UZJ100 vs. Tacoma

[tacollie]

I have a delema. My brother is willing to trade his 100 series straight up for my Tacoma. I have had my Tacoma since it was new. The LC has been in the family since it was new. I do not know what to do.
First my Tacoma:
TRD, 5-speed manual, ARB Bull Bar, slee sliders, H4 lights, 120K miles, 3 OME lift, cheaper parts, better gas milage, weighs much less, winch. Topper great for sleeping in. Lots of storage room.
Now the LC:
Love land cruisers, ARB bull bar, Slee sliders, Slee rear bumper and tire carrier, Light force lights, Snorkel, 180K miles, automatic, better turning radius, roof rack, fits more than 2 people, has drawers from slee in back, can fit 295/75 tires, winch, probably more reliable.
Both are great offroad, I love driving both of them. Need input.
Also, I just bought 255/85 BFG Mud Terrains for my truck and was wondering hor those would do on a 100.
Here is my truck, I will get a pic of the LC when I can.
6042

[pskhaat]

Wow, I might want some of those accessories off the 100!

I can't answer you on that one, sorry and there's another thread beating this topic to death. All I'll say is that I like the wagon configuration personally.

As per the 255s, yes they'll work beautifully on the 100, in fact once my 315s wear down on my 100, 255s will most likely mount in their stead.

[ShottsCruisers]

Depends on the year 100-series. What year? If 98 or 99 you should pass IMO. If 2000+ it's worth considering.

[tacollie]

Its an 2001, but I think I am going to keep the Tacoma and get a FJ55 of 60 in a year or so. I talked to Slee about making the 100 into what I want it to be and it is more than I am willing to spend on it. It just seems like theyare built capable stock and are supposed to be left at that.

[ShottsCruisers]

I talked to Slee about making the 100 into what I want it to be and it is more than I am willing to spend on it. It just seems like theyare built capable stock and are supposed to be left at that.

Hold on......please tell me the above.....if that's the impression you were left with something is DEAD WRONG. Talk to me.......what do you want?

[ShottsCruisers]

capable stock and are supposed to be left at that.

This is the reason I ask. This is absolutely 100% dead inaccurate. What do you want to use it for?

[tacollie]

First off, your cruiser is sweet. Going to the 315 would be my first move. Then lockers. Now by going to the larger tire I would need to regear. With all that it would run $5000 to $6000. That doesn't bother since it is the same for my truck or any other vehicle. But I have heard the extra torque on the drive terrain creates issues(ie. broken drivshafts, steering components, axles, the usual). From what I understand it is a bigger issue on the 100 than with past LC's. I would love to hear what you have to say since you push yours to its full potential. I checked out your web page. WOW. That is the only reason I considered the trade in the first place. Also, what is you average gas milage with 315's?

[tacollie]

Things break, we all know that. What I am understanding is they break more on the 100s. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ChuckB]

Things break, we all know that. What I am understanding is they break more on the 100s. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think that you are getting mis-information, but I will let someone with more experiece back it completely.

[ShottsCruisers]

Things break, we all know that. What I am understanding is they break more on the 100s. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'll answer this one first. Somebody has brain washed you. This information is DEAD WRONG. With all due respect.....anybody that wouldn't trade a 2002 Taco for a 2001 Cruiser is not thinking straight. There's only a very minute application where a Taco would be better than a 100. Heck....trade, sell the 100, buy back a tAco and pocket money. Dang.....when I had my 2004 Taco I'd a traded for a 2003 Cruiser and sold my body to get it. :sombrero:

[devinsixtyseven]

Going to the 315 would be my first move. Then lockers. Now by going to the larger tire I would need to regear. With all that it would run $5000 to $6000...I have heard the extra torque on the drive terrain creates issues...(OK, I'm taking all that back and sticking with SchottsCruiser's reply...)

