What about converting to a clevis upper and running mounts like these?

 

That would be absolute dope status. I'm sure it could be done too. It just might take a lot of playing around with to get right. It would certainly allow you to get the upper spring perch super close to the chassis. Possibly as closer or closer than using the OEM tops.

.....now that I think about it looking at that picture I don't see how you'd really gain anything other than cool points. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? My brain is working slow today...I also noticed that for a ton of shocks that mount wouldn't even work due to the fact that some adjusters are on the top and now that's no longer accessible.

What would be sweet is if there was some solution like the GC Subaru plates where the bulk of it actually mounts on the top and not from underneath. It still has a ring with the studs that attach from the bottom but it's a lot thinner. It sounds like a ton of work for minimal gains.

 

Don't AST's have rebound adjustment through the rod? It would be really pricey.

 

So since stock rake is 0.5" positive, running even height all around is actually moving 0.5" closer towards negative rake, this should add rear end stability. While conversely keeping the 0.5" stock rake at lower heights like 12.5"f/13"r, would help with rear end rotation?

 

Since the bump stop fits up into the top hat and is shorter than the lower boss on the top hat, how would the stop work, wouldn't the shaft bottom out on the top hat? You would need the bump stop to be able to fit up into the boss and stick out some to protect the shock, right?

Is there any way milling the boss down would add travel?

 

Do those GC tops hit the spare tire/fuel filler?

 

IMO, the only thing these GC Top hats do is allow you to run a shock that is too long for the ride height you want to run. (possibly meant for near OEM ride height. Basically it reduces sag and or need for helper springs or need for excessive spring preload. If the shock doesn't go up into the top hat, you aren't gaining anything but maybe a softer bump stop and a painfull crunch.. .

 

The tops themselves don't hit the fuel filler but because the shock pin sits higher it might. My KWs it was super close so I just put some padded adhesive foam on the filler boot thing so it wouldn't rub on that. No problems at all. No idea about spare tire. I don't have mine in the car.

These tops are really only meant for Koni yellow shocks. I believe they are small enough that they actually fit up into the boss on the shocks. Pretty much everything else out there doesn't work. (If you're on the GC site it will tell you these only work with their coilover setups which are nothing more than their sleeves on Koni Yellows)

Off the shelf they really don't work great and I think need some sort of modification to be completely functional. I've got a part on order that I'm going to tinker with that I think will allow me to use the tops for the extra travel they really do provide. I will be milling down the lower boss completely so it's non existent. If I can make everything work the way I think I can I actually will gain travel out of these. My current setup has a TON of droop that I will be glad to give up for a little travel. I've posted this elsewhere but the other plus is that it will move the shock shaft about an inch higher (whether or not I actually get more travel) and that will definitely reduce the chance of the shock bottoming out internally.

 

I still don't really understand this too well, so I talked to GC about extended top mounts today, and here is what they said:

The mounts are not designed for the shock body to fit up into the top mount at all, but they still add up to 1" of travel. I asked how they add travel, and was told its by moving the mounting point higher up by 1", which is the only way to add travel. And milling the lower boss would not provide any benefit or additional travel. They also do not recommend milling the mount any, seemed to be worried about the integrity of the mount if it was milled.

The bump stops fit up into the top mounts, and stick out of the lower boss a bit when fully compressed, which protects the shock body from the top mount. If the bump stop was trimmed shorter than the length of the lower boss, the shock would bottom out on the top mount, and they said not to do that, so basically the 54mm stops I have can't really be trimmed.

Also they said the bump stop slides all the way down the shock shaft to sit right on top of the shock body, and the metal washers are not needed with the race mounts. Mac, what did you mean about this, and the bump stop getting pushed over the misalignment bushing? What is the misalignment bushing? Should the metal washer still be used, or are they only needed in the front with the stock top mounts?

 

They sort of got it right. The problem is that without the lower boss milled and the shock being able to go up into that space you don't get any extra travel at all. You actually lose travel. Yes the shock shaft now has the ability to get more travel but it's not going to do a bit of good if the shock body can't get sucked up any higher than it could before.

I'll just go ahead and say it now that these tops are almost worthless for our cars if you aren't going to modify them. They are also going to not want that lower boss milled down because they are covering their butts. I know for a fact that if I do it and have any problems then I'm going to be on my own as they weren't intended to be modified. I also fail to see how milling down the lower boss a bit is going to cause issues with the part failing. I plan to leave that lower boss at 1-2mm in height. The one thing I will gain from these though is a spherical bearing top which is definitely a plus over the OEM tops.

I ultimately haven't decided if I'll keep them and play with it or if I'll just sell them continue using the OEM tops. For what it's worth this is only really an issue in the rear of our car. The fronts never really have travel issues.