Looking for rear spring advice

I've got a '02 limited running what I believe are Moog's '99 tall equivalents. 81088's up front and 81041s in the rear. I've paired these with Bilstein 5100s (the 4Runner valving), and I love the ride and the extra height.

But this weekend I took a much needed camping trip with my kids in the back and a bunch of gear, (though nothing excessive) and I found, as expected, I sagged about an inch in the rear. Rode well though.

I don't mind stiffer springs. But I don't want much more of a lift back there. Truck is level at the moment. I wouldn't mind a bit of rake, but level is ideal. I'm carrying a heavy load maybe a third of the time I'm using the truck.

All the options out there seem geared for you folks tackling serious rocks out west. I'm in the northeast tackling tamer trails and do a fair amount of urban and highway driving -- a 3" lift is not for me (not yet)

So what can I do to match the 99 talls up front but have a bit more spring rate in the rear? Would stock fourth gen springs do the trick? FJ Cruiser rears? how can I stay an inch or so above stock '02 but combat loaded sag?

 

OME890's kept me at about 1" lift (over stock height) in the rear with over 200lbs of extra weight, not to mention they flex well





You never want to be at 3" lifted, I barely even suggest 2" lifted

Keep it at 1" to 1.5" lifted and you'll be good for everything; taller lift means a shitty ride and less usable travel

 

That looks great -- Are you much above 1" when unloaded? (and what do you have up front?)

Seems like a lot of the sites selling 890s list them as 2.5" over stock, if anything I was thinking 906s.

Thanks for saying this. This has been my general vibe but I feel like a lot of what I see on the internet is taller.

The '99s also make it confusing... in one sense, I'm lifted because this is a 2002. But in another sense it's a stock 4Runner height?

 

You said with weight; all those "estimated inches over stock height" are based on factory weight

And if you look at the picture, there's no reason why I would be unloaded

No reason to remove an aftermarket bumper and full sized spare so I can't say how much lift it would've provided without any weight

I doubt Moog will have coils specifically for a '99 (yes I'm aware of that model) while also providing a different set of coils for all other 3rd Gen 4Runners

Unless you owned your 4Runner since new (and knowing its full history), then it's safe to assume you had worn coils on your vehicle

Any new coil will provide what looks like a "lift" because old coils get worn and cause your vehicle to sit below stock height

Replacing said coils will lift your vehicle back up to stock height, giving you the impression you've lifted your vehicle above stock height

So yeah, having gone with Moog coils, you're at stock height

I used to run 906 myself before switching out to an aftermarket bumper, and I'd say with some weight it did bring it down to about factory height

Here's a really old picture of my 4Runner when I had 906 coils in the rear providing me about 3/4" height over stock (and no added weight); the front were the same in all my pictures and they were King 2.5's with about 1" lift up front



If you go with 906, just don't lift the front at all because any bit of weight will make it look like your vehicle is squatting

In this pic, my friends and I were heading out to Moab and all I had were basic camping supplies for me to sleep in my vehicle as well as -

pop up awning, one small box with cookware, an ice chest full of drinks and food, backpack full of clothes, small bag with toiletries, and small misc items

Having any lift up front and any weight in the back will look like this



However, once the weight was removed (at the campsite) the rear quickly raised back up



Seeing as how the coils are shorter means they didn't have as much travel as 890's did









I had put about 5,000 miles on those coils until I got rid of them for $100; had bought them brand new

You can see how much taller the 890's are compared to the 906 by the boxes alone

 

Thank you for this. And that looks like a tremendous amount of fun in Moab... a goal once I get my skills up.

FWIW, Moog does list separate part numbers for the '99 and the '02 springs. Unclear how that compares to the OEM, regardless.

Here I am loaded up after breaking camp with my Moogs all around. Its not nearly as pronounced a squat as your loadout above, but maybe an inch and change lower in the rear:



Forgive me, I should have been more specific as to the weight I plan on carrying. I don't foresee upgrading the rear bumper for a while. Will likely go with a roof rack and eventually a hidden winch as my next two upgrades (no swing-out for me -- parallel parking). I'm at most toting a few hundred pounds gear all told.

Here I am in camp, mostly level:


The 890s look fantastic on your rig and I like the added travel, but I worry that the rake will be too much.If the 906s sagged that much under a camping load, though...

OME lists the 906s with a stiffer spring rate than the 890s, but it sounds like that wasn't your experience?

Thanks for walking through this with me, I appreciate it.

 

Learn something new everyday, regarding the part numbers.

Do you have over 5k miles on your current springs (both front and back)? It takes some driving around for them to settle to their final ride height. I ask because your rig looks like mine does in my 3rd picture posted with minimal height over stock.

Don't worry much about the "lesser" travel provided by the 906's; a stock 4Runner is extremely capable in many areas off-road and is long limited by the person driving it (most of the time).

I'd skip the winch for a long time; you'll use it more for another person than you would yourself.

 

Just wanted to follow up on this. Just got back from a week of dirt roads, light off-roading and camping with my new setup, and I'm extremely pleased.

I ended up going with the OME 906s in the rear, leaving the Moog talls up front. Bilstein 5100s all around (the 4Runner model). This is how it sat unloaded:



It rode a little stiff in the rear at first. I've run Bilstein B6s on my Volvo 850R for years and they mellow after the first few thousand miles in my experience. This was stiffer than I'd like but by no means harsh.

Within a week of occasional driving, the setup was feeling better, which I take to be just some initial break-in and some psychological adjustment.

Then I installed a Sherpa rack and loaded this thing for a week of forest roads and camping:


Functionally no sag with a full load. The pelicans are light... bedding, camp kitchenware, and basic recovery gear-- a few tow ropes, a shovel, traction boards and some D-rings. Inside, probably 200-300lbs of gear. The ride was perfect on and off road. Controlled with good road feel, not at all harsh.

Went up a pretty rocky trail in Pennsylvania's Bald Eagle State Forest -- 4-low first gear and bouncing up rocks the whole way -- and my 3-year old slept through it.

These are not cushy by any means, but the harshness of the 906s, paired with the 5100s anyway, is overhyped IMHO.





Also, did the whole trip with paper maps, no GPS. Can't recommend that enough.

Anyway, wonderful week on the road, can't wait to do it again.

Of course, first I have to replace the spring seats up front that failed on me, adjust or replace the steering rack guide, find a better antenna from my GMRS setup -- and, you know, the day job.

Thank you for your guidance.