I think we're all on the same page here. Cool! :')
I gotcha on the parallelogram! True, there! You're right and I agree too. But not exactly what I was trying figure out. The 'parrallelogram' could be off of the frame by 3", 5" or any amount. It will still be the same at the end of the lift procedure, as well. So, I'm thinking that wouldn't have a play in the equation. [Does that make sense?]
Another way of looking at it is like a pair of scissors opening an equivalant of 2" to the Xterra lift. (Minus one of the scissor 'blades' on top) So the thumb hole, [of the scissors] and it's connecting 'lower' blade, is like the Xterra frame, {setting aside the 3" drop of the front point of the leaf, being that it will be constant before and after the lift procedure} and the 'oval' circle (where your 3-4 fingers go in the scissors handle) up to the pivot, is like the front half of the leaf spring.
Please don't get insulted if I'm talking 'babytalk', I'm trying to paint a picture for you guys. LOL
So, are we gettin a true 2" lift at the axle? That's where we want an advertisement of a 2" shackle to get it's lift from. From the pic I saw of someone's Red X w/ shackles next to another Red X w/o, it looked like it was about 3-4 inches, which should be correct [at the bumpers!]. If our bumper stuck out 5 feet from the shackle points, we would be giving our X's rearend approx a 12" shackle lift. So, we want a 2" lift at the axle/hub, and I think we're only getting an inch or so.
How about this.....If we lifted the front the same way (lifting the X 1" at the front axle) it should level it out. Being only a total 1" lift. We just used a 2" shackle method that sort of tweaked our leaf spring angle a bit and distributed the weight on them a little, very little! That's another point for later, maybe. :')
On the shock thing, I'm with ya again! :') Cool, huh?!?! I totally agree too. Longer shocks = more travel = more traction during articulation & = more artic. <---same page again :')
My lack of description probly didn't say what Iwas trying to say on this one either. Both of these scenarios are based on the 'rear only!' being lifted 2".
Remember, I'm totally pleased with my upgrades and completely understand that longer shocks = more travel. The longer, the better, 'til the leafs can't "spread eagle" anymore. lol.
OK, the angle overexageration thing. On a 2" 'axle/hub' lift, 2" longer shocks would compensate if the shocks went straight up, not at a fwd angle (driver side) or back angle (psngr side). We have a 2" lift at the back of the leaf, with a longer shock going fwd and one going back. Which means the one going fwd (drvr) is only elongating about an inch or so, and the one going back (psgr) is gong about [the full] 2" --a compass would give more accurate measurements--, but one is more than the other. {I guess that was my initial point}
So, if you overexagerate the 'fwd pointing' shock angle from [straight up, to it's present locale] to say,....[straight up, to almost lying flat; near the front leaf point of contact] and then added the 2" shackle, the same shock could be used with no changes needed. But, if you overexagerated the 'rear pointing' shock angle, a longer shock would be NEEDED, becase the shackle is at the rear leaf point. Does that make sense? :') Sorry man, don't mean to be giving you a headache. :')
Try to read my first post after reading this one and it might all run together better if you didn't quite get what I said this time. I promise, a measuring tape would work on this equation.
I'm gonna have to go do it too, now. It's gonna bug me and I'll be working on it in my head some more too.
Thx, again, G