Suburban 4x4 "stance" what's right?

[swissarmychainsaw]

I just picked up my first burb and I'm looking for the "right stance".

My favorite look always seemed to be the 3/4 Ton 2wd Stock(trucks).
Being that the Burb is <ahem> overly proportioned in the rear, what rim and tire size is right?

Here's mine (as picked up just today):




I'm looking for the right stance for these things. Too easy to jack them up and Monster truck them out. What do you like and why?

[68Timber]

Just me, but I like them lifted 4" with 35's. BTW, congrats on the purchase.

[Ski-me]

It actually doesn't look too bad as is. Typically, the rear end would be sagging more.....especially at that age. But it doesn't look like it in your picture.

I have a 2" lift with 35" tires on mine and it's OK. I'd say just a suttle lift, 1.5 to 2.5" and some 33's would be nice. Just a hint of lift but not super obvious. I prefer a 3/4 ton truck stance.

My 2004 3/4 suburban has about 1" extra lift with an add-a-leaf and torsion bars up just a bit. Same idea on yours....

Looks to be in nice shape and no rust! If you have a winch in there it's going to drag in the front due to the extra weight. Just keep that in mind if you do lift.

[eighteenninetytwo]

i like it as it is. looks a wee bit upped but not so much that at first glance you think "thats lifted"

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Ski-me

It actually doesn't look too bad as is. Typically, the rear end would be sagging more.....especially at that age. But it doesn't look like it in your picture.

Funny you should mention that: the chassis engineer who designed it liked them down a little bit in the rear.

K

[Ski-me]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Funny you should mention that: the chassis engineer who designed it liked them down a little bit in the rear.

K

That's really interesting! Maybe lowering the rear wheelwell area (compared to the front) gives that illusion too, and he somehow got a word in!

The problem, even with new springs is adding extra weight back there or put on a trailer. The rear end drops even more. I've always liked just a tad higher in the back for this reason (like 1/2" or 1").....not 4". Just proportional.

I guess that's why I'm not a fan of guys out there getting a "front leveling" kit on these newer trucks. It just looks goofy with the front end almost higher than the back. Just don't get it. Maybe I'm too old....

[Maynard]

Well, if you're too old, you must be about my age.

Swiss, tell us what year the rig is and if it's 2WD or 4WD. You can go to the GM Heritage website and probably download the manufacturer Vehicle Information Kit for the Suburban produced that year http://gmheritagecenter.com/gm-herit...tion-kits.html They have all the possible combinations of features listed, as well as the RPO codes for each, MSRP of each option some years, and specifications for each vehicle type, C/K and 1500/2500.

Bumper height for each type is different...originally. It was even different depending on gas or Diesel engine! I say probably because as was mentioned, they do sag. My 1984 K2500 Diesel is down at least an inch from factory height. Once you know what it was supposed to be, or the range of the different configurations, and compare that to what you have, you have a basis. And it'll be something based on more than just look. It will have considered safety and liability.

That looks good. You got lucky with that front bumper. Show us some more.

[special-K]

Stock looks great with 235/85-16s. I guess with 33s a 2" lift and with 35s a 4" lift. ^" clears the 35s better,4" clears the 33s better...when they are 12.50 wide. But that gets into "lanky" as far as looks go

Stock and 4" w/35s:

[swissarmychainsaw]

Yep, I really like that stock look.

BUT then I went to the OHV park and ran around in the mud, and thought "Maybe these 33x12.5 Tires make some sense!"

(Mom came with us!)




I posted a bunch of interior pics and stuff here if your interested:
To Burb or Not to Burb
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=6520182