I would expect the stance to be almost identical to the way it is now, should turn out great.

thanks, ASR. I appreciate the quick reply.

Hello fellow 4runners. I am a new member to the forum and I have just purchased a 2007 4Runner Sport v6 4wd model. The runner currently has 78k miles on it. I just purchased 4 new tires for the vehicle - Continental CrossContact LX20 - Size: 265/65R17

I am looking to purchase a lift kit for my 4runner and have been reading this thread. I am planning on purchasing the Toytec front kit from this for sale thread - http://www.toyota-4runner.org/sale-s...ls-struts.html

and pairing the rear with the Billstein 5100s - Bilstein 5100 Rear shocks for FJ/4Runner - Toytec Lifts: Toyota Lift Kits: FJ Cruiser Lift Kits, Tacoma Lift Kits, Tundra Lift Kits, 4 Runner Lift Kits, Sequoia Lift Kits, Toyota Truck Lift Kits

+ toytec rear coils - ToyTec "Superflex" rear Coils (FJ & 03-09 4Run) - Toytec Lifts: Toyota Lift Kits: FJ Cruiser Lift Kits, Tacoma Lift Kits, Tundra Lift Kits, 4 Runner Lift Kits, Sequoia Lift Kits, Toyota Truck Lift Kits

I do not plan to offroad the vehicle but would like a higher lift just for looks. I won't be upgrading tires however I did purchase a Shrockworks front bumper just for the rugged look.

Given that I have the Xreas suspension, I am going to strip everything off.

What would be the best option in terms of lift height? I am planning to lift the front 2" and would like the rear to be level with the front. I don't want to purchase the new rear brake lines if it's not necessary.

in addition to the lift kit, since i won't be lifting more than 2" in the front, are UCAs still recommended/needed? what other parts would I need?

Thanks for your help

Sounds like a good setup overall. You shouldn't need anything else, no ucas or extended brake lines. Only thing that may be needed is the sway bar relocate.

Alright, I've got a good one for you ARK. So a fellow forum member/friend and I have had this discussion and I've researched the topic here as well as a number of other forums, but haven't really gotten a definitive answer. I understand you may not have the definitive answer on the topic either, but I'd hold your opinion on the matter in high regard.

So basically the question is; do you foresee any benefit in stacking a topout spacer over a coil-over shock? Like if the coil provides 0-3" of lift, do you see a benefit in setting the coil to say 1.5" and using a 1.5" spacer to acheive your 3"? I've read that cranked out coil-overs can have the tendency to produce a harsher ride than when the coil isn't heavily pre-loaded. Also, with the inherent design of the coil-over, wouldn't it stand to reason that less pre-load would also allow your shock more down travel since you've not exhausted a lot of your rod length to gain lift?

I hope that makes sense, if not I can try to elaborate a little better. Just let me know. I'm looking at moving to some Radflo's like yours, but if there is any foreseeable benefit from retaining my spacers in tandem with the CO's (ie. better ride, more travel) then of course, I'm gonna take that route.

Have you got your coils maxed out in lift? Have you played with different settings? Do you notice a difference in ride quality and travel? Would you ever consider a topout spacer on your coilovers? Is that just stupid to spend money on CO's and still want to use spacers with them? Sorry for all of the questions, but I think this might be a pretty good topic for discussion. Especially if other members have ever ran, or have considered running, a similar setup, please chime in with thoughts and opinions.

Thanks ASR!

I think ARK will certainly chime in with some better advice/etc, but I like where you're going there, and what I was thinking when I went the cheaper route with the Bilstein 5100's.

I wanted the height of the 3rd perch (almost 2"), but I heard it's a little more harsh the more you pre-load coils. So I set my Bilstein 5100's on the second perch (.85" lift), and then stacked a "Toytec" .5" topout spacer (net approx 1" lift) on top of the strut. This netted me a total of 2" (1" on the pre-load, and 1" on the topout). I figured this was a good balance. I think I am like the only person to do this to-date.

All I do know, is that I love the ride. I don't know if it was necessary or not, or if it kept out some of the "harshness", as I'm not able to compare to anything, but it made me happier, and felt better about my lift. I didn't want the ride to harsh for my wife riding in the passenger seat! She's happy now, so that's all that matters.

*Edit: But I do think this concept is very much utilized/etc. Such as with the "older" style Daystar Lift, which combined pre-load and topout to achieve the 2.5", or the Cornfed Lift, which still utilizes both pre-load and topout. I personally thought this concept was best, which is why I did this with my Billies.

