Dirt King 2.0 and 2.5 shocks?

Happened across some new offerings from Dirt King - a 2.0 and 2.5” Coilover setup for our trucks and a select few others. From what I can find, they are manufactured by Elka for Dirt King to their specs (not a rebadged Elka) and come setup with a progressive valving strategy. Front and rear 2.5’s are dual compression adjustable; 2.0’s are non-adjustable.

Price point is appealing: ~$2500 for the 2.0 setup with UCA’s. 2.5” DCA‘a are closer to $4700. Fully rebuildable for both the 2.0 and 2.5 - meaning also custom valving…?

I emailed DK with some questions and they said that the shocks come setup with 2” of lift but are ok to run at stock height, or up to 3” of lift. That’s tempting… Wife’s sequoia may get a set of 2.0’s in the front.

Any thoughts?

 

https://www.tundras.com/threads/wha...5-gen-tundra-today.713/page-3223#post-3727183

I think he is the first I've seen with them on a 2.5gen. They do look like a decent offering.

 

Paging @Totmacher …

 

I like the new DK suspension.

The 2.0 rear shocks are ok. Softer than 5160s but not bad. Just different. Took a while to get used to the feel of it.

The 2.0 fronts a pretty nice. Way better than 5100s at least. I think i got 2.5-3" lift from them out of the box. My 5100s were on top setting and these put me about 1/2-3/4" higher ride height from there. On road, there are some rough spots in the highway and a few harsh driveway entries that aren't so bad now. They were jarring on the 5100s. Much smoother and controlled feel now. Slow off road in the woods these are very smooth riding.

Did have to cut away a little flap of metal on the LCA to clear lower part of the coilover. It's in their instructions about it. One of my tierod boots barely grazes the coil when turned full lock. Haven't tried alignment yet to see if it helps address that but not worried really either.

UCAs were easy. Liked not having to grease and press in bushings. They did have wrong torque spec (too low) in their instructions though. I contacted DK to confirm should use oem spec of 172ftlb i think it was on that long UCA mounting bolt.

 

Those are two valid concerns that I have as well. The shocks appear to be assembled in house by DK instead of by Elka; whether or not that means they install their own valving or simply install the coil is unknown. Also, supposedly a former Toyota engineer by the name of Mark somethin-er-uther played a role in developing the shock tune and says it’s ‘the best riding shock he’s ever ridden on’. He is supposed to have been involved with the TRD Pro shock tuning/selection.

I seem recall seeing these DK’s coming with 16” 700lb coil. Ride height is important to me, but I'm the opposite of most other folks in that I want to remain close to stock ride height on both of my vehicles. I'm looking primarily for the Sequoia right now, which looks pretty dumb with a lift and stock tires, IMO. Up to an inch and it looks fine. Unfortunately, the Bilstein 4600's I installed a few months ago have... soured... and ride like hockey pucks. Not sure what's going on with them, but it's sad when I go from my tundra with bags, add a leafs (yes, plural), and E rated tires inflated for towing and am uncomfortable riding around on the same roads in the sequoia. The 4600's are bad. Either they took a dump in three months or aren't as great as I'd hoped.

The 2.5's do pique my interest for the tundra but, again, ride height. I was dead set on some 8112's but they can't be set below 2.25" of lift. Dobinson said the same thing about the MRR's after the came out - 2" of lift minimum (well, they said 0-3", then recanted and said 2-3"), as do most of the manufactures I've reached out to with that exact questions. 6112's are the only 2.5" body shock that I've seen that allows me to run at close to stock ride height. I can deal with the 3/4" lift at the bottom rung. I've run them at 1.9" and prefer the bottom setting. With the amount of towing that I do, I think the truck looks dumb with the nose up in the air pulling my trailers. The bags level it back out, but I need more rake to maintain a more comfortable towing experience. The weight of the vehicle also handles better with a closer to stock ride. Dirt King customer service told me that I can run them at stock height, so I'm considering making the switch for that reason alone.

