yeah i get that, if i had it my way i would have an 80, but right now i’m 17 and this is my first car, anything that is permanent scares my dad as he is the one with the title. everything on my build is oem+ but as a kid that loves engineering and figuring stuff out, i try to push the limits (35’s that don’t rub even when full lock turning on bump stops).
100 Series long travel kit
- Thread starter Delta VS
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I'm curious how the rear suspension works with those shocks.
Yep, not a big fan of aftermarket wheels, but 17" wheels would be nice, and those aren't bad.
Agreed, "extended" =/= "long travel"
Front can be "optimized" a bit, but yes no "long travel" or even "mid travel" really.
Agreed, and likely nobody ever will.
Extended =/= "long travel"
Agreed.
A little "down travel" (2-2.25") can be added to the front suspension. No, it's not long travel, but if you don't "lift it too far" or "go overboard on torsion bar diameter", you can make minor improvements.
Nope. I've seen them advertised as "extended travel", but never as "long travel".
Maybe the difference is "minor", at ~2.25" or so, but in my experience, shock extension is the first limit, upper ball joint is the second, UCA hitting the mount is the third, CV axle limits are much further down the list.
Agreed, still not "long travel"
But, it is my understanding that Dobinsons IMS/MRA/MRR are monotube.
Having owned both, calling the 80 superior would depend on your use case.
I disagree that the format of the spring is the primary limiter. I've owned a number of Porsche vehicles with torsion bars (1979 930, 1985 944, & 1981 911), that while some of their engineering seemed archaic, the performance with archaic technology seemed pretty damn good (as long as you never wanted to brake, or lift off throttle, in a corner).
Yes, I've probably spent an inordinate amount of money tuning a (actually more than one) 100 series suspension, and it was probably a waste of time and money, but it did make me happier.
Yep.
And even then, an un-nameless one, around here, claimed to see a total of 10.5" of travel. Woohoo! (I'm seeing ~9.75" with my bastardized stock suspension).
Longer CVs, maybe. but angles, not necessarily...
A slightly longer shock has its limits, but I don't think CV is the first issue that you'll run into. I'll be the first to scream, running extended (front) shocks on all three of mine.
Ideally, you'd gain travel by pushing the front wheels outward. Extending UCA/LCA & CV axles, and gaining travel by putting them at the end of a "longer lever".
I'm still somewhat confused about the torsion bar hate. I get that you can't do progressive torsion bars, but the bigger issue that I see, is relatively "lightweight vehicles" going to 32mm torsion bars (no uptravel), lift it 2.5" (no downtravel), and throw on some really stiff shocks (OME), then wonder why it "rides like s***".
Last edited:
JunkCrzr89
Competent Ignoramoose
*His 80* is superior.
And you lifted those sports cars and made them long-travel? Not sure what relevance those vehicles have to “long-traveling” a 100 series. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the ride of the 100 series with torsion bars was bad - I find it rather comfortable. However, I did say that the torsion bar design is without doubt the primary limiter to long-traveling a 100 series. I don’t think anyone can debate that had the 100 been produced with a coilover design instead, then a long-travel setup would’ve been produced by Total Chaos or some other company 10-15 years ago…It doesn’t matter what component first limits travel on the 100, whether the shocks, CVs, or controls arms, what matters is that the design using torsion bars is thus far the barrier to long-travel a 100.
To be fair, this just isn't true. But I couldn't say how involved the guys I know with relocated shock mounts are on social media or forums. Don't forget, there's a ton of activity that happens offline because that's where the activity happens.
I think you and I might be the only guys in this thread actually running the MRAs on all 4 corners already
And I agree- the TB setup in the old air cool-eds was brilliant for their purposes. I had a 3.0 swapped '77 and it was a very, very happy little car to throw around.
To be fair, this just isn't true. But I couldn't say how involved the guys I know with relocated shock mounts are on social media or forums. Don't forget, there's a ton of activity that happens offline because that's where the activity happens.
I think you and I might be the only guys in this thread actually running the MRAs on all 4 corners already
And I agree- the TB setup in the old air cool-eds was brilliant for their purposes. I had a 3.0 swapped '77 and it was a very, very happy little car to throw around.
Do you know of an actual example of someone relocating their rear shock mounts in a 100? NOT as a 3 link + SAS build? I not saying it isn't possible, I am saying it makes no sense to do outside of a 3link build. But, I've been wrong before...
For me, in every application other than driving up a hill at 80mph, my 80 is superior to my 100. Granted, I wish my 80 had arm rests and cupholders...... that part does actually really suck....
It's possible on paper to design a functional torsion bar system (our factory 100's ride great!)... but once you lift and start dealing with varying levels of additional weight, a very small market, and old school tech the big teams aren't using... it's a limiting factor, no one is going to make that many tbar diameters, for this few 100 series that want to really dial in their setup. Progressive coils make a big difference offroad.... really helps with the small bump compliance.
From a strictly manufacturing standpoint, no machining of splines definitely makes coils easier to source.
