Lift Kits & BIG Tires...Durability??
- Thread starter Thai
- Start date
I think Toyota is very dishonest and dishonorable how they continue to claims 9.1" ground clearance but only deliver 7.5" (under the engine). This big disappointment left me with a big ground clearance problem to overcome.
So, Monday I plan to install a set of 32.2" GY Wrangler SA 275/70R17. This should then give me about 8.3" They may rub the upper suspension arm a little at full turn but it's very smooth at that point & shouldn't be a problem. Won't touch anywhere else.
The suspension arm clearance problem for 32" tires is probably why they reduced the turning angle on the FJ.
Later I plan to add 1 to 2" leveling, sometime before heading to the Colorado mountains this year. Would like to have 9.5" clearance.
Will let you know how the tires work out next week.
So, Monday I plan to install a set of 32.2" GY Wrangler SA 275/70R17. This should then give me about 8.3" They may rub the upper suspension arm a little at full turn but it's very smooth at that point & shouldn't be a problem. Won't touch anywhere else.
The suspension arm clearance problem for 32" tires is probably why they reduced the turning angle on the FJ.
Later I plan to add 1 to 2" leveling, sometime before heading to the Colorado mountains this year. Would like to have 9.5" clearance.
Will let you know how the tires work out next week.
Last edited:
Spaceman said:
If you were going to a 2" front spacer you might as well add the 1" CF spacer to the back and get, the 2/1 kit. I can accept and would feel comfortable with a 2/1 to an extent , still any variation worries me but thats not so extreme like a 3/2 kit.
IMO there is a fine line for ME between a daily driver putting on 20--25 k per year and something
that is reliable and can still have fun with off road.
As far as ground clearance goes , I don't think Toyota lies about that any more than any other mfg. does. Where they measure from ..... you got me hanging.
Last edited:
Some people can run with a lift and never have a problem and others do as we've seen.
Don't know if this is right or wrong but when I took my truck to a Frame and Axle shop ( not an off road shop ) the said I should have no extra strain on the shafts/boots with a 1" level lift or a 2/1 spacer lift. The way the front shafts are come out and go UPWARD to the to the wheel to where if you added one of the above mentioned lifts the shafts will be straight across to the wheel , unlike most lifted IFS trucks I've seen where the shaft is on a pretty steep angle DOWNWARD to the wheel. ( I do know these guys personally for a long time so it's no one I picked out of the phone book )
Have anyone else noticed that ? What's your thoughts ? Would a STRAIGHT across shaft cause less wear than a one that is on an up or downward angle.
If I was to put on a lift it would be a 2/1 for add'l clearance or a 1" front for looks and a little front end clearance. With my 1" taller tires which give me a 1/2" of lift all the way around and added a 2/1 I would end up with a total of 2/5" above stock height in front and 1.5" above stock in back. Thats plenty high for this truck IMO. I envy the lifts and tires I see here , they are sweet looking trucks , (HiVels for example) and I think its great they do what they want to make them look better and off road better . Others like JB run stock except for bigger BFG's and a set on Hanna sliders and look's great also and have no problems.
Don't know if this is right or wrong but when I took my truck to a Frame and Axle shop ( not an off road shop ) the said I should have no extra strain on the shafts/boots with a 1" level lift or a 2/1 spacer lift. The way the front shafts are come out and go UPWARD to the to the wheel to where if you added one of the above mentioned lifts the shafts will be straight across to the wheel , unlike most lifted IFS trucks I've seen where the shaft is on a pretty steep angle DOWNWARD to the wheel. ( I do know these guys personally for a long time so it's no one I picked out of the phone book )
Have anyone else noticed that ? What's your thoughts ? Would a STRAIGHT across shaft cause less wear than a one that is on an up or downward angle.
If I was to put on a lift it would be a 2/1 for add'l clearance or a 1" front for looks and a little front end clearance. With my 1" taller tires which give me a 1/2" of lift all the way around and added a 2/1 I would end up with a total of 2/5" above stock height in front and 1.5" above stock in back. Thats plenty high for this truck IMO. I envy the lifts and tires I see here , they are sweet looking trucks , (HiVels for example) and I think its great they do what they want to make them look better and off road better . Others like JB run stock except for bigger BFG's and a set on Hanna sliders and look's great also and have no problems.
rook
New member
Here is the difference in CV angles between stock (top) and 3" OME lift. Although there is some seepage from the inner boot, the angle has not changed greatly and it appears to be more neutral than stock.
