Height measurements, help wanted
- Thread starter Gerdo
- Start date
bigcap76
New member
What was the part # for 99 springs you bought?
I used 81041 Moog front and 81088 rear.
Brian.
Member
Just installed Bilstein 6112 and 5160 with OME 906 rear springs, so I have before and after.
1999 Limited, before (100% stock)
20.5 at all 4 corners
After
21.75 front (clip positions 4 on drivers, 3 on passenger)
22.25 rear
I've gone for about 100 miles of "settling", including roughly 20 miles of relatively high speed washboard (loving these shocks already). Front looks higher in this photo due to angle:
1999 Limited, before (100% stock)
20.5 at all 4 corners
After
21.75 front (clip positions 4 on drivers, 3 on passenger)
22.25 rear
I've gone for about 100 miles of "settling", including roughly 20 miles of relatively high speed washboard (loving these shocks already). Front looks higher in this photo due to angle:
Just installed Bilstein 6112 and 5160 with OME 906 rear springs, so I have before and after.
1999 Limited, before (100% stock)
20.5 at all 4 corners
After
21.75 front (clip positions 4 on drivers, 3 on passenger)
22.25 rear
I've gone for about 100 miles of "settling", including roughly 20 miles of relatively high speed washboard (loving these shocks already). Front looks higher in this photo due to angle:
Brian, this exactly the same setup I am considering for 2002 SR5. Are you still pleased with this setup, the shocks and are you still on clips positions 4 and 3?
Brian.
Member
WAY better than the dead stock stuff, but I have no other experience with other shocks to know if I'd have been happier with cheaper options (or more expensive). I'm not UNhappy, they perform great. Have not changed clip positions since the initial install and it's settled down maybe a little more than I'd wanted, but looked good. I may revisit it in the future... but it's a slim "may". I think we've got about 5k miles on the shocks, but it's all been on-road and graded gravel.
beklemmung
New member
Brian, is the settling you've observed the height of the rear with the 906s? I've talked myself in to shelling out for the 6112s and despite reading probably 50+ threads here I'm still torn about 906s vs 890s vs 891s vs the Dobinsons C59-137V (same free height as the 891s but a variable rate of 170-245 lbs/inch vs 210 lbs/in for the 891s).
Other relevant facts: I'll be running 265/75/16 tires with 4x Innovations sliders and skids and stock bumpers. A good portion of my driving will be with minimal additional weight in the back (not more than 100 lbs).
Other relevant facts: I'll be running 265/75/16 tires with 4x Innovations sliders and skids and stock bumpers. A good portion of my driving will be with minimal additional weight in the back (not more than 100 lbs).
the_welfare_wagon
New member
1996 limited. No bumpers or winch
Front:
Moog 81088 with 4runner 5100s lowest perch 21.5 Inches
Rear
OME 890 with 4runner 0-2 5100s 22.5 inches
Front:
Moog 81088 with 4runner 5100s lowest perch 21.5 Inches
Rear
OME 890 with 4runner 0-2 5100s 22.5 inches
Brian.
Member
Yup, 906's on the rear... but it's the front that has settled more and has me contemplating going back in to fix.
beklemmung
New member
I see... well, at least that's possible with the 6112s. Did you consider any other rear springs? I'm in the typical situation of feeling like I've overanalyzed it to death. I'm afraid both 890s and 891s would be too tall for my tires, especially since I don't plan to add heavier bumpers. Might just get 906s with 10mm trim packers.
Brian.
Member
For essentially stock driving, the 906s are the right answer. It's mostly my wife who drives the 4r and she doesn't complain about the ride at all, which means they aren't too stiff. And when I drive it, the body roll isn't as bad as with the stock springs (that seemed to measure out okay), so I don't feel they're too soft.
I did not install a trim packer at first and now, if I want it perfectly even, I'd need one on the drivers side. Perhaps buy them but don't install till you get a few thousand miles down. Again, one of those things I'll address if I ever feel like going back in there again (I still don't after 18 months, looks better than the old stock stuff, but not "lifted" which is what I was after). If you're looking for actual lift from stock, then disregard as you'll need something out back to get taller than stock, or stock '99 at least.
Rushthezeppelin
New member
Hmm this has got me wondering if I don't have the setup I was told I have. Almost 2 months ago bought a 98 sr5. Was told it had 2" spacers front and back. Measuring flares (not anywhere inside the well right?) to hub just on the passenger side so far I got 23.5" rear and 23" front. Does that mean I have 3" over stock rear and 2.5" over stock front? I get the feeling from a couple of things that the PO did not know much about his truck (probably part of the reason he had this thing at an absolute steal for a 5 speed with 270k, only $7k).
I would say yes, you have a 3" lift over stock. My 1999 SR5 had 16" wheels and the 99 tall springs added at the dock, back when you could look up that stuff by VIN. I recently replaced the 1999 tall springs in the rear, same paint color, and gained a .5" back. I measure +21.5" from center hub to bottom of the wheel arch, just like all the other folks who have the 99 tall springs. That's red and yellow stripes on the rear spring (Toyota 48231-35210). Wish i went with something a bit taller and it seems people say the OME906 is slightly higher but the new 99 tall springs were 16.25" tall before I installed them. OME906 from the data sheet says 15.3" and 14.9",so I would gain nothing with the OME906, other than a more firm ride with less sag in the rear with weight in the back. Current shock is B4600 all the way around. Hasta.