If there were already coil buckets or coilover mounts and no need for a splined detail on the LCA, there would be mid and long travel kits for these rigs.
look at @tiny200 on instagram he’s on 40s and ahc on a lx570. @out_venturing also did it on his 100 series.Do you know of an actual example of someone relocating their rear shock mounts in a 100? NOT as a 3 link + SAS build? I not saying it isn't possible, I am saying it makes no sense to do outside of a 3link build. But, I've been wrong before...
For me, in every application other than driving up a hill at 80mph, my 80 is superior to my 100. Granted, I wish my 80 had arm rests and cupholders...... that part does actually really suck....
It's possible on paper to design a functional torsion bar system (our factory 100's ride great!)... but once you lift and start dealing with varying levels of additional weight, a very small market, and old school tech the big teams aren't using... it's a limiting factor, no one is going to make that many tbar diameters, for this few 100 series that want to really dial in their setup. Progressive coils make a big difference offroad.... really helps with the small bump compliance.
From a strictly manufacturing standpoint, no machining of splines definitely makes coils easier to source.
If there were already coil buckets or coilover mounts and no need for a splined detail on the LCA, there would be mid and long travel kits for these rigs.
I do, actually. This is not my truck.
I can see this making sense, but only if you only ever drive trails.For me, in every application other than driving up a hill at 80mph, my 80 is superior to my 100. Granted, I wish my 80 had arm rests and cupholders...... that part does actually really suck....
Well, I stand corrected guys. I will still say... all that rear flex and still hardly any up front doesn't make much sense to me. but. it's been done!
I drive to the trails, and around town when I feel like it... it's slow, but so are the 100's. It's all relative, if I ever do a 6BT swap in my 80, it'd be a different story.
Still going to drop this picture right here though
Idk what @MTKID s 570 has to do with this? His front suspension actually flexes
Well, I stand corrected guys. I will still say... all that rear flex and still hardly any up front doesn't make much sense to me. but. it's been done!
I drive to the trails, and around town when I feel like it... it's slow, but so are the 100's. It's all relative, if I ever do a 6BT swap in my 80, it'd be a different story.
Still going to drop this picture right here though
Idk what @MTKID s 570 has to do with this? His front suspension actually flexes
Last edited:
@Calvinswartz idk why the brand or price of the parts makes a difference. Most LT kits are $10k when you include shocks and axles... even more if you need glass fenders.
Is this one better? Here's Phil's with factory radius arms and I believe the shorter shocks...
Is this one better? Here's Phil's with factory radius arms and I believe the shorter shocks...
I didn’t do the rear shock mount move on my 100 but I did use a tall soft rear coil from an 80 and longish adjustable Tough Dog shocks on the back of my 100 and it seemed to do just fine having quite a bit more droop/flex than the front. You can kinda see the droop of the back end at the beginning of this vid…Well, I stand corrected guys. I will still say... all that rear flex and still hardly any up front doesn't make much sense to me. but. it's been done!
I drive to the trails, and around town when I feel like it... it's slow, but so are the 100's. It's all relative, if I ever do a 6BT swap in my 80, it'd be a different story.
Still going to drop this picture right here though
Idk what @MTKID s 570 has to do with this? His front suspension actually flexes
Ultimately, matching things F&R would be ideal, but we all try to make improvements with whatever we start with. The front of my 100 unloaded over bumps and ledges pretty badly.
My 200 is my first vehicle with AHC and I’m just trying to maximize it as much as possible. With my size tire it makes sense to try to get more droop since I can only go so far up with these tires. And it drives great around town or on fast mountain passes. I don’t hold back one bit
i still don't know what you're arguing, it seems like everything you've said gets combatted with what i say. comparing 80 to 100 is like apples to oranges. 80s are really cool if you're into rock crawling but with my interests being more into extreme reliabilty and more of the overlanding part a 100 is just better, my land cruiser is going to flex 75% of those 80s and honestly i couldnt care less, f youre so into ifs long travel maybe you should look at 4 runners. there is a reason no one makes long travel kits for 100 series and its becasue of the demographic, 100 series owners that are looking to keep their rigs for a while are into mor mellow offroading and not stuff that you would take a solid front axel car on.@Calvinswartz idk why the brand or price of the parts makes a difference. Most LT kits are $10k when you include shocks and axles... even more if you need glass fenders.
Is this one better? Here's Phil's with factory radius arms and I believe the shorter shocks...
I didn’t do the rear shock mount move on my 100 but I did use a tall soft rear coil from an 80 and longish adjustable Tough Dog shocks on the back of my 100 and it seemed to do just fine having quite a bit more droop/flex than the front. You can kinda see the droop of the back end at the beginning of this vid…
Ultimately, matching things F&R would be ideal, but we all try to make improvements with whatever we start with. The front of my 100 unloaded over bumps and ledges pretty badly.
My 200 is my first vehicle with AHC and I’m just trying to maximize it as much as possible. With my size tire it makes sense to try to get more droop since I can only go so far up with these tires. And it drives great around town or on fast mountain passes. I don’t hold back one bit
Don’t you have an awesome golden retriever too? Am I remembering right?
