THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Fit for purpose, where different purposes require different modifications.
100 series measured weight
- Thread starter whitenoise
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
THAT'S what I'm talking about.
Fit for purpose, where different purposes require different modifications.
I'd love to see a comparison between AHC vs 2" OME for RTI and general off road handling.
The weight measurements are very handy for helping estimate the impact of different mods. Thanks again.
Sliders, will further center the balance average weight distribution by a smidge, all 120lb of them. A heavy front bumper like mine will negatively affect the braking by more than just added weight, I think. More distributed weight is on the front axles where the front brakes are already doing a lot of the work and less distributed weight on the rear tires making the rear brakes unable to contribute as much. I guess that means I need to get a rear bumper and swing outs going sooner than later, or synthetic rope.
The weight measurements are very handy for helping estimate the impact of different mods. Thanks again.
Sliders, will further center the balance average weight distribution by a smidge, all 120lb of them. A heavy front bumper like mine will negatively affect the braking by more than just added weight, I think. More distributed weight is on the front axles where the front brakes are already doing a lot of the work and less distributed weight on the rear tires making the rear brakes unable to contribute as much. I guess that means I need to get a rear bumper and swing outs going sooner than later, or synthetic rope.
I am pretty sure it would possibly do the same if not better.. Considering the fact it is pretty much a "~2-3" inch lift at the "high" setting. I have tried numerous times to get the rear tires off the ground and my nerves are the only thing holding it back.. I absolutely love the system...
Anyway, I think this is my last post on this subject. I apologize for people's hurt feelings, but then again it's human nature to defend your choices regardless of their merits.
whitenoise, I appreciate you starting this thread and supplying some more real world data. The weight of our rigs is a certain issue that affects reliability. Please continue posting...no need to leave.
I have myself been thinking about my build and the weight issues. I am planning on taking my rig over to Europe, Russia, and Mongolia in the next few years and doing some solo travel. I need both reliability and capability. I have thought often about whether or not bumpers and sliders are overkill for what I want to do. In a sense, they are, as I believe one can travel easily in these places with a car. However, I want to get off the beaten path and explore. Mud and water crossings, solo...hmm, better have a winch. I am debating with even having a mount in the back so that I can winch backwards if need be. Two spare tires...hmm, where to put them? Extra fuel? These things require lots of thought, and unfortunately, lots of the GVWR of our rigs.
I know I want to be as far under GVWR as I can, but still have the 100 be a super capable solo explorer. Finding that balance is tough. More armor, less personal items (cameras, bicycle, cooking gear, fridge, sleeping gear)? Or a very well protected and capable rig with lots of protection and recovery gear and then live out of it like a backpacker?
I totally agree...those vehicle modifications allow you to get to point B, but more importantly, get back to point A without broken parts, expensive repairs, or potentially disastrous breakdowns and recoveries. It's all a balance...some will tilt more in the direction of capability (which adds weight to a vehicle) and some towards keeping it close to manufacturer recommendations as possible. Both are valid choices and can only be made by the owner with consideration of their uses and environment.
Now it's starting to sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too...
In theory wouldn't the pristine handling of your vehicle be negatively affected by your tire change as well?
Dampening heavier 33" LT AT tires with factory tuned shocks that are expecting a p-metric 31" tire?
More inertia from the heavier tire affecting braking?
Higher CoG with the raise in overall vehicle height?
Inaccurate data provided to the VSC computer during your 70MPH emergency lane change scenario?
In theory wouldn't the pristine handling of your vehicle be negatively affected by your tire change as well?
Dampening heavier 33" LT AT tires with factory tuned shocks that are expecting a p-metric 31" tire?
More inertia from the heavier tire affecting braking?
Higher CoG with the raise in overall vehicle height?
Inaccurate data provided to the VSC computer during your 70MPH emergency lane change scenario?
CG and polar moment are quite different concepts. Adding weight to front or rear, regardless of how high it sits, are the worst possible places for handling.
I must be getting old and forgetful, I thought I remembered that "unsprung weight" was the worst place to add weight in regards to handling (but the OP seems to think that's OK)
Let me know how much it effects you around turn 20 next time you are running VIR.
- Thread starter
- #50
Happy to be of help to at least a few people on this forum. Most just don't seem to get it, either due to completely different application (wheeling, not Overland travel) or just the good old Dunning-Kruger effect.
If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend getting VDEG4 the book. It's easy to get lost in the sea of info online and commercial products that are available today. Many an expedition have been completed successfully using completely stock 4x4s and a good set (or sets) of tires...
- Thread starter
- #51
Not just in theory, but in practice too, yes all of the things you said are true (and there's data out there to support it as well), but it's one of the few things actually worth doing as I've said before. And who said anything about E range tires?
So, did you have a point?
The way I see it is if you are 1000s of miles away from home something like hitting a dear could leave you stranded and at the very least completely ruin a trip that could have been saved with a 100lb bumper. I have yet to hit an animal while on an expedition but I am not willing to take that chance. Anyone that has done any overland travel know how much time and money that goes into planing such a trip and it wouldn't take much to ruin it! this is my main reason for always running a bull bar on any long trips. Sure, you could do most overland trips with a stock 100 but part of over landing is being prepared for the unexpected. Weather it be a small accident, an animal ect. I want to do everything in my ability to make sure my vehicle will get me and my family home. And for what it's worth my built 100 handles way better now than it did stock, on and off road!
Why yes I do.
In your earlier post you seem most concerned about not making modifications to your vehicle that might affect the handling of your vehicle in an emergency situation at highway speeds of 70MPH+.
Then you mention that you consider adding 33" tires to the vehicle the same as "stock" because they are consumable items and fit without additional modification.
