[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by 68Stepbed

So, in 2017, I was able to get the Total Cost Involved kit for my truck. I've been able to learn alot when it comes to suspension geometry and how it all works. I've also seen many of these products in action in the autocross field. I understand that many aren't after all-out handling performance, but they do want improvements over stock.

Here's what I'm seeing.

Ridetech may be the most expensive coilover conversion kit, but they have done extensive R&D and their stuff works very well with lots of victories to show for it.

QA1 seems to have a well made product, but I've not seen any major competitiveness from any of their products. They talk the talk in their advertisements, but nothing to back it up yet.

CPP.....well....they seem to be a bandwagon company. They just copy what others have done with no R&D to make sure anything works. The front is not a true captured coilover shock unit. Also, the shock and spring is way too short for any travel gains. The control arms are the same generic stuff they've always offered made to stock geometry specs, so there's still no gain in camber/caster/motion ratio. The rear system simply replaces the shocks with coilovers, but all in the stock location. In case you haven't heard by now, the rear shock location on the 63-72 trailing arm setup is an absolute horrible design. It was fine for guys hauling hay, feed, and seed for farm use in the 60s-70s, but there's no gain in the performance aspect. The design actually binds under certain conditions.
Let's not forget the terrible customer service from CPP that's actually been discussed already.

I try to tell people to shop around and RESEARCH before buying. Yes, some kits may be more expensive, but sometimes, you're not just buying a name, you're buying the time they took to make sure it's right.

I'll also add that everything TCI makes is made in house at their Ontario, CA, USA facility with USA steel. Nothing is outsourced from other companies and/or countries.

While I agree w/the post in general, this is incorrect.

The CPP tubular arms do offer geometry improvements; it's just not in how the arms are 'built'. Their geometry improvement appears to be obtained the same way you would get it from stock lower control arms.... By shifting it forward.

When I looked @ their install info, I could see the distance variation (fore/aft) of the control arm shaft vs the x-member in images. So there is a benefit of additional Caster but it's nothing one couldn't get w/their stock arms as well.