2002 Sequoia Limited 4WD

smokeysevin

Observer
FYI the TC hardware/slug adapters will hit the uniball cup if you use them on camburg arms. The Camburg adapters push the uniball further up (vertically) from the spindle than the TC ones do.


Sean
 

Sal R.

Active member
Great photo essay. I have never seen TC hardware or arms up close, so was unsure of the differences between them and Camburg. I have Camburg and have been very pleased with them. Without pulling them back apart, I believe what you show here is very similar to what I have. I'm not sure how much the differences matter, as both company's products seem to work.

I'm also interested in seeing the differences between the two arms. Do they have the same angles, are they the same dimensions, same bracing, etc.
Weather permitting, I'll put them as close to side-by-side. Don't really want to pull my TC UCAs out just for that.

I know for a fact that the Camburg UCAs are shaped better. No one that has Camburg have had to grind down their coil buckets to fit like owners of TC UCAs have had to do, including myself. Heck, it's even in the TC installation instructions now. For $700/800, I think that is utter and complete bullshit.

For the most part, I think both are fine. The arms are meant mostly to keep the suspension together and have relatively low loads going thru it.

FYI the TC hardware/slug adapters will hit the uniball cup if you use them on camburg arms. The Camburg adapters push the uniball further up (vertically) from the spindle than the TC ones do.


Sean
I had no intention of swapping hardware, but I did notice that the uniball interface on the Camburg was higher than TC (if you measure from the spindle mating surface), which also helped to explain the collar profile differences bw the two. The narrow neck on the Camburg would help clear the cup, for sure.
 
Last edited:

jls4

New member
Love reading through this build.

Does the hidden snorkel affect airflow to the engine with it being up that high into the fender?
 

Sal R.

Active member
Love reading through this build.

Does the hidden snorkel affect airflow to the engine with it being up that high into the fender?
Nope. No difference at all. Air intake temps are the same. No changes or hesitation up and down the RPM band up to 4k.
 
Last edited:

jls4

New member
Nope. No difference at all. Air intake temps are the same. No changes or hesitation up and down the RPM band up to 4k.
Wonderful to hear. I think this is possible on my 4th Gen 4Runner, and I too am not a huge fan of the external snorkel. Thanks!
 

Kpack

Adventurer
Not to clutter your thread up too much, but would one advantage of the external snorkel be to grab "cleaner" air on dusty trails? Would the hidden snorkel have more chance of dust ingress than an external? I ask because I run trails that get incredibly dusty during the dry months, but worry that an external snorkel would snag on limbs and other tight spots.
 

Sal R.

Active member
Not to clutter your thread up too much, but would one advantage of the external snorkel be to grab "cleaner" air on dusty trails? Would the hidden snorkel have more chance of dust ingress than an external? I ask because I run trails that get incredibly dusty during the dry months, but worry that an external snorkel would snag on limbs and other tight spots.
In theory, I would say yes, external snorkels could grab cleaner air...if you're not following someone kicking up dust.

I was able to keep "most" of the wheel liner so dust ingress is no worse than stock. When I pulled the fender panel to install the snorkel, there was hardly any dust past the liner under the fender after over countless desert, snow, and mud trips. Not to mention that my airbox was relatively clean.

With that in mind, I don't think the chances are greater to ingest dust with a hidden snorkel with a wheel liner vs external snorkel. I believe it would be a different story if there was no fender liner.

If that were the case (no wheel liner), I most definitely would have routed the hidden snorkel into the cowling, like most who have done this mod, to keep as much dust out as possible.
 
Last edited:

JRenna

New member
Sal,

It looks like you kept the stock rear bump stops when you had the Dobinsons installed. Were they adequate or did they allow the shocks to fully compress before making contact? I currently run the Dobinson GS59-685 with OME 862 on my 03 Sequoia and I just recently encountered a "full stuff" situation that got me thinking about this (after the fact of course). However, I can't jack the tire high enough at my house to measure safely. Any chance you've already measured this? Thanks, your Sequoia is one of the sickest I've seen across the interwebs!
 

Sal R.

Active member
Sal,

It looks like you kept the stock rear bump stops when you had the Dobinsons installed. Were they adequate or did they allow the shocks to fully compress before making contact? I currently run the Dobinson GS59-685 with OME 862 on my 03 Sequoia and I just recently encountered a "full stuff" situation that got me thinking about this (after the fact of course). However, I can't jack the tire high enough at my house to measure safely. Any chance you've already measured this? Thanks, your Sequoia is one of the sickest I've seen across the interwebs!
The Dobinsons will fully compress with a 1/2" margin with the stock bumpstops.

The Dobinson shocks where chosen to fit within my measurements when I cycled the rear suspension droop to bumps. Measurement results are posted in link below.

 

JRenna

New member
The Dobinsons will fully compress with a 1/2" margin with the stock bumpstops.

The Dobinson shocks where chosen to fit within my measurements when I cycled the rear suspension droop to bumps. Measurement results are posted in link below.

Thank you for the reply. I made and installed 2.5x2.5 steel tubing extensions over the weekend but I believe I will be removing them. I had read over the data in the attached link over and over before posting and I guess I just assumed those were your measurements with 5125s installed. Anyways, this is great news and I can quit driving around town trying to stuff my rear tires for measurements lol.
 

dirtdobberoffroad

Active member
I don't even have a sequoia but I couldn't stop reading your thread...excellent write up skills and now I know I should have went with the sequoia over the suburban......
 

Dmski

Adventurer
Fantastic updates. Love coming here and reading up on the truck. I came up with a few ideas I'll have to do for myself as well including the molle panel and the onboard water shower. How does that system pressurize to allow water to come out? Also, how many miles are on the rig? Any worries for future proofing this beast or is it one of those things you won't worry until it comes time to swap out a worn out engine/trans and cross that bridge then?
 

Sal R.

Active member
Fantastic updates. Love coming here and reading up on the truck. I came up with a few ideas I'll have to do for myself as well including the molle panel and the onboard water shower. How does that system pressurize to allow water to come out? Also, how many miles are on the rig? Any worries for future proofing this beast or is it one of those things you won't worry until it comes time to swap out a worn out engine/trans and cross that bridge then?
The waterport can be pressurized as it is filled or using an air pump like a bicycle pump. Waterport has a vid of it somewhere. I've been using my ARB OBA to pressurize the tank while out and about.

Currently, the car has 247k+ miles on it.

As far as future proofing it, it's not really a concern. I'll add whatever she's missing. The car is a keeper and I'm gonna run her into the ground and replace components, as needed.

Such a cool build! Inspires me for the 2007 I just picked up.
Thanks! I hope that my build was helpful in some way.
 
Last edited:
Top