I would suspect premature wear of ball joints and tie rod ends caused by upsized tires. Added unsprung weight would cause stress in these areas.
One q'n on the FJ turning radius.
Is it possible they changed the steering stops to keep the tire away from the UCAs at full lock?
I would suspect premature wear of ball joints and tie rod ends caused by upsized tires. Added unsprung weight would cause stress in these areas.
One q'n on the FJ turning radius.
Is it possible they changed the steering stops to keep the tire away from the UCAs at full lock?
My CV boots were leaking like in those pics. I have 2003 sport T4R 3/2 cornfed with 285/70r/17 BFG KO's. The leaking was due to my negligence and letting the axles hang freely while installing the lift. Axles should have been stabilized with a bungee cord or something. Took my T4R to Birmingham Axle, they pumped it full of greese, put new clamps on and said i should never have another problem. Only charged me 40 dollars, you have to go somewhere thats got axel greese. He also said stock axles were every bit as strong as all those after market axles. T4R in the pic needs to go to his local axle shop quickly, or it could burn up front end. I had this done six months ago and CV's are lookin good. They're not overextended at all, expect no probs
Thai said:
right or wrong I don't know , but I just found it weird the shaft goes up the wheel. I've never seen that in any of any other IFS trucks/Suv's.
I'm SURE they didn't intend to build it to be lifted in front but it almost seems that way , I always thought the optimal thing was a straightest shaft was the best to keep the wear at a minimum.
The ones in rooks 1st pic are how they are stock ( on mine ) , going upward to the wheel. Strange......
Last edited:
Falls said:
The 2008 Toyota 4-Runner Booklet clearly makes the customer believe the car will have the 9.1" ground clearance. There are no footnotes to the contrary. There are lot's of examples of footnotes that are provided for clarifying other items but apparently Toyota didn't believe that this one needed any clarification, therefore leaving the customer to believe the 9.1" truly "ground clearance."
I have a copy of Toyota's "Competitive Comparison" document. This document directly compares the 4-Runner 4x4 ground clearance to some of it's other 4x4 competition: Explorer = 8.2", Trailblazer = 7.8", and the Cherokee = 8". This document claims that the 4-Runner has 0.9 inches higher ground clearance than the closest competition. My 4-Runner fails this Toyota claim by 1.6 inches. Since my new 2008 looks like all the others that I've recently noticed, the Toyota claim appears to be totally false.
The Jeep Grand Cherokee book specification sheet claims a ground clearance of "8.3". Based on my notes of my measurements taken over the past several months, they meet that claim. Jeep intended that number to apply to the lowest point and said so.
Since Toyota used that "lowest point" reference in their comparison, that makes it clear to me that Toyota intended the 9.1 inch clearance to also apply to the lowest point. Surely Toyota wouldn't put out a booklet that didn't make true apples to apples comparisons.
Also, The front drive axles on my car slope downward toward the engine way too much, indicating that the coil springs are too weak. After filing 2 formal complaints with Toyota that the car didn't meet spec, they basically had no explanation and said too bad, nothing they can do!!!! Thank's Toyota, that 9.1" was very important to me.
Spaceman said:
Time to put on some 265/70/17's and a 2/1 CF lift.
Like I said I don't know where other or Toyota measure from. This would be interesting. I wish we could get a Toyota contact to ask these questions .
Where did YOU measure from ?????? let me know and I'll measure mine at that point (pic if you have one at that point).
Oddly enough with the angle of the front shafts in relation to the wheel , a frame and axle shop who would better give an idea of angles . I'm sure the tech's at Toyota ( not that they are bad ) could not explain why this happens.
Thai
Elite Member
Spaceman said:
Unfortunately, when it comes to SUV measurements, Toyota is not the most reliable. On my 2002 4runner, Toyota listed it's ground clearance at 11"!! It was not even close. They used the distance from the ground to some point on the frame, which was NOT the lowest point.
