What prevents AHC removal? (1 Viewer)

[Markuson]

I hear you on the advantages of lockers. I currently pilot a tripple-locked 100 on 34x12s and 4.88s. Lockers will give you the best shot of rolling up something. There have been a number of times that I have rolled up things effortlessly when locked that would have definitely been 'drama' with just ATRAC. That said, my main partner in crime runs an unlocked 4th Gen 4Runner. We go all the same places. He's lighter, narrower, and I've yet to see a place where he can't get. There's been times where he's pulled winch line and there's been times when I've pulled winch line. Won't say that one vehicle is necessarily better than the other. Although I might tip my hand to him just for the pure aspect of power:weight ratio. I could certainly see myself adding lockers to a 200 build some day. Was just curious how much 'improved' the 200 ATRAC was. Some of the YouTube vids make it look really super.



Not arguing with your logic here at all. 8,000 lbs (1,200 lbs over GVWR) is a feat to accomplish. I've fought the same battle but with a 4 speed. 230 hp pulling that mass around stinks! For me the debate was between 4.88s and 5.29s. 4.88s won out because it's an easier install in the 100 (5.29s require a hybrid of parts). Conventional wisdom is to gear down as weight and tire size go up. However, I'm about to go back to 4.30's and here's why: it put me in the wrong RPM band at the speeds I need to travel. If you look at the chart below, with 4.88s I can't hold 3rd gear on a climb. My whole goal was to pull hills better and I still can't hold 3rd. But what it did was push 2nd up above 4,100 rpm. Not where I want to hang out. Had I kept the 4.30s I'd have been right in the sweet spot of the power band in 2nd at 55mph. Similarly, if I'm pulling a trailer or have a headwind, it's hard for the A343F to stay locked at 2,400 rpm in 4th at 65mph. Had I kept the 4.30s I'd be in 3rd at a comfortable 3,200 rpm and would keep the trans from hunting.

View attachment 1521960

I bring this up because you may have a similar situation with the AB60F ratios. With the 3.90 in 3rd I'm guessing you can hold 55mph at 2,900 rpm. With 4.88s this pushes you to 3,600 rpm in 3rd or 2,700 rpm in 4th. The 3UR may be happy pulling at 2,700 rpm. Much bigger cajones in the 5.7. Not saying that it's a good or bad idea for your truck or your mission, just sharing what I learned. You may want to look at 4.30s as well. Some good ratios there. Not sure what your highway performance is like, but 4th with 4.30s looks like it's a better chose than 5th with 4.88s.

View attachment 1521961

The other item to consider is driveline speed and vibrations. It's common in the 100 to pickup a harmonic vibration in the cab between 55 and 60 when going to 4.88s due to the increased rotational speed of the driveshaft. May or not be a prob with the 200. Just something to be aware of.

Again, please don't take this as critiquing your build plans. 4.88s may be a great way to go. Just wanted to give some real-world feedback from my experience. If I keep the 100 for a few more seasons it's going to be re-geared (again) over this coming winter, going back to stock 4.30s. I will lose performance off the line and the truck won't feel as quick at stoplights. But where it really struggles it will be geared better.

Man, you won't hurt my feelings at all, and I always appreciate anyone really thinking it rpthrough. I'm no gear ratio guru, so bring on the info. But you seem to be talking pretty specifically about the 100. I wonder how your calculations fit in with the 200's additional 161 hp. It really is an astounding increase in power compared with my 100...

 

[OregonLC]

381hp seems like it could cover a multitude of sins... which is exactly why I'm learning up on the 200.

The 2nd chart above was for 200 series transmission ratios. Not having driven a loaded 200 it's hard for me to judge where it might struggle. I know I the 100 struggles below about 2800-2900 rpm so having it be at 2,600 rpm on a climb isn't its best hand. I can send you the Excel workbook if you want to play around with tire sizes and final drive ratios.

 

[Markuson]

381hp seems like it could cover a multitude of sins... which is exactly why I'm learning up on the 200.

The 2nd chart above was for 200 series transmission ratios. Not having driven a loaded 200 it's hard for me to judge where it might struggle. I know I the 100 struggles below about 2800-2900 rpm so having it be at 2,600 rpm on a climb isn't its best hand. I can send you the Excel workbook if you want to play around with tire sizes and final drive ratios.

Ya...see that now. was on my little phone and skimming earlier. Thank you.