I didn’t do the rear shock mount move on my 100 but I did use a tall soft rear coil from an 80 and longish adjustable Tough Dog shocks on the back of my 100 and it seemed to do just fine having quite a bit more droop/flex than the front. You can kinda see the droop of the back end at the beginning of this vid…
Ultimately, matching things F&R would be ideal, but we all try to make improvements with whatever we start with. The front of my 100 unloaded over bumps and ledges pretty badly.
My 200 is my first vehicle with AHC and I’m just trying to maximize it as much as possible. With my size tire it makes sense to try to get more droop since I can only go so far up with these tires. And it drives great around town or on fast mountain passes. I don’t hold back one bit
great point, its refreshing to hear a like minded person in this thread, unlike someone ive been talking to.
no. Taken my dogs on trips in the past but no trail dogs currently.
I wonder who that was…
For the record, you and @JunkCrzr89 were the pressure i needed to go 37’s
I still argue that if they'd simply used a coil on a shock, and reinforced the shock mount, It would still be a ghost town for long travel kits. The small (US) production numbers, and the fact of not sharing much of anything, with any other Toyota/Lexus vehicle's front suspension, makes it hard to justify the engineering cost, considering the limited potential market.
I don't disagree that the design is flawed. I disagree with the premise that the only thing wrong with the 100 series IFS is the format of the spring.
I guess I don’t fully buy into:
No, no lifted long travel Porsche 911 trophy trucks in my past, and I'm not aware of anyone else that has done one either, but I really haven't been looking. I am aware that a number of people seem to like the old 911 rally cars...
For me, in every application other than driving up a hill at 80mph, my 80 is superior to my 100. Granted, I wish my 80 had arm rests and cupholders...... that part does actually really suck....
It's possible on paper to design a functional torsion bar system (our factory 100's ride great!)... but once you lift and start dealing with varying levels of additional weight, a very small market, and old school tech the big teams aren't using... it's a limiting factor, no one is going to make that many tbar diameters, for this few 100 series that want to really dial in their setup. Progressive coils make a big difference offroad.... really helps with the small bump compliance.
From a strictly manufacturing standpoint, no machining of splines definitely makes coils easier to source.
If there were already coil buckets or coilover mounts and no need for a splined detail on the LCA, there would be mid and long travel kits for these rigs.
Off road, no doubt I prefer my old 80 series. I wouldn't call the 80 series a "great" rockcrawler due to its size, and overhangs, the solid axles makes lifts above 2" fairly trivial, which also makes tires above 33" fairly easy. It's still basically a work truck with leather, and carpet, that Toyota sold as a "luxury SUV".
If I drive 1500 miles of highway, to do trails (that any stock Land Cruiser could do) in Colorado, I'd really prefer a 100 or 200 series.
I agree that the lifting of the IFS, varying additional weight levels, small market, and not sharing components are limiting factors. Even of the stuff that is available, basic suspension kits for a 100 series, each manufacturer offers a number of rear coils (because they're pretty much the same as the 80 series coils), but I can't think of one that offers more than (1) torsion bar in "petrol length", and (1) torsion bar in "diesel length". Is this because a torsion bar is so hard to manufacture, or because of the other limitations of the 100 series IFS design, and the limited market, "why bother"?
Last edited:
if im understanding the last part correctly, dobinsons makes deisel and petrol specific torsion bars with a heavy duty petrol version too.I still argue that if they'd simply used a coil on a shock, and reinforced the shock mount, It would still be a ghost town for long travel kits. The small (US) production numbers, and the fact of not sharing much of anything, with any other Toyota/Lexus vehicle's front suspension, makes it hard to justify the engineering cost, considering the limited potential market.
I don't disagree that the design is flawed. I disagree with the premise that the only thing wrong with the 100 series IFS is the format of the spring.
No, no lifted long travel Porsche 911 trophy trucks in my past, and I'm not aware of anyone else that has done one either, but I really haven't been looking. I am aware that a number of people seem to like the old 911 rally cars...
Off road, no doubt I prefer my old 80 series. I wouldn't call the 80 series a "great" rockcrawler due to its size, and overhangs, the solid axles makes lifts above 2" fairly trivial, which also makes tires above 33" fairly easy. It's still basically a work truck with leather, and carpet, that Toyota sold as a "luxury SUV".
If I drive 1500 miles of highway, to do trails (that any stock Land Cruiser could do) in Colorado, I'd really prefer a 100 or 200 series.
I agree that the lifting of the IFS, varying additional weight levels, small market, and not sharing components are limiting factors. Even of the stuff that is available, basic suspension kits for a 100 series, each manufacturer offers a number of rear coils (because they're pretty much the same as the 80 series coils), but I can't think of one that offers (1) torsion bar in "petrol length", and (1) torsion bar in "diesel length". Is this because a torsion bar is so hard to manufacture, or because of the other limitations of the 100 series IFS design, and the limited market, "why bother"?
Their Australian catalog, only shows one "short" V8 petrol bar, and one "long" diesel/1fz bar (just like everyone else).
Which isn't to say that vendors over here don't sell "medium" suspension kits, and manly "heavy" suspension kits. Often the only difference between the two is the rear coil spring rate.