1st gen trucks for expeditions?

[Grim Reaper]

79-83 are great trucks! Really if you want to get technical thats not a first Gen. Toy was making trucks in the 60's and yes some where coming in here. First Gen "Hilux" is 69-73. 79-83 is 4th gen. The Stout dates back to the mid 60's.
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/tacoma/history.html

You might want to look at Big Mikes build where he put a 3Rz in his truck.
http://board.marlincrawler.com/index.php?topic=4401.0

Look forward to seeing this build!

 

[DaveInDenver]

The first gen 4 spd is reportedly stronger than those first gen 5 speeds.

The L43 4-speed is probably preferred over an early 5 speed, like the L50. The early 5 speed had grossly undersized input bearings and they are not long lived here on the Interstates. You are right that it's definitely best to to go with a later 5 speed like a G52 and W56 if you can. But, the best combo IMHO for a L43 truck is the L52 that's got Marlin's HD bearing modification since the length of the case is the same as a L43, so the transfer case shifter does not move from the stock location. Since the L43 is a side shift, you'll have to drill a new shifter hole for any of the top shift trannys (which is basically all non-L43 units). But with a L52HD, at least you only need to deal with one hole (well, two if you do an Ultimate at the same time).

I'd put a G or W series 5 speed out of a later truck on the wish list. W gets the nod for strength w/o searching for the rare turbo only R series. Plus,

The turbo is the R151F. This is basically the same transmission as the V6 5-speed R150F, but with a lower 1st gear (4.313 vs. 3.83). Marlin can build a R150F using the lower first gear of a R151F or he can also do the Toyota 5.15/2.74/1.93/1/0.83 gear set. BTW, the stock R150F ratios are 3.83/2.06/1.44/1/0.84. The W56 ratios are 3.95/2.14/1.38/1/0.85.

 

[Martinjmpr]

The only problem I think you'd have with a 1st or 2nd gen 4x4 would be that the beds tend to rust rather excessively. I rarely see one here without a lot of rust. As I understand it, the beds were built in the US and put on the trucks here to avoid a punitive tariff. The rust problem doesn't seem to affect the cab or front of the truck. It's actually rather common to see trucks from this era still on the road here in CO (in my last apartment complex there were at least 2 79-83 trucks and 2 84-88 trucks in the parking lot) and most of them have a lot of rust on the bed, especially around the fenders.

The rust issue may be why one of the more common mods you see is a flatbed conversion. Just get rid of that rusty bed and replace it with a flatbed.

 

[Clay]

Thanks for all the replies, fellas. I do plan on building this up, and I very much plan on driving the crap out of it. This is will be my second 1st gen (I know, but for 4x4's it's the 1st gen!) build up, and the 4th Toyota that I have built. I have built full on rock crawlers before, but this will be the first time that I will attempt to make a nearly 30 year old truck capable of surviving another 100k of hard miles. I'm looking forward to the build up.

Plans are for 2" lift to fit 33" MT/R tires, e-lockers swapped in front and rear, custom bumpers, and all the normal expo portal camper stuff in the bed. I wish I could find a flip-pac topper, but for now I have an old-school aluminum shell that will work. I'll try and get some pics up ASAP.

As for the running gear, the engine, tranny ant t-case are all in great shape, so I will most likely go the route of trying to find the best deal on things as I can, then swap them in as I go or as they break. Plans are for a 22re, w56, dual t-case set up, but I'm not in that big of a hurry really.

 

[ntsqd]

Thinking about Dave's comments on trans lengths etc. I realized that the later trans are longer on purpose. There is a fair distance of 'wasted' space btwn the trans and the transfercase that doesn't have to be there. Compared to most domestics Toyota trans-t/c combos are really long.

Which made me wonder why. My guess is two reasons.
1) Lessens the operational angle of the front U-Joints. Which translates into more possible wheel travel if so inclined.
2) With the front DS laid flatter the slip-yoke will have less plunge per given amount of wheel travel. That is a good thing. Splines, even square splines, don't really like to slip especially when under power. This translates directly into ride quality. A sticky slip-yoke will make the front suspension act abit like stiffer springs and make the ride less supple.

 

[DaveInDenver]

There is a fair distance of 'wasted' space btwn the trans and the transfercase that doesn't have to be there. Compared to most domestics Toyota trans-t/c combos are really long.

I dunno why they are so long, but there is a lot of space at the tail end. I'd always figured it was so the forward t-case shifter would fit.

