2002 Sequoia Limited 4WD
- Thread starter Sal R.
- Start date
Sal R.
Active member
So, I've been chasing a faint clunk that seemed intermittent and I could not easily reproduce it. I wasn't even sure if it was coming from the car.
Imagine my surprise when it was because of the Total Chaos UCA hitting the Fox coil. Didn't think I would experience this with upgraded UCAs seeing that this issue was more commonly associated with OEM UCAs with suspension lifts.
With the added droop of Solo lower uniball and the 11.5" of wheel travel afforded by the Fox COs, the UCA cup is riding the coil at full droop. Apparently, this setup droops more than what the Total Chaos UCA intended design.
To correct this problem, I took the easy way out and just clocked the coil.
Imagine my surprise when it was because of the Total Chaos UCA hitting the Fox coil. Didn't think I would experience this with upgraded UCAs seeing that this issue was more commonly associated with OEM UCAs with suspension lifts.
With the added droop of Solo lower uniball and the 11.5" of wheel travel afforded by the Fox COs, the UCA cup is riding the coil at full droop. Apparently, this setup droops more than what the Total Chaos UCA intended design.
To correct this problem, I took the easy way out and just clocked the coil.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
Thanks for spending the time.
Sal R.
Active member
Thanks for taking the time. I'm glad to inspire you in some way.
The Sequoia has been great for road trips and glamping.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
MODIFICATION: Rear Hatch Struts
GOAL:
Get the hatch to stay in the up position.
PURPOSE:
The added weight of the ladder and hatch MOLLE panel with gear results in a sagging hatch door.
At sea level in 65 deg F weather, the hatch could stay up...after you pushed it into full extension and held it in place for a few seconds with the OE struts.
At elevation in 30 deg F, the hatch would not stay up no matter how long you held it up.
Thanks to fellow Sequoia enthusiast Tom L., he was able to source a replacement set that would serve as a viable replacement to solve this problem. And they were local to me too, which was a plus.
DURATION: 15 minutes
MATERIALS:
LiftSupportsDepot Struts
ST280M250-PR3-6980 qty 2 (strut)
RD222M8X10Y-Z13-M10 qty 4 (ball fittings)
COST: $54
HOW-TO:
The basic steps are:
According to LiftSupportsDepot the OE struts were rated for 200 lbs each, which was off from my calculations of 160 lbs.
The replacement struts are rated for 250 lbs each. With the added weight of the ladder and gear, it has the capability to push open the hatch after unlatching and stay up at 8k@6deg F after being cold soaked overnight.
It takes about 10lbs of force to pull it down to close the hatch. The listed struts are <1" shorter than OE, so the hatch does hang down a little lower. It's not a problem for me since I'm short. It actually makes accessing the overhead storage bags easier.
GOAL:
Get the hatch to stay in the up position.
PURPOSE:
The added weight of the ladder and hatch MOLLE panel with gear results in a sagging hatch door.
At sea level in 65 deg F weather, the hatch could stay up...after you pushed it into full extension and held it in place for a few seconds with the OE struts.
At elevation in 30 deg F, the hatch would not stay up no matter how long you held it up.
Thanks to fellow Sequoia enthusiast Tom L., he was able to source a replacement set that would serve as a viable replacement to solve this problem. And they were local to me too, which was a plus.
DURATION: 15 minutes
MATERIALS:
LiftSupportsDepot Struts
ST280M250-PR3-6980 qty 2 (strut)
RD222M8X10Y-Z13-M10 qty 4 (ball fittings)
COST: $54
HOW-TO:
The basic steps are:
- Undo retaining clips on strut
- Remove and replace strut
- Secure with retaining clips
According to LiftSupportsDepot the OE struts were rated for 200 lbs each, which was off from my calculations of 160 lbs.
The replacement struts are rated for 250 lbs each. With the added weight of the ladder and gear, it has the capability to push open the hatch after unlatching and stay up at 8k@6deg F after being cold soaked overnight.
It takes about 10lbs of force to pull it down to close the hatch. The listed struts are <1" shorter than OE, so the hatch does hang down a little lower. It's not a problem for me since I'm short. It actually makes accessing the overhead storage bags easier.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
MODIFICATION: King Rear Shocks with Adjustable Remote Reservoirs
GOAL:
Bring the rear suspension on par with the front.
PURPOSE:
The Dobinson's were a real improvement over the Bilsteins, no doubt. But they did not stand up to the work required of it when the Sequoia was loaded up with cans with gas, gear, cooler with food, and water for the long haul. It was irritatingly apparent when trying to go fast to get to camp because you're tired and hungry.
DURATION: 6 hours
SUMMARY:
The shocks were custom built with an LC80 fitment as the base. "Medium" firmness on the base shock with a 14" hose to the reservoir, 26.5" extended.
I opted to go with a shorter length shock so that it is appropriately sized to the length of the Dobinson coil height. This enabled me to ditch the limit straps.
The shock part is straight-forward. Mounting the reservoir ate up the most of time. In short, the hose and reservoir fitting orientation made placement difficult. Depending on where we looked to mount it, the hose was either too short/long, or the fitting orientation created interferences. It did not help that because of my "tucked" wheel and tire setup, it made placement on the outer frame impossible. Just didn't have the clearance for it.
Initially, we settled on this location and it cleared from stuff to droop on the driver's side; the side used for finding an appropriate location.
Painfully, my friend and I found that this location was not to work out on the passenger side. Of course we found it after we were getting ready to button it up.
The body protruded towards the wheel almost 1" on the passenger side compared to the driver's side, which reduced overall clearances to the tire. It made sense now why I rub on the rear passenger side at stuff, but not the driver's side.
