FJ60 on 40" Tires? (1 Viewer)

[Cruiserdrew]

Why not go wider? I'd look into full width axles and a spring over, then you don't need to worry quite as much off camber.

And anyway, where do you plan to go that you want 40 inch tires? I'm thinking the standard 35s will serve you anywhere you are likely to go within 1000 miles of New York City.

Besides 40s on LC axles is a recipe for broken stuff, so if you're serious about 40s you're going to be putting a lot more axle under your truck anyway.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

Why not go wider? I'd look into full width axles and a spring over, then you don't need to worry quite as much off camber.

And anyway, where do you plan to go that you want 40 inch tires? I'm thinking the standard 35s will serve you anywhere you are likely to go within 1000 miles of New York City.

Besides 40s on LC axles is a recipe for broken stuff, so if you're serious about 40s you're going to be putting a lot more axle under your truck anyway.

@woytovich , see? I'm not as crazy ad @dubsb and you make me out to be

 

[woytovich]

No one said you were crazy... and I AGREE that going to stronger axles is the natural progression with going to larger tires. I am just not going to go that route. If that is the only alternative then I'll top out at 36 or 38s. I would sooner look to get a different truck (Tacoma?) to build in that direction from the get go....

That said, given my wheeling style - light foot, low power 2F, tendency to not bounce or throttle through stuff (I like to crawl), low gearing - I think I can make the Toyota stuff work with bigger tires...

 

[woytovich]

I'm thinking the standard 35s will serve you anywhere you are likely to go within 1000 miles of New York City.

You haven't wheeled out here have you...?

 

[90FJ]

So maybe 63" rears with the axle pushed back and some trimming? Sure wish I had some 39.5/40 to test fit...

What rear springs are you running now? 63" Chevy rears will surely lower you, they work out to about stock.

You can move your axle back by re-drilling your perches. Are you still running the stock driveshaft?

Post pics and details of your suspension, how are you so high SUA already?

 

[woytovich]

Alcan 3-4" lift springs.

Custom driveshafts (I have the ToyBox remember)

2" body lift, and the trimming of the rockers and quarters makes it look taller too.

 

[Mace]

SUA FJ60 on 40" tires means you are going to cut the body.. A lot. And have almost no uptravel.

 

[woytovich]

SUA FJ60 on 40" tires means you are going to cut the body.. A lot. And have almost no uptravel.

Presuming you cut A LOT - to the point that there would be no sheetmetal contact - why would you have less up travel vs a SOA? Or do you mean that you would likely not want to/be able to cut enough to allow significant up travel?

 

[Mace]

Because of the effective lift. To make it not rub, you'd be cutting the Grill, Radiator support, rear doors, hogging out the fenders etc..

And turning radius would be reduced with that size tire on stock width axles.

 

[woytovich]

I could certainly use spacers to get a couple of inches of width to help with the turning radius but the rest of it is just physics and geometry.

In reality the radius difference between 36 and 40" tires is just 2" so I'm not 100% convinced it couldn't be done... but it would be an exercise in trial and error...

 

[woytovich]

And don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to ARGUE about this all.... I just want to hash out the information regarding how we do what we do....

Remember: a few years ago TALL WAS KING... the higher the truck the "better"... now folks build LOW lifts with BIG tires pretty regularly... things change, ideas develop... so: thank you for the conversation, keep it coming!

 

[Mace]

Spacers would not get you the width and would make turning extremely difficult. That 2" difference is huge. You would be surprised.

Tall has not been king for a very long time. Low and stable has been the norm since the late 90's (obviously there are exceptions but). That being said, you are taking a rig with lots of sheetmetal that has specific spaces for the tires. Without some major surgery, 40's are difficult to fit. Tippy R did it with portals, which helped quite a bit.

My 35's still rub with a 2.5" lift and some major wheel well massaging. 2.5" more lift is not gonna do it. Add to that the big spring lifts do not lend themselves to much articulation, and you have a rig with big tires that is still just as tippy as before. Unless you just go and tube the crap out of it.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

I could certainly use spacers to get a couple of inches of width to help with the turning radius but the rest of it is just physics and geometry.

In reality the radius difference between 36 and 40" tires is just 2" so I'm not 100% convinced it couldn't be done... but it would be an exercise in trial and error...

You've seen how much I had to cut out of my front fenders to fit 39.5s, right? I still rub my fenders and still need to cut a large section out of my core support. I don't think it's realistic to run 40s without at least a SOA, and even then, you'll still be cutting.

 

[niffa]

Where can u go on 40s u cant go on 36s? They should suffice for pretty much anything

 

[darwink1]

My van would be in the old style soa category and it honestly isnt that bad off camber. In large part thats due to the wider axles. If you take the time to look for a set youd probably find a good deal and maybe even find a pair that already have some goodies stuffed in em. A buddy of mine got a set of d60's for his heap that already had gears and lockers for 2500 which worked out well for him.

My van seems to be a decent compromise between high soa and minimal body cutting. It still rubs the front fenders a tad when the front tire gets stuffed real good but its only enough to rub paint off so im not planning to do much about it. Dont get me wrong though, i wouldnt mind it being a couple inches shorter but it is what it is and it wheels good enough for me.

Heres a 39.5 x 13.5 krawler beside a 40x14.5 km2. There is a pretty big difference in size when you have em side by side so tire choice will play a big role in how much you will have to cut. I wish i had a pic of the 36 iroks i had next to the 40s.



D

 

[White Stripe]

Any more than 35's and you really should get wider axles. Its good you want to keep it low. I think the 100 series rear axles are supposed to be pretty beefy compared to the standard 9.5" with a thicker pinion. And I think they are like 65" wide. You could put one of those in the back and widen your front housing.

 

[Mace]

100 series are 5 lug

 

[90FJ]

I would take a well designed suspension over 40" tires any day.

 

[Cruiserdrew]

You haven't wheeled out here have you...?

Well, actually, I have! I grew up in the South East wheeling a Blazer on powerlines, NC beaches, and paper company property. Mostly mud and sand, super fun. Took my VW Type2 down to Cape Hatteras once and had a great time in 1982 or so. Aired down, never stuck, 2WD! I remember the Brew-Through, not sure if it's still there.

I suspect you do not need 40s. Not sure you need 35s. Anyway, huge tires = breakage. Upgrade your axles if going that big.

And in my view, SUA and over 35s is not going to work unless you give up all ideas of articulation.

Your tuck looks great as it is. Where do you want to go that you can't go now?

 

[woytovich]

40" KM2 $800
39" Krawler KX $620
39.5" Swamper TSL $415

Well, actually, I have! I grew up in the South East wheeling a Blazer on powerlines, NC beaches, and paper company property. Mostly mud and sand, super fun.

That terrain is not our terrain here... look again at the pictures Johnny posted... rocks are what we do... no mud, no sand.... ih8mud