The Plan...

[dieselcruiserhead]

Not too much to add about the Benz motor except that I have been sitting on a wrecked '81 with about 129k miles on it (coincidentally identical mileage of the truck) that is very tight and should work excellently. I'll adapt it to GM via the 4x4 Labs kit and then a Toyota 5 speed trans and gear driven transfer case. I may install a Marlin Crawler low range kit into the case to get better low range gearing...

And that is really about it. Though the Benz engine is mechanical I have a feeling it will prove to be the most difficult engine swap I have done for a variety of reasons.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...And that is really about it. Though the Benz engine is mechanical I have a feeling it will prove to be the most difficult engine swap I have done for a variety of reasons.

Is Luke doing any conversion components for the actual engine controls or just the transmission side of things?

 

[digitalferg]

Dunno if this has been linked yet: thepinktaco's Taco SAS on pirate. He went coils with a dual triangulated 4 link using an 80 series front axle. Turned out pretty decent I think. Slightly more hardcore than what we're talking about, but maybe some useful info. Says it ended up exactly 6" over stock and looks freaking perfect with the 35s I think, though it even looks good with the 33s (or whatever those are) on it in the first pic.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544702

-Ferg-

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

Very nice...

Ferg,
You're the man in case you haven't heard it again lately... You and the links you come up with have been huge, mostly for just motivational purposes...

I really hope it all turns up well...


Kurt, to answer your questions just the transmission side. That is all it really needs though, seriously... Everything else is pretty custom but there are some funk fitment things etc etc... I all works but the threads I've seen so far have all had some slightly hoaky stuff related to these complications. I'm trying my absolute hardest to have none of them..

 

[digitalferg]

Integrating the ABS of the 80 would be very cool, even better if you can do the common hacks to be able to disable it at will. What are your thoughts on the width of the 80 axle under a 3rd gen 4Runner? You could run some fairly back-spaced wheel but might run into TRE clearance issues? Though I think the 80 steering arms angle outwards less than a 40/55/60 axle. I say do it, leave 100% of the bracketry on the 80 axle and you know we can dial in the coil rates using our research and calculations. Hardest part on the 3rd Gen or a Tacoma would be the steering imo. You'll have to do an earlier steering box similar to that of a SAS. Plenty of kits to handle that though.

I've already got the ABS/TRAC/VSC disable hack (aka Andy mod) setup on my 4Runner. That's not going anywhere...though there is guy that recently joined up over on yotatech that has been hammering out a new and improved way to do it. He's made some good progress and I may switch mine over to how he's doing it.

The 4runner/Taco rear axle is supposedly just over 60" WMS-WMS and the 80 series is right around 63". I'm already running 80 series OEM alloys on my 4runner and the tires (33x12s) are completely tucked inside the LTD-style flares on it so I could easily (and happily) add 1.5" more width per side (could even run skinnier tires to get back under farther if necessary). And for the rear, my thought is swap in the 80 series rear to not only match the front width change, but also get the luxury of a FF rear and rear disc brakes. Of course, this all would include e-lock front and rear. The rear could prove to bit a bit harder to get in there given how close the gas tank lives in relation to the stock 4R upper CAs. I plan to spend some time daydreaming under both rigs and measuring stuff up before I make any commitments (aka spend any money) but at the very least, some beefier stock length 4R uppers and lowers adapted to the 80 series rear would do the trick just fine I think. And then also work in the ABS for the rear as well.

I think the key for the 80 axles going under an 01-02 4Runner (my rig being an 02) is the brakes (rear drum vs. disc) and the abs, trac and VSC stuff. They are all so closely tied together on these years. Any other year 3rd Gen, no question this is what I'd do. (Thus my thoughts of not having the right base truck to start with...)

(Hope i'm not mucking up your threads too much Dre. )

-Ferg-

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

No seriously have at it.. It's all more than relevant...

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I've already got the ABS/TRAC/VSC disable hack (aka Andy mod) setup on my 4Runner. That's not going anywhere...though there is guy that recently joined up over on yotatech that has been hammering out a new and improved way to do it. He's made some good progress and I may switch mine over to how he's doing it.

Keep me posted, I still need to hack my Tacoma. Really miss my non-ABS Tacoma really, I've rarely found a time I like it but on the same hand would prefer it still be functional when I'm not behind the wheel.

And for the rear, my thought is swap in the 80 series rear to of course match the front width change, and of course get the luxury of a FF rear and rear disc brakes and of course this all would include e-lock front and rear. The rear could prove to bit a bit harder to get in there given how close the gas tank lives in relation to the stock 4R upper CAs. I plan to spend some time daydreaming under both rigs and measuring stuff up before I make any commitments (aka spend any money) but at the very least, some beefier stock length 4R uppers and lowers adapted to the 80 series rear would do the trick just fine I think. And again, work in the ABS for the rear as well.

