Lift Kits & BIG Tires...Durability??

[Thai]

Hey all,

As you may know, i am not a huge fan of big lift kits and huge tires. Personally, I don't like to stray to far away from what the factory engineers have designed, esp. messing around with independent suspension. When i was researching lift kits for my 2002 4runner (3rd gen), i heard about some issues with bigger lifts, e.g. CV boots leaking. Well, in another thread, a member talked about FJ's bigger turning radius. As you may know, all FJs have 42" turning radius as compared to about 37-38" (forgot exact number) radius for the 4runner.

As you know, the FJ uses the same platform as the 4runner/Prado. The front suspension and rear axle are the same with only a few minor changes (e.g. thinner anti-roll bars). FJ has no lift on it...thus, it is just like a stock 4runner.

If Toyota had to enlarge the turning radius to fit 32 in tires (which most of you guys are running), then are we so sure that all these lift kits and huge tires are good for our 4runners down the road in terms of durability and reliability? I assume that Toyota increased the turning radius to decrease stress on components (e.g. steering components, half shafts, differential??).

I know that Toyota anticipated that FJ owners are more likely to take their vehicles off-road than 4runner owners. So, 32" off-road tires + more chance of off-roading by owners + more chance of owners using even bigger tires = more stress on components = must increase turning radius to decrease stress. And most of us who do lift our trucks and put bigger tires on do in fact take it off-road.

All along, we thought that putting on these 32" tires was harmless, but Toyota engineers had to modify the front suspension (a minor one, but significant nonetheless) just to fit these slightly upsized tires. Most owners (FJ and 4runner) are going much further by lifting much higher and putting on much bigger/heavier tires. I don't know if doing such a thing is a wise idea...or am i just being a chicken shit?!

You guys buy a 4runner because of the fact that it can take you places AND bring you back home...IMHO, i would not mess too much with IFS, unless you have thought things out and have a really good installer (see Alexjet and Good Times). If you tinker too much outside Toyota engineer's parameters, then expect that things may break at the wrong time.

My thoughts...what do you guys think?

 

[Even Steven]

I agree 100% with your thoughts. That's one of the big reasons why I chose to go with 265/65/17 Discoverer ATRs and a 1" front leveling lift. I plan on keeping my 4Runner for a long, long time, and I felt that keeping the stock tire size would be beneficial in terms of longevity.

Since I hated the nose-down stance of the stock 4Runner, I just had to level it out a bit, so I went conservative there too, with just 1" on lift on the front. In my opinion, a 1" front lift shouldn't have any real effect on my 4Runner in the long run.

The guys that do bigger lifts and tires together probably don't plan on keeping their 4Runners for a long time, or at least don't use them as daily drivers. It seems obvious to me that you sacrifice some of the original driveability and comfort (and longterm reliability) whenever you go do a lift and big tires.

 

[boston_kevin]

I agree, but also remember that every part has rated tolerances, both in terms of materials and connectivity to other parts within the vehicle. Without these tolerances, having a road-worthy vehicle would be difficult at best as road conditions, weather, driving habits, etc cannot be accurately predicted. If Toyota designs and releases products like most companies, the released product is within the tolerances, nearly always at the lower end of the range. If someone is making minor changes (say increasing the tire size from 265/65/R17 to 265/70/R17), this should still be within tolerance, albeit higher within the range. Once you exceed those tolerances it is not a guarantee failure, but a higher percentage of parts will fail.

So how big of tires are you talking about? And what size lifts?

I would surmise anything over a 2/1 would probably fall outside tolerance for most of the driveline angles (from what I have read), and tires over 32"... Just a guess though.

 

[Thai]

I would surmise anything over a 2/1 would probably fall outside tolerance for most of the driveline angles (from what I have read), and tires over 32"... Just a guess though.

I think that i am in agreement.

 

[Even Steven]

I would surmise anything over a 2/1 would probably fall outside tolerance for most of the driveline angles (from what I have read), and tires over 32"... Just a guess though.

I realize you're just guessing because there's no real way to know for sure. The engineers designing the system take a lot of factors into consideration with their design specifications. I'd be curious to know just how much deviation on the driveline componenets would be realized by lifting 1, 2, 3 or more inches.

This kind of reminds me about the debate on wheel spacers. Everyone seems to realize that adding spacers will change the load characteristics on the bearings in the hubs, but nobody knows just how much damage can be done to cause the bearings to fail prematurely. It's pretty much all conjecture.

 

[boston_kevin]

Very true... We will never know the exact tolerances Toyota allows for these parts. That knowledge would give some individuals the liberty to make the changes we are talking about and hold the manufacturer liable for damage if the changes are still within tolerance.

I should also add, that driving a flat surfaces, no potholes, no sharp turns, no towing, no jackrabbit starts, hard tire squealing stops, with the 3/2 lifts with 32" tires would probably be within tolerances... but this is also unrealistic on how most people drive on a daily basis. With the higher lift, bigger (and heavier) tires, I think any of the previous conditions would push this out of tolerance.

 

[Thai]

One note to consider...the fact that Toyota went to the extent of widening the turning radius just because the tire went up 1" (31" to 32") tells me that the tolerances are pretty strict/tight. If it wasn't, then i doubt that Toyota would bother widening the turning radius because this widening has been used as an argument against FJ by it's competitors.

But, as stated previously, if i had a 4th gen 4runner, then i would get a 1" front lift with 32" tires...those tolerances be damn!!