[ShottsCruisers]

First off, your cruiser is sweet. Going to the 315 would be my first move. Then lockers. Now by going to the larger tire I would need to regear. With all that it would run $5000 to $6000. That doesn't bother since it is the same for my truck or any other vehicle. But I have heard the extra torque on the drive terrain creates issues(ie. broken drivshafts, steering components, axles, the usual). From what I understand it is a bigger issue on the 100 than with past LC's. I would love to hear what you have to say since you push yours to its full potential. I checked out your web page. WOW. That is the only reason I considered the trade in the first place. Also, what is you average gas milage with 315's?

#1: You still have not told me how you intend to use this truck so I can't reply as accurate as I potentially could.

#2: Lockers? Why? I garonteeeee that my TRAC controlled 2001 could eat my rear-locked 2004 Taco on 99% of the obstacles. Again, what application are you needing?

#3: Regear? Why? Will you be towing big loads? If not, I still have a quick ride in my Cruiser with 315's. It ain't like a Taco with bigger tires.

#4: Bigger tires and breakage? A load of bull, whomever is telling you this. Even myself...I've never broken a thing. The only issue is 98 and 99 front diffs. They suck whether the tires are stock or 35's. Remember my earlier post. Everything in this truck is so overbuilt that modifying it does little to age the thing.

I get 14-16 MPG in my big orca whale. Thanks for the comments by the way. Dude....someone has you upside down. My god....trading a new newer Tacoma for a Cruiser is a dream come true. Is is right for you? I'll stand by for your info on how to use the truck. Unless you want to SAS the Taco, 8" lift it, run 37's to rock crawl....do the trade.

[calamaridog]

Sean,

The physical similarities between the Tundra and UZJ100 end with the engine and transmission. Heck, the transfer case doesn't even drop down on the same side.

The UZJ100 has bigger brakes, bigger axles, bigger r&p's and a heavier duty frame. The CV's are huge - the biggest I've ever seen. This stuff is all 3/4 ton stuff, not 1/2 ton stuff found under the Tundra and Sequoia. I drove a Tundra for 6 months - nice truck, but not nearly as heavy duty as the UZJ100.

Many people regear to 4.88 and run 35's with the UZJ100 without issues, but for expedition type duties, you are fine with 33's. I don't think Schotts rubs his 35's at all. I ran 33's on the stock suspension without rubbing.

Now with the new Tundra packing the big V8, all bets are off. That thing has even bigger brakes, more power, and a 10.5" rear end instead of the 9.5".

BTW, the 105 series trucks (SFA) are basically an 80 series with a 100 series body. They do not come with the V8, but rather with the older 4.5L I6 motor.

[ShottsCruisers]

Betcha didn't know a 1998 100 is very similar to a 2000 Tundra.

**Not even close! Axle shafts, control arms, 100 has torsion bars vs coilovers, etc. They share and engine and a few parts though contruction wise they differ a lot.

Take a look at the thread in General Vehicle about improving payload capacity. Mike H has a great post toward the end about what you need vs what fits and what's reasonable. My truck is basically a 100 with a bed and fewer creature comforts

**Some addressed above. Not even closely correct. Have you ever even looked under a 100-series? The Tundra is a completely different beast built and designed for a different application.

Your difficulties with 315s will arise primarily in the front end, and they will be bad.

**Where and how did you determine this? What are the facts? My facts are that at this point there are loads of 100s running 315's. I've run 315's for about 80K and with no issue and/or breakage. What is "bad" on a 100-series (not some other truck) when running 35's?

Like SchottsCruisers says, you need to figure out your intended use, because (ab)using a 35x12.5 tire *will* eventually result in carnage in your driveline if you don't make some substantial upgrades at least in the front end, and if you are not (ab)using a 35x12.5 tire, there's no reason to get one.


**Totally unsubstantiated and just wrong. Respectfully. Again, we're talking about the UZJ100, not just about "running 35's on some regular-ole truck.