 

[richxd87]

From what I could find, there's the Nestle option that 4x4Tripping used:

What would be a deal killer is no bolt-on sliders for the 200 LX. I have read posts where they may be on the horizon. Again, knowing there was an option to yank the AHC bits and go old school would buy me the comfort of knowing that I had options available.

@OregonLC I don't have any good pictures of the sliders specifically but can grab a few shots this evening for you if you'd like. They are bolt-on but do require additional riv-nuts.

These Slee sliders have a "four leg" design with integrated LEDs that light up the door area very nicely. The dimpled plates on top make for a very secure step surface. The main body is bent and formed like how my MetalTech sliders are on my 80, without the outer tube. I didn't get much slider action in Breck to test them out so no real report on flex or weight handling yet....

 

[sleeoffroad]

We have done all the preliminary things like disconnection various connectors for the AHC system to see what happens. In all cases the truck throws an error code. The communication in the 200 is with CANBUS, so not as simple to do as the LX470 where you can get rid of any warning lights. The AHC system in the 200 is integrated with the stability control. The system does a lot more than just set the vehicle height. The other issue is that all the warning messages show up on the screen on the center of the dash. So no way to get that disabled.

When we have time we are going to look into this further as to if it is possible to remove the system.

 

[sleeoffroad]

As for the sliders, from looking at the LX570 running boards, you could probably separate the upper trim piece from the running board and then cut the front and rear sections on a horizontal plane. The only issue is the plastic piece will clip back onto the body on the top edge, but nothing will be securing it on the bottom edge, other than if we make custom brackets to attach it. When you remove the LX570 sliders, you add a couple of clips to the LC rocker covers that go into holes that are already in the LX, but covered by a plug.

 

[OregonLC]

Thanks @sleeoffroad and @richxd87! Having the sliders as an option makes the LX 200 a contender. Still concerned about the weight capacity of the LX and how mitigate that without creating a reliability problem; the oversized AHC struts sound great in theory but I guess I'd like to see other MUD users with successful DIY mods before I ventured too far down that path on my own.

That said, are there any downsides with increasing the coil spring rates on the LX/AHC (other than ride quality)?

 

[studawg]

A North 'Murican spec 200 Series Land Cruiser.

 

[linuxgod]

Despite ATRAC being more refined in the 200, it is absolutely not a replacement for lockers. Your lines are greatly limited with ATRAC and you need to take obstacles at speed (which is dangerous) in order to keep traction. A perfect example was Mark on Red Cone having to adjust his line a few times due to cross wheel slippage...The driver behind him had a rear locker and just rolled up the obstacle.

Yeah Matt from AZ (I don't know his username) did use lockers to crawl right up that spot, but I used the cheaper and more effective @TonyP spotting option on my LC to do the same without lockers or crawl control enabled

 

[Markuson]

381hp seems like it could cover a multitude of sins... which is exactly why I'm learning up on the 200.

The 2nd chart above was for 200 series transmission ratios. Not having driven a loaded 200 it's hard for me to judge where it might struggle. I know I the 100 struggles below about 2800-2900 rpm so having it be at 2,600 rpm on a climb isn't its best hand. I can send you the Excel workbook if you want to play around with tire sizes and final drive ratios.

Have a look at this post by @justdifferentials with why he argues 4.88's are perfect for the 200+35's. See what you think. He notes something that reflects my interest in a useful 6th gear...more than the question of occasional RPM bursts up a mountain in 3rd.

It's post number 17 on this page: The beamin build

 

[OregonLC]

In theory, 4.88s are an improvement for the 100 as well. Technically they are in that they lower the final drive ratio and put more engine torque to the pavement in every gear.

In the real world, however, the 4.88s don't put the A343F 100s in the optimal rpm range at the desired speed. I'm better off climbing with 4.30s in 2nd than 4.88s in 3rd and on the highway it's a happier truck with 4.30s in 3rd than 4.88s in 4th. Granted the 4-spd was never regarded as a good match to the 2UZ or 100 series chassis. And to be fair, 4.30s do make the 100 slower off the line (vs 4.88s) in 1st gear.

For the 200, I can't directly comment as I've not experienced that particular engine/trans combo under load. What I do know is that before I ever re-gear another vehicle I'm going to plot it out to see where it will put me at the speeds where I want to travel. After all, re-gearing is really for highway purposes. Trail gearing could be accomplished with t-case gears and touch only a single component.

