ShottsCruisers
Explorer
devinsixtyseven said: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
Phew.....I thought I got suckered. The 100 haters on MUD pick on me all the time.
If a lift maintains stock articulation then it does improve on capability due to added ground clearance both between the axles and at the axles if you use a larger tire in conjunction. Both 80 and 100-series OME lifts do accomplish this.
Both the 80 and 100 series can run 35's without cutting.
And your capability analysis is spot on in regard to tire size. This came into play for me last weekend while trying out my 6" lift on the 80-series.
I've always ran 80's at 3.5-4 inches. Since going to 6" I thought I should access whether to make the jump to a 37" tire. Running Chiva Falls we still rubbed the 35's at full flex. This told me then and there that I'd need to bump stop 37's (which I was already told was needed). My ASAP decision was NO WAY. Less articulation = more tippiness and less traction. I see that loss to be more substantial than the added clearance the 37 upsize would afford. I think I have the correct balance now for the trails I run. The Lexus is done.