Carnage is a function of required torque at the hub, and the amount of weight that must be lifted to climb a hill. Putting a 6K# truck on 35s with a stock drivetrain is fine if you're never climbing anything, but if you start really getting it, you'll find your shoes are too big and simple physics will break your axles (also possibly deflect your ring and pinion away from each other, run shallow and break), particularly with a locker since you'll put yourself in positions where one axle on each end is trying to lift the entire truck.

**Again, complete plain ole bad information regarding the UZJ100.

You really don't want to know how much a "proper" axle costs for large tires, three tons and a V8, but in general a complete build at both ends costs twice your figure above and that's before wheels, tires, steering and fitment--and your payload capacity takes a hit since those parts aren't light, either. Three tons, large tires and large engine on difficult terrain pushes you in to the Dana 60 range of parts, which get downright stupid expensive.

**No axle upgrades are needed on the UZJ to run 35-inch tires. In fact Alan Podvin has been running 37's in Moab, AZ and accross the West and with no carnage. 80 and 100 series axles are rated comparable to Dana 60 axles. (FYI)

There's no need to go that route with a medium wheelbase, good approach, departure and breakover angles, a sturdy drivetrain, and 32" tires that will adequately get you almost everywhere short of difficult trails. Are you building a rock crawler or an expedition & adventure vehicle?

**Good questions

Add to all that the need for a lift, which actually decreases your capability and weakens your forward drivetrain.

**Not on a 100-series Land Cruiser. I am puzzled by this comment?

Your wheel wells are also similar to mine, you can fit 35s with no lift with a bit of work. Get proficient with a BFH, sawzall, air chisel, die grinder, body saw, and 0.023 wire in a MIG welder, because all those things are necessary to properly clear a 35x12.5 tire on a Toyota.

**Huh......are talking about what we are? The 100 series?

If you get a chance, take a 100 for a test drive in the dirt. Trust me, there's little need for 35x12.5 tires unless you're really getting in to gnarly stuff, in which case you're better off getting to know the capabilities of your rig in stock form and slowly building to the vehicular needs of a 35" tire...add that tire now, with stock parts, and you'll find you're staying off the harder stuff where a 35" tire is a necessity because you'll break your front end.

**I think I understand now. This was all a joke and I got sucked in. OK, laughs on me. If it's not a joke...respectfully, you need to not post these completely inaccurate statements. You do nobody any good.

Get one...it sounds like you have a plan and a desire to make it happen. Enjoy it in stock form for a while! You'll be amazed at what a stock Toyota, Jeep, Nissan, etc. can do in bone stock form. Build it slow, learn the shortcomings and fix them as you have time, money and a real need to make the changes. Otherwise, you're throwing money away on equipment you're not familiar how to use with the vehicle you've just purchased.

-Sean

SEAN: I'm sorry, but your conclusions are not correct and without merit. Making "blanket" statements about tires upgrades and driveline breakage misleads others who are not familiar with a given vehicle. Some of your conclusions might be correct on say an XTerra, or a Land Rover though they are not accurate on the UZJ100. I've addressed some issues above in your note.

[bigreen505]

Take this for what it is worth from someone who does not own a Cruiser, but has watched the discussions from the sidelines for quite a while. If you go digging here and on mud, you will see that most of the discussions about Land Cruiser reliability and durability, with a few notable exceptions, are purely theoretical. The parts are so over built that people theorize that this design might be more likely to fail than that design, but when you push for real world results (Oh, the diffs are weak? Have you ever broken one when you were not doing something that could have earned you a Darwin Award?) you get a lot of "Well, no, but ..." type answers.

If you read the threads on mud where Shotts gets blasted for claiming the UZJ100 is a reliable platform for world travel, most people are throwing stones at him claiming that there is a chance that a wheel bearing could fail in the middle of the Sahara and he would be screwed because they are hard to change and very expensive. Great, anyone had one fail? "Well, no, but ..."

I'm not trying to be rude here, but if you want the Cruiser than just get it, and if you are fishing for reasons that you should keep the Taco because you like it, just keep it. But don't try to delude yourself thinking the Crusier is inferior/unreliable/worthless off road unless highly modded. I'll give you different, it is very different. The rest is preference. Why don't you two just swap trucks for a month and see if you still want to trade or not?