Keep in mind the 80 rear is offset. You may be able to work out the driveshaft angle issues but complicates the process. Running a 60 axle in a 40 chassis like my setup presents a similar albeit much smaller difference, with the use of a DCV rear shaft I've had no vibration problems to speak of.

 

[digitalferg]

Keep in mind the 80 rear is offset. You may be able to work out the driveshaft angle issues but complicates the process. Running a 60 axle in a 40 chassis like my setup presents a similar albeit much smaller difference, with the use of a DCV rear shaft I've had no vibration problems to speak of.

I've thought about that one as well. Its for sure some of the things I plan to measure out when I'm crawlin around under them.

My initial thoughts are:

-good thing the 4runner gas tank is on the drivers side;
-hopefully the 80 series diff isn't too far offset to make it unworkable;
-and I ran the 80 rear on my 60 series with no driveline vibration problems and the driveline was slightly angled.​

My hope is that the 80 diff offset is right in between the 4R center and the 60 series offset. But of course, the difference of angles between the 60 and 80 vs the 4R and 80 could obviously be a whole world of a difference. But again, there is always something that can be done to take care of the issue at the tcase. But the thought of messing with t-case again makes me think I have not the right base truck to do this on...

All this talk is making me want to start crawlin around under these suckers and measuring stuff out. If only it wasn't so blasted cold outside...

-Ferg-

 

[digitalferg]

The 4runner/Taco rear axle is supposedly just over 60" WMS-WMS and the 80 series is right around 63". I'm already running 80 series OEM alloys on my 4runner and the tires (33x12s) are completely tucked inside the LTD-style flares on it so I could easily (and happily) add 1.5" more width per side (could even run skinnier tires to get back under farther if necessary).

I just remembered...most of the 3rd Gen 4R guys running the LC wheels are actually running them with 1.25-1.50" wheel spacers as the LC wheels have a deeper backspace on them than the stock 4R wheels and the tires can end up rubbing on stuff back/in there. And its even more so with the wider tires like I am running (its not recommended to run the 305s like I do, most run the 285s). I have custom clearanced UCAs in front to allow clearance between the tire's inside sidewall, but I still have frame rubbage on full steering lock. So, now that I've thought about it some more, the extra 1.5" per side is pretty much just what the doctor ordered for a wider tire like I'm running. And with this swap, I've been envision 315s as well.

-Ferg-

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I just remembered...most of the 3rd Gen 4R guys running the LC wheels are actually running them with 1.25-1.50" wheel spacers as the LC wheels have a deeper backspace on them than the stock 4R wheels and the tires can end up rubbing on stuff back/in there. And its even more so with the wider tires like I am running (its not recommended to run the 305s like I do, most run the 285s). I have custom clearanced UCAs in front to allow clearance between the tire's inside sidewall, but I still have frame rubbage on full steering lock. So, now that I've thought about it some more, the extra 1.5" per side is pretty much just what the doctor ordered for a wider tire like I'm running. And with this swap, I've been envision 315s as well.

-Ferg-

Sounds like it would do the trick and while the FF 80 axle would be ideal overall, don't forget to consider some of the other centered Toyota rear applications that might work out width wise ie the T100 & Tundra.

After a bit more thought on the Tacoma/3Gen 4Runner application I really think I would personally lean back to the 80 Radius arms BUT use a hybrid coilover such as the SEMA retro truck did. It would make for a very easy front axle setup (your upper strut mount could stay untouched). Not sure the geometry and lengths would work out ideally but for the $600-800 you would pay for the coilovers (roughly double that of coils/shocks) I think the adjustability and easy of installation would be pretty slick. You would be down to mounting the rear control arm brackets and a track bar bracket to the frame, beyond the obvious IFS removal and diff side issue.

Ben I'm sure we've talked about this before but when I had my first Tacoma I was 100% dead set on SAS'ing it the day I paid it off. I had the time, the tools, the axle, would have been pretty straightforward. Well a year or two went buy before I had it paid for and by the time I got to that point I had really warmed up on the IFS, I saw no reason for the swap given the uses it was seeing. Fast forward a 150k miles on the IFS and having my current IFS nearly perfectly dialed in (thanks for helping me with all the swaps btw) I'm not even slightly interested in the IFS swap. YMMV of course and if one desires greater than 3" of lift out of a Tacoma/3rd gen 4Runner, the SAS is the way to go hands down. In the case of the radius arm mini/2nd gen 4runner I'd vote the SAS right from the start however.