Again, not saying that 4.88s are good or bad for the 200. Just saying that I'd spend some time studying the effect those ratios will have on your desired travel speeds. Probably much easier to find the right gear on the 6-spd AB60F than it is on the 4-spd A343F and I do agree with Carl's overall statement that with 3.90s that 5th and 6th become almost useless with 35s and heavy weights. If the 3UR can keep 4th locked up at 2,500-2,700 rpm (4th gear) in a climb at 55 mph then 4.88s are a great gear set. 4.30s put 3rd at 2,900-3,200 rpm at the same speed. Seems to be the prime rpm for and efficient climb. On the highway, 4.88s might be better depending upon TC lockup characteristics. If you can hold 2,300 locked up at 65 mph then 5th with 4.88s is a great gear. With 4.30s you'd bee 2,000 rpm in 5th or 2,800 rpm in 4th.

The other thing to keep in mind is that your driveshafts are going to be spinning 25% faster with 4.88s. Again, might not be a problem on the 200. It can be a vibration generating machine on the 100.

Either way, good discussion. I think good cases can be made for either 4.30s or 4.88s and I agree that the 3.90s are EPA biased for stock mall cruisers and hold back the potential of a built 200.

 

[Markuson]

In theory, 4.88s are an improvement for the 100 as well. Technically they are in that they lower the final drive ratio and put more engine torque to the pavement in every gear.

In the real world, however, the 4.88s don't put the A343F 100s in the optimal rpm range at the desired speed. I'm better off climbing with 4.30s in 2nd than 4.88s in 3rd and on the highway it's a happier truck with 4.30s in 3rd than 4.88s in 4th. Granted the 4-spd was never regarded as a good match to the 2UZ or 100 series chassis.

For the 200, I can't directly comment as I've not experienced that particular engine/trans combo under load. What I do know is that before I ever re-gear another vehicle I'm going to plot it out to see where it will put me at the speeds where I want to travel. After all, re-gearing is really for highway purposes. Trail gearing could be accomplished with t-case gears and touch only a single component.

Again, not saying that 4.88s are good or bad for the 200. Just saying that I'd spend some time studying the effect those ratios will have on your desired travel speeds. Probably much easier to find the right gear on the 6-spd AB60F than it is on the 4-spd A343F and I do agree with Carl's overall statement that with 3.90s that 5th and 6th become almost useless with 35s and heavy weights. If the 3UR can keep 4th locked up at 2,500-2,700 rpm (4th gear) in a climb at 55 mph then 4.88s are a great gear set. 4.30s put 3rd at 2,900-3,200 rpm at the same speed. Seems to be the prime rpm for and efficient climb. On the highway, 4.88s might be better depending upon TC lockup characteristics. If you can hold 2,300 locked up at 65 mph then 5th with 4.88s is a great gear. With 4.30s you'd bee 2,000 rpm in 5th or 2,800 rpm in 4th.

The other thing to keep in mind is that your driveshafts are going to be spinning 25% faster with 4.88s. Again, might not be a problem on the 200. It can be a vibration generating machine on the 100.

Either way, good discussion. I think good cases can be made for either 4.30s or 4.88s and I agree that the 3.90s are EPA biased for stock mall cruisers and hold back the potential of a built 200.

View attachment 1522287

I've not encountered nasty vibration issues at ANY RPM on my 200...though I do recall some of that on my 100 series. Vibrations on my 100 seemed to come mostly (perception-wise) from the transfer case, if anything, and I could often feel it as well via the manual 4Hi/4Lo shift knob...

 

[OregonLC]

Man, I'm really going to need to double-down on my hunt for a 200. Its sounding more and more like the machine I want my 100 to be...

 

[Markuson]

Man, I'm really going to need to double-down on my hunt for a 200. Its sounding more and more like the machine I want my 100 to be...

There ya go!

I can tell you as a guy who drove my fully-built 100 until it was 16 years old...and loved EVERY MINUTE of that truck...that in my experience, the 200 (and my 200 now fully built like my 100, save for gears/lockers) is the hands-down winner over my 100 in every category I can think of. Power, front end suspension, ride, noise, did I say POWER?, interior, and overall capability. -It's just a fantastic machine that keeps me from missing my *beloved* 1999 100 series.

The ONLY thing I liked better on my 100? -The front seats. That's it! Just wish they we a bit less flat on the seat sides. Everything else? Man this is one sweet rig.

 

[MILOWILLI]

To be clear...It's not so much that the *slee* sliders cause an issue with the panels....as much as it is the fact that the LX steps involve the panels. Any slider design built for the LX is going to be stuck dealing with this step/panel integration design that creates this issue.

I just cut my step panels, looks way cool. Also made my own sliders.