[ShottsCruisers]

I'm not trying to be rude here, but if you want the Cruiser than just get it, and if you are fishing for reasons that you should keep the Taco because you like it, just keep it. But don't try to delude yourself thinking the Crusier is inferior/unreliable/worthless off road unless highly modded. I'll give you different, it is very different. The rest is preference. Why don't you two just swap trucks for a month and see if you still want to trade or not?

I don't think Tacollie is saying the 100's inferior. I think he's been told it.

Again, the key is what does he want it for? If it's for running Upper Ajax in AZ then keep the Taco. If it's forjust about ANYTHING else, steal the Cruiser.

And I luv your idea....trade for a week or so. If he did that he'd never take the Taco back...unless he's an Upper Ajax dude. :o

[tacollie]

You have all been pretty helpful. There is nothing I will do that has not already been done with John's as far as offroading. I don't think the facts I have been told are incorrect, I just thing there has been some miscomunication. I think when I talked to Christo he misunderstood what I was asking and that has brought be to this point. I have always owned older vehicles before I got my Tacoma. All of which need at least one locker. I have wheeled with the cruiser and it is amazing. I am trying to understand its potential. I do not have a lot of experience with the ATrac and it sounds like the lockers are not needed. I agree 100% with what sean said about good driving. It sounds like the BFGoodrich 295/75 AT's would be better than the 315's. I was considering the regear because it is a dog with 33's, and I was afraid of the gas milage. So if I don't want to do a regear and lockers, then I don't really have any money to invest. That is a big perk. I don't know about the longevity of them, it has 185k miles. I was assuming since its a LC it still had life left in it. Slee said it would go over 300K and with good maintanace make it to maybe 400K. Compression is perfect and the tranny shifts and workds flawlesly.

[ShottsCruisers]

You have all been pretty helpful. There is nothing I will do that has not already been done with John's as far as offroading. I don't think the facts I have been told are incorrect, I just thing there has been some miscomunication. I think when I talked to Christo he misunderstood what I was asking and that has brought be to this point. I have always owned older vehicles before I got my Tacoma. All of which need at least one locker. I have wheeled with the cruiser and it is amazing. I am trying to understand its potential. I do not have a lot of experience with the ATrac and it sounds like the lockers are not needed. I agree 100% with what sean said about good driving. It sounds like the BFGoodrich 295/75 AT's would be better than the 315's. I was considering the regear because it is a dog with 33's, and I was afraid of the gas milage. So if I don't want to do a regear and lockers, then I don't really have any money to invest. That is a big perk. I don't know about the longevity of them, it has 185k miles. I was assuming since its a LC it still had life left in it. Slee said it would go over 300K and with good maintanace make it to maybe 400K. Compression is perfect and the tranny shifts and workds flawlesly.

What's a dog with 33's? The Cruiser? Can't be.

Couple of things....please remember, Slee (my source for everything because of his help) is in business to sell Cruiser parts. Slee runs his business in a way where he provides "kits" and "setups" that he feels works best. He also sells 100-series 4.88 re-gears so he is a fan of that.

Reality is that not everyone has to opt for the entire "kit" or "setup" and/or regear. Slee I'm sure would prefer to completely outfit your truck because you then have it all. Not everyone needs it all however.

I don't need gears. You might want them. Telling somebody they have to have though is just wrong. We're not talking a Taco on 33's which is gutless.

I want lockers. You may not. But just because Slee seen some diff failures from TRAC in the snow doesn't mean 100's break. These cases are rare.

33s vs 35s? Depends on what you do.

So listen to Slee. He's a superb source. But listen to others also as you might find a better solution. An example is the N74L shock on my 100. Slee does not want to sell them because sourcing some parts is a pain AND you need to use them withthe correct spring and installed the proper way. I think he feels the N74L might be a bit of a "risk" as he's in business. (Speculating here) Reality is that it transformed my truck on the trail.