This forum member: "surfmobile" ran a 4" lift spindal with fox 2.5 adjustable extended travel coil overs set at zero lift. (spec'd for FJ's/Taco's) He sent me some travel pics when i was interested in purchasing his CO's which look as if there still for sale in the suspension section http://www.toyota-4runner.org/sale-s...coilovers.html

Durring the convo i had with him pre purchase he recommended i used a three inch top out spacer to get my lift and keep the coils set at zero lift for more travel and smoother ride..

but these are the pics he texted me to compare... hope he doesnt mind lol...

this one was running coilovers set at three inches (showing down travel) Ill add this guy is in a prerunner 2x4 so some of these pics will show with lift spindles..

this one was running coilovers set at three inches (showing up travel) also he's running OME 3" rear lift coils

this one he had switched over to long travel rear added 4" lift spindals and set the coilovers at zero (showing down travel)

this one is same new setup coilovers set at zero (showing up travel). so basicly you only loose down travel when the coil overs are cranked up. up travel is not affected at all.

Very good question/points! Your line of thought is correct. The less preload on the coil, the smoother the ride. This was a major concern of mine when going with the OW 2.0 coilovers. I almost pulled trigger on the spacer, but before I did, I shot an e-mail to Andries at Overland Warehouse. He advised against using the spacer. Here's a portion of his response:

My question was targeted towards using the coilovers at 2.5" + a 1" net topout spacer vs setting the coilovers at 3.5". I think the key here is that there are other limitations to IFS flex besides the shocks. Once you reach a certain point, the added shock length will not equate to more flex.

I'm running my coilover's at 3.5" lift. I've not went lower, can't do that because my tires rub like crazy. In the same conversation with Andries that I quoted above, I asked for his thoughts. He said you would most likely never notice the difference between 2.5" and 3.5".

I will say I've been very pleased with the OW 2.0's at 3.5" lift. I've not felt the need to add a spacer after the install. I love the ride they provide. They're definitely smoother than the OME 885 + 5100 combo I had previously. I typically have the mindset of "don't knock it till you try it" but on this one, I don't think there is a need for the spacer. The concerns Andries brought up were enough to deter me. Again, the only difference will be stiffness, I doubt you'd see any difference in travel due to other limitations of an IFS suspension.

On something like the 5100's, using a spacer can help dial in the height better for your particular setup. I'd consider in this instance, but not with adjustable coilovers.
Hope this makes sense...kinda in a rush so didn't have time to really think this out and organize my thoughts.

Thanks for the reply man! I trust yours and Andries thoughts on this. So I guess my point on the droop would be that I would want the proper suspension components and geometry to limit droop, not run out of stroke prematurely with the CO cranked up and having it being the limiting factor. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this wouldn't be ideal. Is that a valid concern? Have you tested this on yours to where you could verify that this isn't a valid concern? You'd be an ideal candidate since you're at full lift.

The part about not noticing any difference between 2.5" and 3.5", I find a little hard to buy since that is such a huge ratio. Do you feel like it was valid statement?

I'm glad you're happy with your OW's. You're endorsement as well as, well, everyone who's gotten the OW/Radflo's is what has really swayed me in that direction. I've never really heard or read a negative thing about them... well, actually, I came across a post earlier today on tacomaworld while researching this very subject, where a guy went from Radflo's to Icon's and was happier, but oh well.

I think you understand when I say that I don't want to have to do it more times than is necessary. To me the benefits (smoother ride, more "available stroke) seem to all be there in theory. And honestly, we haven't really stated a legitimate con to the set-up. Any you can think of? Guess I should find somebody local with a similar CO setup at full lift to ride with and maybe do my initial install with the "hybrid" set-up to see if there is any noticeable difference. Decisions decisions....

Your in luck superman... the other 4th gen coming with us saterday is running icon adjustable extended travel front set at 3" with the OW 2.5 extended rear.

So I think I've pretty much talked myself in to rolling with the "hybrid" lift setup. Toytec actually lets you choose a heavier coil 650# vs 600# with their Radflo 2.0 CO's. I don't know what the OW coil spec was. I'll be choosing the heavier with the anticipation of adding weight to the front, so already my ride will be harsher than it could be, so less pre-load would be ideal. Also, with that added weight, it'll be nice to have the extra adjustment to account for sag when the weight is added. It makes sense to me. We'll see. If I have to play around with it to tweak it and tune it properly than so be it. I'll be sure to share my thoughts.

