seanpistol's 01 Tundra
- Thread starter seanpistol
- Start date
seanpistol
Explorer
So- was I correct in thinking that the rear hanger is in the same position as stock and the front is 4" further forward? How are you able to switch back to the stock Yota springs if that is the case?
I may be able to get away without an AAL or lift block since I want my truck to sit closer to stock height in the rear. I'm sure longer brake lines are needed to take full advantage of the flex- did you run into any other issues such as being limited by the e-brake cable?
How are the road manners with your relocated shocks in the rear? I'd assume it makes for more body sway?
I may be able to get away without an AAL or lift block since I want my truck to sit closer to stock height in the rear. I'm sure longer brake lines are needed to take full advantage of the flex- did you run into any other issues such as being limited by the e-brake cable?
How are the road manners with your relocated shocks in the rear? I'd assume it makes for more body sway?
dyogim
Explorer
When the SAS was done, the rear suspension was based on the tundra stock springs. The stock rear mount was removed and a new one made to allow for the shackle to allow for lift. Rather than drop. The stock mount is inverted so, if you lengthen the shackle, the rear end will drop. Once I decided on the 63" chevy swap, the back half of the 63's had a difference of about .5 or 1" compared to the stock tundra springs. It didn't affect the location of the rear mount. However the front half was definitely longer. Which required the front mount to be moved forward 4"
As far as road manners. Not bad at all. I have no sway bars installed. I believe it has a lot to do with the front leaf springs being stiff. It should be fine for your IFS set-up with a sway bar. I drive my truck like a race care. LOL!
seanpistol
Explorer
I welded on my drivers side slider today between doing research on the 63" Chevy swap... Not gonna lie- I cheated and welded from top to bottom instead of bottom to top which is stronger, but... bottom to top is difficult.
And here's a shot where you can't see the sliders...
White truck with red and blue coilovers... 'Merica.
And here's a shot where you can't see the sliders...
White truck with red and blue coilovers... 'Merica.
seanpistol
Explorer
Drove up to the high Uintas on Saturday- went down a trail until it was impassable due to snow. Came back down a little bit and plopped down next to a stream. Super nice, but got chilly at night! Could have used another blanket on top of our 35 degree sleeping bag, but it wasn't too bad. I'm looking into an anti-condensation mat for the RTT- it builds up quick and easy, especially when it's cold.
My girlfriend pulled this one off her camera from last weekend in Moab-
My girlfriend pulled this one off her camera from last weekend in Moab-
seanpistol
Explorer
Picked up a 35" MTR with a ton of tread to use as my template for the firewall tub- and then it will get mounted as my spare.
This got me excited.
This got me excited.
ExpoScout
Explorer
It's not a super high stress part (hopefully)...top to bottom should be fine as long as you got it hot enough, which it looks like you did. Nice work! Everything's looking great.
seanpistol
Explorer
Haha, I'm not sure if the smarter choice is always the better choice, but that's what I'm going with here.
seanpistol
Explorer
seanpistol
Explorer
I've had 4.56 in my head for years, but D67 suggested 4.88 to me and is making me think... Highway driveability is important to me since this is my daily driver and I put about 10k highway miles on it a year. Plenty of 80mph highways out here where higher gears would benefit, but also plenty of mountain passes I tow snowmobiles up and I think lower gears would be nice for that.
I'm going to keep the front diff open.
Addison, do you keep track of your fuel mileage? Just curious.
I'm going to keep the front diff open.
Addison, do you keep track of your fuel mileage? Just curious.
rickashay
Explorer
I completely disagree.
Last weekend I had the Tundra up to 170 km/hr or 105mph (on a legal blocked off racetrack of course
) and it pulled better than stock all the way there with the 35's. If you go with 4.88's you will lose the top end (which might not be a big deal) and make the truck better for city driving. Lower gears will only benefit you on the highway for the times when normally the trans would want to bump down a gear but at the sacrifice of higher RPMs all the times you are driving on flat ground. I would 100% not want 4.88's with my 35's. The truck is already geared noticeably lower and you can absolutely tell when driving on the highway. Any lower and you would be at 2500-2700rpm doing 65 mph. No thanks. If highway driveability is your concern I think 4.56 is the best option. The truck will still downshift on large hills but I will easily pull a normal grade hill without. I really do feel like the truck behaves like it did stock with 4.56's except it does rev higher at the same given speed. I do track my milage but have not had a single full tank of street driving yet since I did the gears. There was been 4x4 and 4-Low in the last few tanks to my fuel consumption won't be accurate. My "gut" feeling is that I am getting ~15mpg average mix of city/highway. Keep in mind I typically drive 70mph on the highway.... driving slower I suspect would greatly increase fuel economy. I'm going to test my theory out this weekend when I drive to the coast. Should be able to get some good highway consumption numbers while not driving too fast.
Just my $0.02
