UZJ100 vs. Tacoma

[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.

 

[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 (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 ...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.