How To Properly Recognize Rear End Sagging on 1st Generation 4Runners

89FourRunner

New member
I wanted to clear up a few things about what some may believe to be rear end sagging on their 1st Gen 4Runners. Some new owners of 1st gens, who may be interested in a restoration could mistake a normal stance for some sag, and make a mistake along the way in attempting a "repair". This thread is not for those who want to add height to the rear, but are for those who want the original factory stance and proper height of a 1st Gen 4Runner when it rolled out of the factory.

I borrowed some pictures from around the 4Runner community, and I hope no members get offended. Please understand that I fully understand everyone has their own opinions and taste, and in no way are any of the examples meant to offend.

The relatively normal height of the rear end has always appeared lower on the 1st gen 4Runners. Some may argue that they "Sagged" in the rear from the moment they were rolled out (and that is sort of correct) of the plant they were first built in, but that is the case, and for anyone truly interested in having a 4runner that is anything like an original, then the picture below of James' 4runner is an accurate representation of a healthy rear end:

1987_toyota_4runner-pic-2042364056439372991.jpeg~original


Two things must be taken into account when restoring the suspension:

1. The FRONT AND REAR FENDER WELLS ARE NOT EQUAL HEIGHT ON THE BODY, the front fender wells are higher, and the rear is lower. You should not be attempting to level a 1st Gen 4Runner by comparing hub to fender lip space! Look at James' chrome trim on the door, and compare to the lips of the fenders. See?

2. The 4runners rolled out of the plant, brand new, with the bump stops relatively close, inches, to the frame. They used the same springs as the pickup counterparts.


This gentleman's 4runner is sagging, by a bit more than an inch:

It is clear by looking at body lines such as the bottom of the door, that he has some minor sag. Normally, the truck would sit like James' above, and only show a very very slight decline towards the back, almost level. The rear wheel well is deceiving!

dscn0024.jpg~original


There are a ton of guys running Zuk mods or 2" add-a-leafs on here, and that is fine and great. Some members want more lift than TOYOTA originally designed, and others are looking to restore the height. I also understand that some think the rear springs was an oversight or mistake by TOYOTA, and believe they are correcting a factory issue, and that is an opinion I am neither for or against. I have seen throughout the forum many fail at restoring the height, and going a few inches too far. There has never been a pickup trunk stance to these 4runners, and the rear end should not be sitting higher.

If the rear is too high, your braking system is going to be a mess, as the rear brake proportioning valve will not be set where it should be set. At factory default, it is set properly when the truck sits like James' red 4runner above. Anything higher than that, and the truck will feel as though it needs new brake pads, or is braking with too little rear brake assist (because it is).

Let me show a great example:

These two photos feature Cometobank's 4runner after having his springs re-arched. The thing is, his 4runner was sagging very very little, and his re-arch was waaaay too high.

Before (with very very minor sag, I would almost consider normal and fine Maybe half an inch tops):

before.jpg~original


After re-arch:

after.jpg~original



Getting some lift in the rear is great if you want the rear end higher than how it rolled out of the factory, or if you plan on lifting the front (or if you just prefer it that way), but Cometobank's vehicle, as well as many others vehicles after "fixing" the rear are not accurate representations of how the 4Runner came out of the factory.

The bump stops were always close to the frame, even with brand new 4runners way back in the day. ;)

How do I know these things? Well we had an 86 pickup and an 88 4Runner when I was young, and it was the same leaf pack, and resulted in the situation described.

Further (fun) proof:

Check out this 1st gen 4Runner commercial from back in the day. Notice anything about the rear end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEy8HsVcWTo

It is great if you want to fix your 4Runner, and some of them are sagging really bad, but just be aware if you are over-lifting the rear, especially if you are doing a restoration and not a trail rig. If you have over lifted, and your brakes don't feel quite the same, make sure you adjust that proportioning valve!


Good Luck to all those restoring one of the best 4x4 Vehicles ever created!
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Ok, so if you're sure that you're at or close to a factory stance, what do you have for frame height and distance between the bump stop and the frame, front and back? I use frame height to measure my stance, but all my trucks are lifted with oversize tires and I have no idea what those measurements should be on a stock truck.
 
Ok, so if you're sure that you're at or close to a factory stance, what do you have for frame height and distance between the bump stop and the frame, front and back? I use frame height to measure my stance, but all my trucks are lifted with oversize tires and I have no idea what those measurements should be on a stock truck.

Good question. I could get those frame measurements for you the next time I get the truck on a truly good and level surface. My bump stops are completely gone. The original perch that they were mounted to (that is held in place by the U-Bolts) are still present, but the bump stops have been gone for years.

I will get the frame measurements though. That is a good idea.

EDIT: I have 31" Dunlop Mudders..... I guess I cannot help.
 
Last edited:
Funny u should bring this up. I just pointed this out to a new member(dubs283) regarding his 2nd Gen. I remember thinking mine sat low when I first got it. But the frame sat level and I realized the front wheelwells were quite a bit bigger. :iagree:
 
Now you've got me curious. Here's my measurements.

  • My presumably stock '85 measures 67.75 inches at the cab, sitting on 235/75r15, with presumably saggy suspension (the front springs are in reverse arch - I think stock springs are flat with maybe a slightly positive arch).
  • My built '85 measures 74 inches at the same spot, on 255/85r16s with OME springs that are supposed to provide 2-2.5 inches of lift (I think they're slightly more than that).

Let's assume a stock tire size of 28" (225/75r15). My tires are just a tad over 33", but I run them slightly soft so lets call it a difference in tire radius of 2.5". 74" (my current height) - 2.5" (difference in tire radius between mine and stock) = 71.5". If we allow for a generous lift from the OME and say three inches, and subtract that from 71.5", we're left with 68.5", a number which largely agrees with the measurement of my stock truck.

Obviously every truck is different, but does anybody else want to take the same measurements and compare lift and tire height? With several sets of measurements, we could determine a more accurate stock truck height, and use that to determine stock frame height.
 
Interesting thread. I actually spoke with my mechanic at the weekend and was inquired about fixing the sag on the 2tone surf I have. I want to keep it original. If I got the leafs re-arched he said it would last 2 years. Still trying to decide.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,111
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top