I'm not sure exactly what would be the magic number for a safe amount of down travel. My thought is that this is somewhat of a grey area. If we knew this, we could definitely do some testing to see how the various setups line up.

You've got to remember that while 1" seems like a huge difference, in actuality the coil is only compressed 1/2" more. When I had my Bilstein's, I moved them from the second notch (.85") to the third notch (1.75") and didn't really notice any difference in the ride.

However, you've really got me rethinking this. I know I've read comments where people are saying the can speed up for speed bumps and it still glides right over. Mine does well, but not well enough that I can make that comment. I'm thinking adding a spacer and having less preload on the coil may help here. I cross 15 speed bumps daily, so if this (among other areas) could be improved by adding a spacer and reducing preload, then it's well worth it IMO.

The only complaint I have with the OW front coil overs is that there's a noticeable clunk. At first I thought it was something loose during the install, so I went back over everything I could think of in the front suspension and retorqed to factory specs. The noise was still there, so I e-mailed OW and was told this is normal. I've also read where others have experienced this. It's not all the time, just over certain bumps you'll here the clunk.

I would really like to use the Daystar budget boost front spacer (approx 2" lift) but I'm afraid it would be too much. I'm really considering adding the Toytec 1" net lift spacers to the front. As you pointed out, there is seemingly a ton of benefits and not a lot of proof that there are any cons to the setup. Other than what I posted from the conversation I had with Andries, the other stuff is pure speculation on my part. I agree 100% with your thoughts. I guess the deciding factor would be if we could somehow determine a measurement of the maximum safe amount of droop, until then it's a guessing game.

Man, I thought I was pretty set on rolling the "hybrid" lift set-up to start.. but this weekend I was able to ride in a fellow members' vehicle and was able to see exactly what you see on yours. It rode beautifully! And here's the kicker, he had OW/Radflo 2.5 with 700# coils and a V6, so it was set-up to ride pretty harsh theoretically, but was silky smooth. Although I do have to mention that he was getting 3+ inches of lift without cranking the coils at all. I'm sure it was because of the HD set-up without any aftermarket nose weight on it (except for a pretty beefy skid plate). So I'm sort of back on the fence now.

I guess there isn't a true linear number for maximum safe droop. It'd have to be more of delta or angular value between say your axle shaft sitting on the ground and then at full droop, since many members seem to see different shaft angles (at rest) post lifts.

Point taken on the front lift numbers. I always neglect to account for that geometry multiplier when considering things.

I'm with you in doing what we can to yield a plusher ride though. Like I said, that truck I drove this weekend rode beautifully, but he literally had no pre-load on his set-up, so I'd expect it too... HD set-up or not. The owner of that vehicle also mention this "clunk" that you're talking about. He thinks it's from the upper rod end at the top of the strut assembly.

Also, after looking at the set-up and speaking with friends about it, to me, it appears that the "allowing more droop" side of the conversation is a moot point. These set-ups are designed to allow plenty of stroke whether at max lift or no lift, there is plenty of available rod length in the shock. We're basically at the mercy of what our ball joints will afford us. So the name of the game seems to be seeking smoother ride and I'm with you on the thought that a 2" net from the spacer might be excessive. Mine are 2.5" net and if I decide to keep them, I'll probably have them machined down to half of that before putting them back in. This is a good conversation though, thank you for the input!

My understanding would be that your upper and lower ball joints would max out before your reach any kind of "damaging" amount of droop so to say. As long as your not going over the 3.5" lift limit your CV's are in no more wear concern than they are with any lift weather using adjustable CO's, spacers, or OME strut towers. I would think to get the softest ride out of an adjustable CO would be to have it set at zero lift, with that said you still want a lift, so put a 1,2, or 3 inch spacer on top of it to gain your lift back with the spacer (pending shock spring rate) to obtain the travel of the CO, as well as gain the ride softness/toughness you desire. then if you add weight you can crank your CO up a little to acount for any sag like Superman descibed.. I think its def. a good thought.

I made a post on 120, I'm going to try to find the extended/compressed lengths of the 2.0 & 2.5 kits. I see the 2.5" listed as extended travel, so I'm thinking it's got a larger range of travel. In my mind, if that's correct then there shouldn't be any issues adding a spacer to the 2.0 kit to match the extended length of the 2.5 kit. I had to completely max out the front coilovers to get 3.5" lift, so this is still a big concern and something I'll continue to look into. It's not that I'm disappointed with the current ride, it's just that with less preload I think it could be better.