 

[digitalferg]

The Tundra/T100 is too wide to match the 80 series front as they are ~66" wide. Was a good thought though.

As to the coil-over. I've thought about that a lil bit as well. I've nothing but good regarding how coil-overs perform, but I've also heard they don't last too long in snowy climates. I would prefer a standard coil and shock setup if possible.

And as to the IFS vs SAS on the 3rd Gen 4R and the Taco. I can't say I've spent quite enough time in my truck offroad just yet to fully factor in offroad performance into my reasons for wanting a SAS on it. But I've got plenty of time I'll be spending in it before anything even remotely starts to happen on my truck so I'll be able to have a real opinion on it. Honestly, my motivation comes from wanting to run 35s and therefor needing something stronger and some way to get slightly more front lift (without resorting to body lifts) to fit the 35s under there. Coupled with the coolness factor of having a modified, non-standard rig, and the all around robustness and ease of maintenance of the Toy solid axle.

Really I just want to win the "Favorite non Land Cruiser Toyota" award at a future Cruiser Outfitters bbq show-n-shine. Gotta beat Lewis (and soon Andre) out somehow... :sombrero:

-Ferg-

 

[cruiseroutfit]

The Tundra/T100 is too wide to match the 80 series front as they are ~66" wide. Was a good thought though.

They can't all be the same? I'm thinking of of a 96' T100 or gen 1 Tundra? I can only imagine the Tundra axle got wider

As to the coil-over. I've thought about that a lil bit as well. I've nothing but good regarding how coil-overs perform, but I've also heard they don't last too long in snowy climates. I would prefer a standard coil and shock setup if possible.

Your running coil-over now Yes a threaded body - adjustable coilover can suffer to Utah's winters. The threads can become damaged beyond adjustable and the spherical joints they often use on the bottom take a beating. Now theoretically you could just run a standard non-adjustable coil-over, but all the applications we know of (think of all those coils we measured) have far too great of a spring rate, like twice as much as you would want with a solid axle. Therein lies the problem and if the adjustable coilover turns you off then I think in the end a standalone coil and shock setup would be an effort well spent.

Honestly, my motivation comes from wanting to run 35s and therefor needing something stronger and some way to get slightly more front lift (without resorting to body lifts) to fit the 35s under there. Coupled with the coolness factor of having a modified, non-standard rig, and the all around robustness and ease of maintenance of the Toy solid axle.

I hear you loud and clear... if 35's are the goal the SAS is a clear winner. Even if you could get 35's under the IFS platform, the steering rack, ball joints and CV shafts would be weak links imo.

Really I just want to win the "Favorite non Land Cruiser Toyota" award at a future Cruiser Outfitters bbq show-n-shine. Gotta beat Lewis (and soon Andre) out somehow... :sombrero:

LOL, I didn't count the votes but I can try and rig it for you Lewis did a rock solid job on his SAS, very clean but old school in the sense he used leafs.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I was going to mention that 80 rear axle ...

You were sprung over so we angled the rear diff right at the t case... I can't remember if it required a double cardan...

 

[digitalferg]

They can't all be the same? I'm thinking of of a 96' T100 or gen 1 Tundra? I can only imagine the Tundra axle got wider

Been searching and searching on pirate and elsewhere and apparently they are just about the same axle...but several FAQs are indicating they are def the same width at ~66".

(http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=267166&highlight=tundra+axle+width)

Your running coil-over now Yes a threaded body - adjustable coilover can suffer to Utah's winters. The threads can become damaged beyond adjustable and the spherical joints they often use on the bottom take a beating. Now theoretically you could just run a standard non-adjustable coil-over, but all the applications we know of (think of all those coils we measured) have far too great of a spring rate, like twice as much as you would want with a solid axle. Therein lies the problem and if the adjustable coilover turns you off then I think in the end a standalone coil and shock setup would be an effort well spent.

Ya ya.... I have formed a habit of associating "coil-overs" with the threaded body, adjustable coil-overs. I gave a normal coil-over a couple thoughts at one point, but wasn't sure how well that setup would work, given the way the mount up top (the three bolts to the coil bucket). But perhaps something like that would do the trick in this situation we're talking about where its not going to be an uber-flex machine.

LOL, I didn't count the votes but I can try and rig it for you Lewis did a rock solid job on his SAS, very clean but old school in the sense he used leafs.

I was actually one of the vote counters... LOL

-Ferg-

 

[digitalferg]

I was going to mention that 80 rear axle ...

You were sprung over so we angled the rear diff right at the t case... I can't remember if it required a double cardan...

It was the stock 60 series rear shaft...and I'm pretty sure it didn't have a DC...

-Ferg-