On the 4th gen 4runners, the lowest point is the front skidplate, which measures 8.3". Strangely, Lexus has always been reliable in their stats...this is why the Lexus GX470 has a ground clearance of 8.3". The diff pumpkin is NOT the lowest point on the 4th gen 4runners.
Toyota is NOT lying to you...it is misleading you. Toyota literature simply states ground clearance...it is all relative on where to measure because different people think differently about where to measure from. What you need to look for is "MINIMUM ground clearance." And this is why Lexus states, "Minimum Ground Clearance", while Toyota does not.
It's a marketing trick by Toyota...i guess Lexus stats are held to a higher degree of honesty...kinda like how a Toyota salesman will talk more BS than a Lexus salesman.
BTW, this has been discussed many times:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18373&highlight=ground+clearance
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26321&highlight=ground+clearance
Thai
Elite Member
More controversy? Here is what i wrote in one of the link above:
"And guess why a 4runner 2wd ground clearance is "8.7" while 4wd is "9.1"?? This shows you that the lowest point is NOT the rear axle because both 2wd and 4wd models have the same rear axle and tire diameter. It's because the front suspension is lower in the 2wd model by a smidge. And it is clear that Toyota and Lexus do not use the same way to measure ground clearance.
Another example? According to Toyota's brochure nowadays, the 4runner has a 28 degree breakover angle. In 2003, the brochure states 22-23 degree (forgot which number). How does a 4runner increase by 5 degrees without changing anything over the years?? And do you know how hard it is to get 28 degree of breakover angle on a vehicle like a 4runner (midsize SUV)??!! You either have an extremely short wheelbase (see Land Rover Discovery Series II...100" wheelbase) or air suspension to jack your car up (see Range Rover). Remember, not even the Jeep Rubicon has 28 degrees of breakover! Oh no, only the 4runner and FJ Cruiser. My G500 is only 25 degrees. Yet, i can clear stuff that my friend's (TEXGX) GX470 with KDSS cannot.
It's all about the way to measure things...and don't get me started with how Toyota claims a 4runner/FJ can go through 27.5" of water...more than a few FJ owners have found out the painful truth of this inflated stat. And different manufacturers measure slope capability differently...some does it with a full load, some does it without."
If you have a Toyota vehicle that is similar to a Lexus vehicle, then use the Lexus measurements.
"And guess why a 4runner 2wd ground clearance is "8.7" while 4wd is "9.1"?? This shows you that the lowest point is NOT the rear axle because both 2wd and 4wd models have the same rear axle and tire diameter. It's because the front suspension is lower in the 2wd model by a smidge. And it is clear that Toyota and Lexus do not use the same way to measure ground clearance.
Another example? According to Toyota's brochure nowadays, the 4runner has a 28 degree breakover angle. In 2003, the brochure states 22-23 degree (forgot which number). How does a 4runner increase by 5 degrees without changing anything over the years?? And do you know how hard it is to get 28 degree of breakover angle on a vehicle like a 4runner (midsize SUV)??!! You either have an extremely short wheelbase (see Land Rover Discovery Series II...100" wheelbase) or air suspension to jack your car up (see Range Rover). Remember, not even the Jeep Rubicon has 28 degrees of breakover! Oh no, only the 4runner and FJ Cruiser. My G500 is only 25 degrees. Yet, i can clear stuff that my friend's (TEXGX) GX470 with KDSS cannot.
It's all about the way to measure things...and don't get me started with how Toyota claims a 4runner/FJ can go through 27.5" of water...more than a few FJ owners have found out the painful truth of this inflated stat. And different manufacturers measure slope capability differently...some does it with a full load, some does it without."
If you have a Toyota vehicle that is similar to a Lexus vehicle, then use the Lexus measurements.
rook said:Here is the difference in CV angles between stock (top) and 3" OME lift. Although there is some seepage from the inner boot, the angle has not changed greatly and it appears to be more neutral than stock.
I noticed the new yellow shock after adding the 3".
Did you have to replace the shock?
Who is OME?
I would like to add a 1 to 2 leveling kit but I'm woondering about what problems might show up when using the original shock???