Your stances to these 2 items seem somewhat contradictory.
So you're avoiding the "E" load range. Are you planning on "D" load range or P-metric? Are you going to have to carry extra spares to compensate for the thinner sidewalls? Oh crap more weight!
I believe I understand the general point(s) that you are trying to make. And you may be correct that for your intended use that the "armor" is unnecessary and counter productive. We have (2) 100 series in our household, one is pretty much as you describe (33s on a basically stock vehicle) and another that is mildly modified. Each excels in its own way. When driving in the Texas hill country, with the dog sized deer everywhere, an ARB bumper makes sense to me. Your "just drive around them" sounds good on an Internet forum, but doesn't always work in real life. My daily driver is stock except for the 33" tires and it works just fine for a long road trip or mild offroad situation.
Considering the many variants of the 100 series sold around the world, with diesel engines and their dual batteries, "factory" winches, "factory" bull bars, factory aux tanks, etc. I think that you are oversimplifying the situation and painting with a pretty broad brush, when you seem to imply that the typical modifications you see on this site are "bad" because they exceed the factory engineered weight and negatively affect high speed handling. From my perspective the fact that you're starting with 5500lb body on frame SUV, your high speed handling is already pretty much compromised, and if your primary concern is high speed handling, you picked the wrong vehicle.
Thank you for the info on the static weight of a stock 100.
I don't disagree that what you've decided for your vehicle might be what is best for your use case.
Last edited:
Sounds like @whitenoise needs to be driving a Toyota Prius instead of a LC. Just don't fill the gas tank to full. You wouldn't want to compromise your handling.
I dont think whitenoise ever said mods were bad, just not needed for the kind of cruising he plans to do. Fair enough. These things can go a lot of places without loadingnup on armor and mods. There are places i plan to go where a little armournis recommended and that will drive my choices, you yours, etc. Mods should be done for use, but with the caveat that the stock engineering, of which I think many of us are at least a little appreciative of the good work MrT has done, that engineering will be compromised. How much it is compromised depends on how radical the mods. That is not all mods are created equal.
Increasing the polar moment, someone mentioned above and incrrasing center of gravity with roof rack gear can increase the risk of rolling over. Think about scaling a steep incline. Being aware of how your load is sidtributed and associated risks before bombing down the trail is wise. At the same time it isn't time to panic either. Even with 1000lb of armour and mods, which is no mild build, the total increase is 20% of the curb weight. The right suspension and the right driving adjustments, and all will hopefully be well.
Increasing the polar moment, someone mentioned above and incrrasing center of gravity with roof rack gear can increase the risk of rolling over. Think about scaling a steep incline. Being aware of how your load is sidtributed and associated risks before bombing down the trail is wise. At the same time it isn't time to panic either. Even with 1000lb of armour and mods, which is no mild build, the total increase is 20% of the curb weight. The right suspension and the right driving adjustments, and all will hopefully be well.
Haven't read the whole thread, but if I were to do it again, I'd focus on staying light. Weight, just like tire size, is a problem that compounds into other problems. For durability, reliability, economy, and performance (both on and off trail) there's a lot to be said for staying stock and staying light. Building my truck has been a lot of fun, and don't get me wrong it's a great rig. A triple-locked armored 100 on 35s is a very capable vehicle. But when your roll somewhere north of 7k on the scales you're far from a nimble trail rig. While my truck is fabulous at being a comfy and competent expo rig, she suffers when she gets on soft sand, slippery cross slopes, etc. It's easy to get envious at how well a mostly stock Tacoma can do in the same environment with good tires and a modest lift.
It all depends on what you want to do with the vehicle, mine is certainly one of those getting close to the 7k mark when fully loaded. I do not carry much weight high though, to keep center of gravity low, the armor is low on the truck. Without the armor my stock LC would have a lot of damage underneath and at the rocker panels. Here in So Cal desert even though I do not look to rock crawl while exploring, it shows up in one canyon or another.
But the main thing is I drive the truck differently now on the highway than I did when it was stock, which I also do when I rent a minivan for work, which I also drive differently than my GTR. With the truck even at highway speeds I drive a little slower, use my ride height and vision to look as far down the road as possible, knowing the truck is not very agile, with my GTR I drive a bit faster knowing how much better it brakes, handles and accelerates.
But the main thing is I drive the truck differently now on the highway than I did when it was stock, which I also do when I rent a minivan for work, which I also drive differently than my GTR. With the truck even at highway speeds I drive a little slower, use my ride height and vision to look as far down the road as possible, knowing the truck is not very agile, with my GTR I drive a bit faster knowing how much better it brakes, handles and accelerates.
I also agree that putting on the 33" tires with stock suspension made the truck drive very differently. When I first did it years ago, I had to change the shocks as soon as I could to improve the handling.
Again, if you want a light vehicle that is nimble and can maneuver, you are not, your right mind buying a LC/LX. Buy a 4Runner, Highlander, or a RAV4. Don't give this guy any excuses. You're either a rich guy who is buying an LC for your wife who is getting groceries and moving kids around town that wants them to be safe or your a man who can appreciate a solid vehicle that is heavy, chugs gas, is super capable off road and can handle a massive amount of amor which makes it a deer killer.
@whitenoise you provided us with some useful information initially and you are now trying to use that information to slap us all in the face. So I say "suck it". You obviously think you know more than the "whole" and do not have the ability to listen. We have all agreed to your science but you have no ability to listen to ours. So at this point your opinion is mute. So STFU.
@whitenoise you provided us with some useful information initially and you are now trying to use that information to slap us all in the face. So I say "suck it". You obviously think you know more than the "whole" and do not have the ability to listen. We have all agreed to your science but you have no ability to listen to ours. So at this point your opinion is mute. So STFU.