Polaris RZR Forum - RZR Forums.net banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We are working on Front and rear shock relocation foundation mounts, with the use of stock a-arms. With the use of longer extended shocks adding increased suspension travel. Any body interested in this new idea?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
We are working on Front and rear shock relocation foundation mounts, with the use of stock a-arms. With the use of longer extended shocks adding increased suspension travel. Any body interested in this new idea?
Any updates available? Thanks.
Ken
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
We are just getting started on the rzr. We have been working on the teryx suspension kit with stock a-arms for a while and are nearing the release of it. For the forum show on the 24th of this month. We will be deligently working on the rzr kit after that. We will get it out, to every one as soon as possible. This new idea will be out using your stock a-arms with new upper shock bracket mounts using a longer shock length. The shocks we will be using are Progressive 425 series shocks. This kit will be affordable, under $1000.00 dollors. It will give you more travel, with out having to go wider. Still allowing you to ride narrow trails, and providing a better ride over rougth terrain. (SHAWZ)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
I have the 425's with there adjustable swaybar bracket. I have the hd on the front and the std on the rear. They have more travel because the shock body is a bit shorter and a shorter bump stop but the same length overall. How will yours be different? I would like to see a bit more damping and spring in the front...overall their setup is pretty good...but then I have never rode with anyone that has high dolla shocks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
By changing the geometry of the shock and using a longer strock and length over all. That's how we are able to more travel with the stock axles. By changing the angle of the shock the spring will give you more dampening on the compression strock. (SHAWZ):ride::ride:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
By changing the geometry of the shock and using a longer strock and length over all. That's how we are able to more travel with the stock axles. By changing the angle of the shock the spring will give you more dampening on the compression strock. (SHAWZ):ride::ride:
Sounds great ... I'll be watching and waiting.
Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Any updates?
If I do the math right the regular rzr has only 4.25 inches of shock travel up front and 6" in the rear while the "s" model has 6.25" of shock travel front and rear. Sure sounds like there is "room for improvement" up front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
By changing the geometry of the shock and using a longer strock and length over all. That's how we are able to more travel with the stock axles. By changing the angle of the shock the spring will give you more dampening on the compression strock. (SHAWZ):ride::ride:
Do you have any pics with your setup installed? I am trying to visualize the difference with your geometry to the factory geometry. Just trying to understand the concept. Thanks.
Ken
 

·
Siberian Magic
Joined
·
14 Posts
I've been wanting to improve my ride without sacraficing width. I didn't go with the S so I could easily roll the RZR into the back of my F250. Shawz, I don't know much about suspension capabilities...could I expect a noticable improvement over rough terriain with this setup? Is there any change in clearance? Would toe-out need to be adjusted due to geometry?

I've been thinking of going with spacers and a little taller tire to gain a little clearance without robbing to much torque/horsepower; I could always swap back to stock if a trail gage prevents me from entering. Would this also work with the Shawz setup. Please pardon a new RZR owner for any dumb questions. Can't beat the forum for getting answers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
After removing my front shocks the a arms only fall about an inch ...... that is an inch from the shock mount to the shock bolt hole (center to center) . I didn't measure it in wheel travel. So just how much of this extra downward travel is usable?
 

·
poorbuthappy
Joined
·
401 Posts
how will the same a arms get more travel with out binding the cv joints? it sounds like the racer tech lift with new shocks.... the way i see it the only travel you would add to it would be letting the tire travel up higher? it already drags the belly upon landing. what am i missing here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
the CVs wern't what stoped my suspension from falling any further. perhaps we would need new tie rod ends or different ball joints??? I really don't know what it was that limited my suspension drop , but I am guessing that if the shock were say 3/4 inch longer the wheel would be able to travel down 1 1/2" or so , just guessing here, will have to check it Sunday when I get a little time.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,015 Posts
how will the same a arms get more travel with out binding the cv joints? it sounds like the racer tech lift with new shocks.... the way i see it the only travel you would add to it would be letting the tire travel up higher? it already drags the belly upon landing. what am i missing here?
I'm with you.... :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Anything more than 2-3 inches more droop binds the cv's. Cant get much more up travel without dragging the belly. Would have to go with bigger tires to gain ground clearance, which would likely make the tires hit the plastic on up travel. That and you really cant run much bigger than 26 inch bighorns on stock steel wheels and stay under 50 inches, and that requires you to cut off and move the motor mount. You might be able to squeeze 27's.. The bigger tires would gain you a couple inches of ground clearance but dont know it the tires would have room to clear the body on the uptravel. Having the belly hit the ground on landing is really hard on the back. You would have to come up with some higher angle cv's to really make it work. Another problem is the a-arm angle at droop. If they droop down too much they will be approaching a more vertical angle and the ride will suffer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
X2. I don't see where the added travel will not either bottom the belly of the RZR or bind the CV.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top