 

[boston_kevin]

Also consider that the FJ has a 1.5 - 2" wider track both front and rear than the 4Runner. This usually negatively effects the turning radius. Perhaps they decided that having the wheel angle to the hub/axle was too sharp with this wider track...

 

[Thai]

Also consider that the FJ has a 1.5 - 2" wider track both front and rear than the 4Runner. This usually negatively effects the turning radius. Perhaps they decided that having the wheel angle to the hub/axle was too sharp with this wider track...

Good point.

 

[Even Steven]

Also consider that the FJ has a 1.5 - 2" wider track both front and rear than the 4Runner. This usually negatively effects the turning radius. Perhaps they decided that having the wheel angle to the hub/axle was too sharp with this wider track...

Part of that difference is due to the offset of the wheels. They could just as easily used the same offset as the 4Runner instead.

 

[boston_kevin]

Part of that difference is due to the offset of the wheels. They could just as easily used the same offset as the 4Runner instead.

Good point... Forgot about the offset...

 

[Falls]

I agree with you , I think any variation over stock , you will have more wear . Kind of a given from how the engineers designed it.

I am not nearly concerned about up sizing tires to 32" as I would be with a lift kit.

In all reality its nice to always have a little more clearance and I've dragged my belly many many times , but has got me through just about everything I wanted to tackle with just bigger/better tires.

I like the looks of the 2/1 CF kit , but I would only do it if I really needed it , not to impress someone else. This is my daily driver and doubles as my off road toy , but I need it to be as reliable as possible.

 

[T?@\7]

I dont expect my truck to last ANY LESS longer than it would have stock.
Then again I dont drive it like i stole it and I am diligent with maint.

I tend to think about the experience factor, IF modding my truck to get it to where it needs to be for me would mean that there would be durability issues then so be it. However, on the same token, how many OLD yota do you see around that are lifted and on (MUCH) bigger tires. Also, I feel that most of the stuff that people are doing with there 4R's, with the exception of long travel, is pretty mild. The parts are also of quality, which reinforces my confidence in them.

In reality, how many miles would you want to get out of a (stock) truck? 500,000 or more? Not to mention ENJOYING those xxx,xxx miles....I dont see how a lift kit and a slightly bigger tire would stop u from accomplashing such. If were talking 44" tires and whatever would be required then yes, nothing would hold up!

I AM VERY CONFIDENT that these trucks will last, problem free, even with the light modifications that most members are doing.

Only time will tell, and I think this topic is much more suited to a ford forum ;-) (just messin Thai!)

 

[Thai]

Only time will tell, and I think this topic is much more suited to a ford forum ;-) (just messin Thai!)

that is just wrong to say!

 

[ProMed]

I AM VERY CONFIDENT that these trucks will last, problem free, even with the light modifications that most members are doing.

Only time will tell, and I think this topic is much more suited to a ford forum ;-) (just messin Thai!)

This is what I was thinking since there are very few guys doing anything more than a 2.5-3" lift. The CV boots are not even a real issue with this small of a lift. I put over 200,000 miles on a CJ7 with a 4" suspension lift and 2" body lift while running 36s. It was still runing strong when I sold it... at least for an old Jeep!

 

[Thai]

This is what I was thinking since there are very few guys doing anything more than a 2.5-3" lift. The CV boots are not even a real issue with this small of a lift. I put over 200,000 miles on a CJ7 with a 4" suspension lift and 2" body lift while running 36s. It was still runing strong when I sold it... at least for an old Jeep!

That is not true...there are more than a few stories of failed CV boots with as little as 2" lift. In fact, one of our former member here had CV boot leak with his 2" lift.

Your old CJ also had solid axles front and rear. Solid axles are relatively easy to lift. This is not the case with independent suspensions.

 

[JB.]

One note to consider...the fact that Toyota went to the extent of widening the turning radius just because the tire went up 1" (31" to 32") tells me that the tolerances are pretty strict/tight. If it wasn't, then i doubt that Toyota would bother widening the turning radius because this widening has been used as an argument against FJ by it's competitors.

I hope that's not the reason. I can think of 4 more possible reasons off the top of my head.

1. Eliminate any chance of a stock tire rubbing.
2. Enable 33" tires on stock vehicle.
3. Decrease stress and warranty claims on a vehicle that will be used off-road much more often than a 4runner.
4. Help maintain 4runner as a premium offering over FJ.

I wouldn't be surprised if elements of all 4 went into the decision.

 

[Thai]

I think that i agree with #3 reason...not sure about the other ones.

 

[ProMed]

That is not true...there are more than a few stories of failed CV boots with as little as 2" lift. In fact, one of our former member here had CV boot leak with his 2" lift.

Your old CJ also had solid axles front and rear. Solid axles are relatively easy to lift. This is not the case with independent suspensions.

Wasn't that the guy who only had to tighten the CV boot back down? It just seems there are an awful lot of guys running OME lifts and similar on the 4th gen and very, very few CV boot problems reported on here, yotatech or toyota 120. However I do recall many more guys reporting on tundra solutions problems with the 1st gen Tundra CV boots while running similar size lifts.

 

[Even Steven]

That is not true...there are more than a few stories of failed CV boots with as little as 2" lift. In fact, one of our former member here had CV boot leak with his 2" lift.

Your old CJ also had solid axles front and rear. Solid axles are relatively easy to lift. This is not the case with independent suspensions.

I wouldn't even be worried about the damn boots..... I'd be much more worried about the CV joint itself failing. A boot job is relatively cheap, compared to replacing the axles. BTW, swapping out the axles is standard practice in Toyota dealerships because it actually costs more to replace the CV joints on the original axles.