[bigreen505]

Now we're getting somewhere. Do a search on mud for 295/75 tires. Someone posted pictures of a UZJ100 with 315, 305, 295 and the ExPo standard 255/85.

If you are worried about the Cruiser being a dog go take it for a drive. I'm running 285's on my Trooper at the moment (32.25 actual) and I would definitely consider it to be a dog with those tires, but it can still hang with I-70 traffic just fine. So how fast do you want to go? Also, I think Slee drives a re-geared, turbo charged 100, so dog is relative.

What I have been told is that A-Trac is a vast improvement over open axles, but is not a locker. If you think you need a locker for traction in dry conditions, you will probably be fine with the A-Trac. If you are looking to climb up something difficult that is wet/muddy/snowy lockers will definitely be an improvement. Only you can answer whether you really need them.

Like John, I think the world of Christo, but I think there is a definite tendency to throw a lot of money at something that may be a small problem to create a fool-proof, bullet-proof solution. And if I recall, he blew his front diff trying to pull out something large and very stuck in reverse. So consider yourself warned not to do that.

[calamaridog]

The truck has plenty of power with 33's but I would not run 35's without a regear. That is my preference, but John does fine without the regear. Most people are real happy with it, and I think if John did regear he would be happy too.

[ShottsCruisers]

I think if John did regear he would be happy too.

Yes....mainly for crawl ratio, not accelleration. The cost to do it at this point (because I already have ARB's in) is not worth it to ME. IF I had another 100 and was locking it with ARB's....YES....4.88s are going in.

[pskhaat]

FWIW, I was one of the original folks with a modded 80 series in the mid-90s, and I got a lot of pokes and jabs about similar statements. Now the whole world is running similarly equiped 80s. I do run 315s on my 80, ungeared, unlocked. I also run 315s on my UZJ100, ungeared. I assure you the 100 handles them much better than the 80 does.

Personally, I'll probably back both my 80 & 100 down to 285s or keep bugging manufacturers about a 275/85r16 (http://tinyurl.com/24vq63) (which is my dream size). 255s'll fit a charm.


...because it is a dog with 33's
2UZ-FE engine is no old dog even on 35s. I imagine 33s'll feel pretty close to stock.



longevity of them, it has 185k miles
The LCs (as I understand) have a severe-duty (re-read severe)service life of 30 years, with 3 engine rebuilds, approximating 1.2+ million miles. I wouldn't blink an eye at 200k miles. The 2UZ-FE engine however is more car-spec and not (unfotunately) unique to the LC's heritage. I'm not personally convinced it is the appropriate sever-duty application in the 100 series. I don't know what the rebuild schedules are on the 2UZ. THAT SAID, the 2UZ-FE has had outstanding wear numbers on oil analysis, and by all means has held it's own in this category, has excellent power and is baby smooth.

As for the 2UZ-FE across the platform lines (LC & Tree & Tundra), is it not true that about the only really shared component is the 2UZ block. The computer, manifolds, intake, et al are all different on the LC.

Sean is right though in that except for harder rock-crawling, will you truly need a 35 tire?

[tacollie]

Everything has been very helpful. The LC with a 285/75 is slower than my tacoma with 255/85's. The crawl ratio on the LC in low is fine. It is going up some of the passes that kills me. Indepence pass, cotton wood pass, and the like. These are slow passes so speed isn't the issue, its the fact that I have to put the pedal to the floor and can't let up until I get to the top. Screw it, no one vehicle is perfect. Either way I don't loose. If the offer is still on the table I will probably trade simply because I want a wagon. Thanks everybody for you input. It is hard to find people who take 100's to their potential and it is nice to hear your opinions and experience.

[ShottsCruisers]

except for harder rock-crawling, will you truly need a 35 tire?

I define rock-crawling as running those trails requiring winches, having extremely large rocks and requiring very tight turning. On these trails, no Land Cruiser does the trick WELL except the FJ40...of course, due to overall size.