Since you bring up coil bind, is that typically what shock manufactures are using to limit compression travel of the shock body? I know the 8112's are unique with their hydraulic jounce assembly, but everybody else... it seems that most of the valving schemes can't provide a supple ride AND produce enough damping to truly limit bottom out events unless the shock is set at maximum ride height and you have all that rod distance to travel while attempting to slow it down. How dumb would it be to put a simple polyurethane donut at the top of the shock piston like GM used to do with some of the McPherson strut vehicles? Or simply upgrade bump stops to DuroBumps, PerryParts, or the like? Wouldn't that allow a shock to be run at a lower ride height without fear of bottoming the piston, albeit with a slightly limited amount of uptravel?

What also gets me is that the front coilovers MUST be run at 2+" of ride height, but the rear shocks are mostly rated for 0-1" of lift, so the rake disappears. No chance of lifting the back end unless you go to a 4" lift. I understand that's prolly because the weight is better distributed between the front and rear by pushing more weight to the rear, giving the end user smoother ride. But my setups is already very well distributed.

Anyways, I'll quit ranting and get back to focusing on the Dirt King coilovers..

 

The 6112's I've run haven't had issues with bottoming out. Such an even is a rarity for me, but still possible - maybe three times a year I run it that hard. My first set of 6112's made it 100k miles at the lowest setting and I ran them much harder much more often than I do now. After replacing them and inspecting the units that came off, the dampers themselves appear to be fine - it's the bushings and top hat that were trashed. The lower eye bushing was actually displaced somewhat and no longer concentric with the mount. I probably could have replaced the lower eye bushing and top hat and run them another 50k miles. The 5160s on the other hand... well, they were dunzo.

The 8112's are a special case and after looking in to the design and engineering, I see that they are designed for a specific ride height in order to function properly. Which is fine, but unfortunately they don't work for my use case. I just wonder why just about every other 2.5 shock manufacturer doesn't like running at stock height when there are plenty of other shocks, especially 2.0 shocks, that function perfectly well at stock OR lifted heights. I've examined and compared compressed and extended lengths and don't find enough of a discrepancy to warrant a minimum 2" ride height. If the compressed length of the shock was much taller than a stock shock, then you would be trading up travel for downtravel and you would need bump stop extensions (yes, I know 6112's recommend adding the washers when running the top height). Whereas, most aftermarket big dollar shocks advertise increased wheel travel; why would you install a fancy shock just to have less wheel travel than a stock truck? I dunno. I just can't get a straight answer as to WHY I shouldn't run them lower than 2". Again, the 8112's being the exception but I know exactly why I shouldn't run them lower than 2.25".

I'll add that many suspension folks advocate for larger diameter shock bodies on larger, heavier vehicle. Some even flat out say that a 2.0 shock is not sufficient for a heavily-laden tundra; you can either have a comfortable ride and poor control, or control and poor ride. My truck is heavily laden. Eibachs, for example, were too soft for my heavy truck. A stock-ish rig and I'm sure they would be sweet. But my rig - no. That's part of why I'm pushing so hard for a 2.5" diameter shock - not cuz I want to spend more money of fancy parts, but because I've been steered that way having a heavy rig.

With airbags and a frankenpack in the rear, the rears pretty much NEVER get close to bottoming out.

 

Shaking the bushes...are there any additional sets of DK DCA 2.5's out in the wild since last discussion in 2024?!?!?

 

Running a set on my ‘13 DC. They have their strengths, and maybe a few weaknesses… but very well rounded. I’ve got about 1500 miles on them but don’t want to make a categorically determination about them yet.

The very basic feel of them is smoother than 6112’s, but not quite as good at the twisties (when set to ride smooth anyways..). I need to tinker with them a bit more.

 

Thanks for the feedback...just trying to gauge how these stack up against some of the heavier hitters like the Bilstein 8112/8100 and Fox/Kings floating around similar price points. I've got limited reference points as I'm on a stock 2011 suspension system with 75k miles. Not trying to conquer the world or run Baja, but rolling on 3rd world streets of Houston needs to get a bit more comfortable day to day (and some occasionally off-road bombing around when time allows). Any pics would be great also, appreciate you chiming in.