Some quick thinking on my friend's part ended up locating the reservoir under the frame, just forward of the bumpstop. The hose was a little too long, so it was "snaaked" around shock body to prevent interferences.
It's out of the way, but easily accessible for adjustment.
100 mile feedback.
Even on the softest setting, the Kings rides waaaaay better than the Dobinsons with the cab mostly empty. The car turns flatter and the rear end tends to roll/squat less under braking/accelerating. Bumps on the highway are better absorbed and I feel as if the rears are now matched up with the fronts.
Can't wait to load 'er up and see how she does off road.
GOAL:
Bring the rear suspension on par with the front.
PURPOSE:
The Dobinson's were a real improvement over the Bilsteins, no doubt. But they did not stand up to the work required of it when the Sequoia was loaded up with cans with gas, gear, cooler with food, and water for the long haul. It was irritatingly apparent when trying to go fast to get to camp because you're tired and hungry.
DURATION: 6 hours
SUMMARY:
The shocks were custom built with an LC80 fitment as the base. "Medium" firmness on the base shock with a 14" hose to the reservoir, 26.5" extended.
I opted to go with a shorter length shock so that it is appropriately sized to the length of the Dobinson coil height. This enabled me to ditch the limit straps.
The shock part is straight-forward. Mounting the reservoir ate up the most of time. In short, the hose and reservoir fitting orientation made placement difficult. Depending on where we looked to mount it, the hose was either too short/long, or the fitting orientation created interferences. It did not help that because of my "tucked" wheel and tire setup, it made placement on the outer frame impossible. Just didn't have the clearance for it.
Initially, we settled on this location and it cleared from stuff to droop on the driver's side; the side used for finding an appropriate location.
Painfully, my friend and I found that this location was not to work out on the passenger side. Of course we found it after we were getting ready to button it up.
The body protruded towards the wheel almost 1" on the passenger side compared to the driver's side, which reduced overall clearances to the tire. It made sense now why I rub on the rear passenger side at stuff, but not the driver's side.
Some quick thinking on my friend's part ended up locating the reservoir under the frame, just forward of the bumpstop. The hose was a little too long, so it was "snaaked" around shock body to prevent interferences.
It's out of the way, but easily accessible for adjustment.
100 mile feedback.
Even on the softest setting, the Kings rides waaaaay better than the Dobinsons with the cab mostly empty. The car turns flatter and the rear end tends to roll/squat less under braking/accelerating. Bumps on the highway are better absorbed and I feel as if the rears are now matched up with the fronts.
Can't wait to load 'er up and see how she does off road.
Last edited:
Sal R.
Active member
This.
Without the limit straps, the Dobinson LC80 shocks could extend farther than there was available length of coil, thus allowing them to fall out. Hence the need for limit straps.
With the new King shocks, they are the right length to maximize articulation and still keep the coil in place.
bkg
Explorer
I kind of figured that might be the case. But you just invested a ton of money in shocks - I would not recommend using the shock as the limiting strap. Ever.
Sal R.
Active member
TECH: Total Chaos vs Camburg Upper Control Arm Hardware
I was able to score a used set of Camburg UCAs for my relative's Sequoia build. As I was getting them ready for install, I noticed some stark differences between the Camburg and Total Chaos hardware. Bear in mind that the both sets are about 8 years old and does not reflect any recent design changes. Still a nice topic to share for the archives considering there isn't much out there that covers the hardware side of things. Plenty of pictures of the arms themselves out there.
Total Chaos on the left. Camburg on the right.
At first glance, it would appear that the TC hardware is "beefier." Both sport almost the same installed height length.
Out of the box, TC comes with a 3/4" bolt compared to 5/8".
The TC spindle adapter comes in two pieces vs. one.
The uniball collar are of similar dimensions.
However, the TC collars have less wall material to accommodate the thicker bolt, as well as, as bull nose vs tapered profile. I presume to handle bearing loads better due to a thinner wall.
The TC spindle adapter is "thicker" compared to Camburg.
All in all, despite the "beefier" hardware on the TC UCAs, the Camburgs have much fewer signs of corrosion. Both sets have been on SoCal cars for the last 8 years.
I was able to score a used set of Camburg UCAs for my relative's Sequoia build. As I was getting them ready for install, I noticed some stark differences between the Camburg and Total Chaos hardware. Bear in mind that the both sets are about 8 years old and does not reflect any recent design changes. Still a nice topic to share for the archives considering there isn't much out there that covers the hardware side of things. Plenty of pictures of the arms themselves out there.
Total Chaos on the left. Camburg on the right.
At first glance, it would appear that the TC hardware is "beefier." Both sport almost the same installed height length.
Out of the box, TC comes with a 3/4" bolt compared to 5/8".
The TC spindle adapter comes in two pieces vs. one.
The uniball collar are of similar dimensions.
However, the TC collars have less wall material to accommodate the thicker bolt, as well as, as bull nose vs tapered profile. I presume to handle bearing loads better due to a thinner wall.
The TC spindle adapter is "thicker" compared to Camburg.
All in all, despite the "beefier" hardware on the TC UCAs, the Camburgs have much fewer signs of corrosion. Both sets have been on SoCal cars for the last 8 years.
Kpack
Adventurer
Great photo essay. I have never seen TC hardware or arms up close, so was unsure of the differences between them and Camburg. I have Camburg and have been very pleased with them. Without pulling them back apart, I believe what you show here is very similar to what I have. I'm not sure how much the differences matter, as both company's products seem to work.
I'm also interested in seeing the differences between the two arms. Do they have the same angles, are they the same dimensions, same bracing, etc.
I'm also interested in seeing the differences between the two arms. Do they have the same angles, are they the same dimensions, same bracing, etc.