For the running of very difficult 4WD trails...the 55-100 series are an excellent choice due to their capability, reliability and the ability to lock and lift and outfit large tires. In this scenario, I believe a 33" tire is JUST sufficient. The added clearance and size of the 35 is a definate plus and that's one reason so many go this driection. For most trails however, a lifted 100 on 33's and especially with lockers will cut it and well.

[tacollie]

I think if I take time to get used to a larger, heavier vehicle I will not need 35's. Once again, thanks everyone.

[pskhaat]

The LC with a 285/75 is slower than my tacoma with 255/85's

I guess it's all relative. Ever driven even a stock FJ60 up the same hills? Up I70 I'd be in 3rd at 50mph max :)

[calamaridog]

I think if I take time to get used to a larger, heavier vehicle I will not need 35's. Once again, thanks everyone.

My Tacoma was almost sporty with KINGS up front and Bilsteins out back. I miss it sometimes, but overall, the LC is a more comfortable vehicle.

[DaveInDenver]

I guess it's all relative. Ever driven even a stock FJ60 up the same hills? Up I70 I'd be in 3rd at 50mph max :)
No kidding, it wasn't until the 5VZ-FE and 1FZ-FE that Toyota 4WD trucks could come close to getting out of their own way. Now the 1GR-FE and 2UZ-FE guys are complaining? Yikes, driving my little 22R-E would be a real eye opener!

[devinsixtyseven]

Wow! I just learned a lot :o...I think I was the one who was suckered in. I had been told in the past that the equipment was the same :smilies27

Sorry for the misinformation regarding similarities in the drivetrain, that was from looking at Tundras, Sequoias, Tacomas...I assumed the late 90s IFS on the 100 was the same, that's my fault. As my comparisons, experience and predictions were based on that late 90s shared IFS platform which S/C points out is different from the 100, I've removed that previous post (it's quoted in S/C's reply, with his comments, good information to have around) since it's completely incorrect--the drivetrain sounds to be much more robust than the current cross-platform drivetrain, which breaks easily enough with stock tires and is undersized for large payloads combined with large tires.

Couple things, these are just asides but I can see as how the rest of my post was based on incorrect assumptions these could have been lumped in with the rest of the garbage. Neither of these was incorrect, they apply to any vehicle regardless how big its CV joints happen to be. These are both tangents based on the "lift and tires" comment...

A lift does not translate to more capability. More travel means more capability. If you have to lift something in order to prevent a larger tire from rubbing at some point in it's range of motion, you've effectively prevented yourself from using that part of the range of motion, and performance falls between rubbing or air under the tires. A vehicle with a larger tire and less range of motion in the suspension as a result, will not go as far as a vehicle with a properly fitted tire and the full range of motion in the suspension, unless that other vehicle is running some pretty big tires. Bumpstops can always be added to limit uptravel and prevent rubbing during articulated turns, but IMHO it is not worth trading an inch of travel for an inch of tire as more travel will get you farther than a larger tire. Yes, you can put traction assistance on a buckboard and go anywhere, with a bit of tire lifting, but an unlocked vehicle with limber suspension will do the same thing. The only place where I can think of a buckboard being safer, better or more capable than a vehicle with limber suspension is on a substantial sidehill.

Maximum torque throughput of a CV joint decreases as the angle increases. Lifts increase that angle. Of course, if you're overbuilt, that's hardly a concern.

100s sound like they also have very large wheel wells. If so, it's the first Toyota I've heard of where a 35" tire can be fully compressed and turned lock to lock without rubbing anything, needing neither lift nor trimming to do so...and that's impressive. Heck, if it's that strong and has the room, running a big tire seems to me to have more to do with gas money than clearance or carnage.

-Sean

[pskhaat]

Total hijack now:



A lift does not [necessarily?] translate to more capability.


Sean, you are totally correct in that (even with my little quote sic). The lift for me adjusts my angle of approach/departure/breakover to where I want, as well as the larger tires (albeit a smaller quantity). The good side effect for me is the load capacity increase without dragging the rear end.

