rigid when there's extra weight in the back. From what I've read, the difference in the rear shocks from medium to heavy is just the length of the coil, not the weight allowance but I also know there's a super heavy duty rear coil which is for constant loads acceding 600lbs. The truck is perfectly even from front to back. I never planned on getting a rear tire fold out carrier nor did I plan on hauling anything on a regular basis so that's why I got the medium coils in the back. The fronts though I knew I was going to be adding 200+ lbs permanently with the bumper and soon to be bought winch so that's why I got the heavy duty.

Yeah I'm probably a year or so out from getting a bumper and winch and don't know if I could bear running 886's with no weight that long..I've heard it's extremely harsh with no weight. And I have the lighter v6 engine too.

 

[wnelax04sr5]

i think you'd be better off getting 885's and eventually adding a top plate spacer. i think dependent on the bumper the 886/887 would be too stiff and would have an undesirable ride. with the v6 the 885's are going to give you probably 3" of lift on their own at 0 on the 5100's, and any sag from the bumper would be negated with the addition of top plate spacers

 

[jsmith21]

i think you'd be better off getting 885's and eventually adding a top plate spacer. i think dependent on the bumper the 886/887 would be too stiff and would have an undesirable ride. with the v6 the 885's are going to give you probably 3" of lift on their own at 0 on the 5100's, and any sag from the bumper would be negated with the addition of top plate spacers

I'd never thought of just adding top plate spacers when I get a bumper..that's a pretty good idea. I already have my tacoma springs with my 5100's set at 2.5 and I don't think it rides too bad but its sagging bad (the springs had 170k when they were giving to me) so I wouldn't think 885 would ride too much worse. I'm just trying to get rid of my 2.25 inch rake, it annoys the hell out of me haha. My original thought behind 887's is a bearable medium between 885 and 886's but it sounds like they'd be a little overkill.

 

[wnelax04sr5]

I'd never thought of just adding top plate spacers when I get a bumper..that's a pretty good idea. I already have my tacoma springs with my 5100's set at 2.5 and I don't think it rides too bad but its sagging bad (the springs had 170k when they were giving to me) so I wouldn't think 885 would ride too much worse. I'm just trying to get rid of my 2.25 inch rake, it annoys the hell out of me haha. My original thought behind 887's is a bearable medium between 885 and 886's but it sounds like they'd be a little overkill.

i did fj springs that had less than 5k miles on them, no top plate spacers. at first my 4runner sat perfectly level with the icon rear springs, but after a couple months the rake got bad. i added top plate spacers as a temporary fix, but 885s or even 884s at .85 would be much better. i think an 886 would just be simply too stiff, if you had a shrockworks bumper and winch with a dual battery setup, 886s would probably be perfect, but other than that, theres a more comfortable way of getting the height and level that you want i think

 

[Dylan]

i did fj springs that had less than 5k miles on them, no top plate spacers. at first my 4runner sat perfectly level with the icon rear springs, but after a couple months the rake got bad.

What setting did you have them at on 5100s? I just got some 09 FJ front springs from a forum member, with apparently 50k on the clock. I'm anticipating the 1.75" setting, but wonder how much sag they may have comparatively.

 

[ebg18t]

So I did some searching and can't find anyone running OME 887's on a fourth gen. Apparently from what I've read it falls in between the 885 and 886. Would this work to run while saving up for a bumper? How much lift would I get out of them? My tacoma fronts are sagging pretty bad and will be getting replaced before too terribly long. Thanks!

i think you'd be better off getting 885's and eventually adding a top plate spacer. i think dependent on the bumper the 886/887 would be too stiff and would have an undesirable ride. with the v6 the 885's are going to give you probably 3" of lift on their own at 0 on the 5100's, and any sag from the bumper would be negated with the addition of top plate spacers

The 885 & 887 are the same spring rate, the 887 is just longer. The 886 is the heavier rate. The a availability of the 887 might be the issue.

 

[wnelax04sr5]

What setting did you have them at on 5100s? I just got some 09 FJ front springs from a forum member, with apparently 50k on the clock. I'm anticipating the 1.75" setting, but wonder how much sag they may have comparatively.

i have them on 2.5 with top plate spacers, its right about 3" of lift, but my rear is lifted 3", so there is still rake. i got the prescribed .5" of lift fj springs are supposed to give

The 885 & 887 are the same spring rate, the 887 is just longer. The 886 is the heavier rate. The a availability of the 887 might be the issue.

that clears things up for me, i was neglectful in looking up the 887's