 

[ntsqd]

I suspect that the fwd shifters are result of the longer trans-t/c adapter rather than the driver of them.

In any case, I really like the looks of the first gen OE 4x4's )), I just wish that I fit in them. I'm too old to fold those ways anymore. Were I a competent sheet metal guy I'd consider making a one-off XtraCab version.....

 

[Clay]

The two main reasons for the tranny swap to a later model is strength and drive shaft angle. With a 4" lift and the stock early tranny the front driveshaft is at a very steep angle.

There is a guy on Pirate4x4 that did a conversion to make it his an extended cab. I'm not sure why you would do that it would be easier to just get a camper shell and cut the cab out to make a 4runner type rig.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I'm not sure why you would do that it would be easier to just get a camper shell and cut the cab out to make a 4runner type rig.

Is it a pretty easy swap, maybe? I know the 2nd and 3rd gen beds share the same mounting locations and are interchangeable, even though it looks a little weird. Maybe the cabs are similar enough that putting an XtraCab on an old frame wouldn't require a ton of fab. Isn't Nullifier doing this (putting an XtraCab on a short frame)?

 

[Clay]

I know that his name is 4runnerrick on there, so you might search his name. Anything is possible with a welder and a torch!

So the question of the day is...how to fit cross-over steering with only a shackle lift. Ever seen it done? No power steering is kinda sucking right now!

 

[ntsqd]

Having spent my time in the 80's mini-truck scene I wouldn't do that b/c I've seen what that does to severely shorten cab life. I also do not want a FunRnnr or 4Rnnr. An Xcab with a std short bed works perfect for my uses.

On low/no lift w/ X-ver, what I have read is that an IFS oil pan buys you some additional clearance for the drag link. Patch is at the bottom end of what is considered to be minimum lift for X-over so I've got one of these pans just in case it's needed.
At the current rate of progress on that truck, & knowing that all I lack is the drag link, expect to see X-Over done about 2010.....

 

[Clay]

I'm sorry if I missed it, but how much lift are you running?

I did a little searching on Pirate and came up with this advice from Chris Geiger:

"Both Hy-Steer and Standard crossover steering have the drag link in about the same place. As DRM said, 4 of lift is the minimum for a SAS. To go lower use a hole saw to notch out the frame around the drag link. Then you can weld in a half piece of tubing into the frame."

Seems like it may be the ticket.

I got the 33's on the truck last night, they fit with no rubbing and no lift. The sway bar is still on though, and converting to cross-over steering will probably change that a little bit. Must be just the right off-set of wheel or something. Now the need for power steering is very high.

 

[ntsqd]

That is an unknown. I am running the springs that the truck came with. I'd say roughly 3" I'd actually like it to sit an inch lower as that would make getting in and out easier. At full bump (stock location bump stops) my tires can hit the firewall seam despite the heavy BFH mods done to the seams. Don't know if 1st gens suffer from this too.

I'd be REALLY hesitant to notch the frame of a leaf sprung truck. Not there anyway. If you're doing a load bearing cage from the radiator back, then it'd be OK. Same if you're going to linkage and coils.
With leaves ~1/4 of the front axle loads are applied to the frame rail fwds of that notch. Geiger didn't always do things very well. I've disagreed with him on design from time to time going back to way b4 he was the ORC yota email list mod. My education is mech. design, his background was IT @ UCSB. Just b/c it works doesn't mean that it will not compromise the frame's lifespan.

I suspect that current high steer stuff may be lower than the old welded-up type X-over arms are. Most of the current stuff, being built from plate, has little rise to it, but the old welded arms used a stock steering arm upside down so they have some rise to them. I don't know the vintage of that post, but it may not apply to current products.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Just b/c it works doesn't mean that it will not compromise the frame's lifespan.

Just look at all the really sketchy Saginaw PS conversions on FJ40s to know how true that is. Some do real hack jobs on their frame to get it to fit. Who cares about stress risers? If I have to turn my 35" without PS, then you'll see real stress! They then proceed to cut and weld something together and wonder why in 2 years they have big cracks in the frame. Duh.

 

[lowenbrau]

I agree about the frame notch, I wouldn't be too thrilled about it for an expedition rig. One note about power steering though. I have really learned to love ram assist on my rigs. It reduces the stress on nearly the entire steering system and makes for a really good steering stabiliser and fluid cooler. For a couple hundred bucks it is one of the best mods you can do to a solid front axle truck. Carry a couple of plugs in your tool kit to cover off the liability of the extra hoses.