9.4" of Suspension travel - UCAs' net effect?

[shinysideup2]

For those who have done some serious high-speed off-roading, and/or those who have performed suspension measurements - I'm curious if you've a) found the limits of our Expeditions' suspension travel to get in the way of your off-road travels and/or b) have experienced notably better down-travel with aftermarket Upper Control Arms.

According to this old Ford Press Release, Expedition suspensions starting from 2003 (2nd gen) were designed with 9.4 inches of vertical suspension travel/range, which is impressive for a stock suspension. According to this article on AccuTune's website about high-speed off-road travel:

• 4” of up travel, and 4” of down travel are the minimum recommended for any type of off-roading
• 6” of up travel is a good minimum goal if you want to go fast

... which means (on the surface) that stock Expedition suspension has the potential to just barely meet these criteria. Questions abound...

- Does the immense weight of our vehicles negate any benefits that could be had with such long travel suspension?
- Are benefits to be realized by aftermarket UCAs - i.e. more down-travel - limited because our stock suspensions start with a pretty good amount of travel?
- Do any of you use hydraulic bumpstops, jounce-springs (Timbrens, Sumo) or something similar to control bottoming?
- Those who have extended travel shocks - have you had to use limiting straps in order to avoid damage to suspension components due to excessive down-travel? I've found that the Bilstein 6112's for the F-150 that I have installed in the front allow for an impressive amount of droop, though I'm not sure if it's out of the design range of the stock UCA's.

Thoughts?

 

[Black]

Any idea what the travel range is for our 3rd gens?

While the overall length is longer uncompressed is it still longer compressed?

Also you aligned the mounting points as your basis but if you align the tops of the shafts. The travel inside the shock is likely more similar in distance than it appears from your picture. Do you have a picture of both the OEM and Bilstein fully loaded?

The spring is also slightly longer because using the lowest setting for your snap ring on the Bilstein the spring perch may sit lower than the OEM part

 

[Black]

I have crudely added lines showing actual length of travel (presuming there are no stops in either shock body).
Red for Bilstein and Black for OEM measure the distance between the black lines and measure between the red lines and your number will be very similar unlike measuring from the top red line to the bottom black line which you are making your comparison for overall length which does not exactly correlate to over all travel based upon the shock alone.

 

[Adieu]

Spacers or lifting coilovers should cut into the "down" travel of the stock UCA, right?

 

[shinysideup2]

I can only assume at this point that travel is the same with 3rd gens as with 2nd gens, but I don't have a reliable source for this. The article I cited earlier is referenced from Wikipedia in the 2nd gen section of the Ford Expedition page. The 3rd gen section of the Wikipedia article simply states "The new T1 platform replaced the old U platform, and provides 10 percent more torsional rigidity than the U platform. T1 incorporates a four-wheel independent long-travel suspension system (first introduced on the second generation) with redesigned suspension geometry and an all-new five-link rear suspension with new rear lower control-arms." ... but without a reference.

I think you're right. i.e. The Bilstein 6112's may not improve the wheel's range of motion (travel)... but rather just displace the same range further down - similar to adding a spacer. I don't have any side-by-side pics of the assembled units because I had to use the stock top spring mount on the Bilsteins.

9'4" of travel is still pretty good, assuming this carried over from the 2nd gen.

Any idea what the travel range is for our 3rd gens?

While the overall length is longer uncompressed is it still longer compressed?

Also you aligned the mounting points as your basis but if you align the tops of the shafts. The travel inside the shock is likely more similar in distance than it appears from your picture. Do you have a picture of both the OEM and Bilstein fully loaded?

The spring is also slightly longer because using the lowest setting for your snap ring on the Bilstein the spring perch may sit lower than the OEM part

 

[shinysideup2]

Correct, which is part of the reason I'd like to limit my lift to about 2" all around (even that seems like a lot for the UCA and CV joints). I'd prefer to retain down-travel (for better articulation) than give it up for increased up-travel as I don't do much high-speed off-roading.

Having said that, I still wonder if UCAs would improve overall down-travel.

Spacers or lifting coilovers should cut into the "down" travel of the stock UCA, right?

 

[shinysideup2]

I was visually (crudely) measuring from the bottom mounting point (which are aligned in the side-by-side photo) to the top of the polished section of the piston rod (where the top spring mount would meet). But again, the longer shock body most likely cuts into uptravel, netting no more range of motion, but rather just a downward displacement of the same travel range.

I have crudely added lines showing actual length of travel (presuming there are no stops in either shock body).
Red for Bilstein and Black for OEM measure the distance between the black lines and measure between the red lines and your number will be very similar unlike measuring from the top red line to the bottom black line which you are making your comparison for overall length which does not exactly correlate to over all travel based upon the shock alone.
View attachment 28409

 

[Black]

UCAs will likely not “add” anymore range of travel unless you are looking into one of those wild Baja long travel kits.
What you are gaining moreover is a far stronger arm but more importantly a ball joint pocket that gives the proper alignment, adjusted for the new angle, so that the balljoint continues to have the proper full range of motion that is adversely changed when lifted but keeping the factory UCA geometry.
One can certainly continue to use stock control arms likely up to around 3” of lift (on our trucks) without any serious ramifications but you are going to wear those ball joints out at a much faster rate.
Aftermarket arms also give you choice of ball joint types.
I am going with the BDS arms that utilize a standard style ball joint, just beefed up, as we have lots of road salt here and that tends to be a nightmare for uniballs.
Not willing to spend the cash on ICON Delta Joints.