I know Shotts loves his articulation (and should), and I havn't seen a Toyota live axle stock setup that wasn't artificially limited in what it could do, thus Shotts' OME shock mod. On the LCs the lift is for suspension performance, as one can stuff a 35" on stock components.



Maximum torque throughput of a CV joint decreases as the angle increases.


Ahhh, gotta love IFS. :D

[ShottsCruisers]

Wow! I just learned a lot :o...I think I was the one who was suckered in. I had been told in the past that the equipment was the same :smilies27

Sorry for the misinformation regarding similarities in the drivetrain, that was from looking at Tundras, Sequoias, Tacomas...I assumed the late 90s IFS on the 100 was the same, that's my fault. As my comparisons, experience and predictions were based on that late 90s shared IFS platform which S/C points out is different from the 100, I've removed that previous post (it's quoted in S/C's reply, with his comments, good information to have around) since it's completely incorrect--the drivetrain sounds to be much more robust than the current cross-platform drivetrain, which breaks easily enough with stock tires and is undersized for large payloads combined with large tires.

Couple things, these are just asides but I can see as how the rest of my post was based on incorrect assumptions these could have been lumped in with the rest of the garbage. Neither of these was incorrect, they apply to any vehicle regardless how big its CV joints happen to be. These are both tangents based on the "lift and tires" comment...

A lift does not translate to more capability. More travel means more capability. If you have to lift something in order to prevent a larger tire from rubbing at some point in it's range of motion, you've effectively prevented yourself from using that part of the range of motion, and performance falls between rubbing or air under the tires. A vehicle with a larger tire and less range of motion in the suspension as a result, will not go as far as a vehicle with a properly fitted tire and the full range of motion in the suspension, unless that other vehicle is running some pretty big tires. Bumpstops can always be added to limit uptravel and prevent rubbing during articulated turns, but IMHO it is not worth trading an inch of travel for an inch of tire as more travel will get you farther than a larger tire. Yes, you can put traction assistance on a buckboard and go anywhere, with a bit of tire lifting, but an unlocked vehicle with limber suspension will do the same thing. The only place where I can think of a buckboard being safer, better or more capable than a vehicle with limber suspension is on a substantial sidehill.

Maximum torque throughput of a CV joint decreases as the angle increases. Lifts increase that angle. Of course, if you're overbuilt, that's hardly a concern.

100s sound like they also have very large wheel wells. If so, it's the first Toyota I've heard of where a 35" tire can be fully compressed and turned lock to lock without rubbing anything, needing neither lift nor trimming to do so...and that's impressive. Heck, if it's that strong and has the room, running a big tire seems to me to have more to do with gas money than clearance or carnage.

-Sean

Phew.....I thought I got suckered. The 100 haters on MUD pick on me all the time.

If a lift maintains stock articulation then it does improve on capability due to added ground clearance both between the axles and at the axles if you use a larger tire in conjunction. Both 80 and 100-series OME lifts do accomplish this.

Both the 80 and 100 series can run 35's without cutting.

And your capability analysis is spot on in regard to tire size. This came into play for me last weekend while trying out my 6" lift on the 80-series.

I've always ran 80's at 3.5-4 inches. Since going to 6" I thought I should access whether to make the jump to a 37" tire. Running Chiva Falls we still rubbed the 35's at full flex. This told me then and there that I'd need to bump stop 37's (which I was already told was needed). My ASAP decision was NO WAY. Less articulation = more tippiness and less traction. I see that loss to be more substantial than the added clearance the 37 upsize would afford. I think I have the correct balance now for the trails I run. The Lexus is done.

[tacollie]

Told my brother everything you have said and he changed his mind. I will remind him of that at the pump and part store. He wants to put an auxilary tank where the spare tire used to be. Any recommendations?

[bigreen505]

You weren't supposed to tell him that! The plan was take him up on it before he realized what he agreed to. :bike_rider: