100 SF axle conversion (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter semlin
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
100 series solid front axle are supposed to have larger birfield. The width between flange of 100 series IFS rear axle are wider than 105 series rear axle. 105 series axle width are exaclty the same as 80 series. The track width are the same since they are compensated by the wheel offset. That is why he need the rear axle and the steel wheels also.
[quote author=semlin link=board=2;threadid=10624;start=msg96448#msg96448 date=1075321612]
mustard, why would you buy the rear axle and rims?
[/quote]
I beleive the 105 and 100 axles have different widths, look the rim of the 100 and 105 and you see the difference, You can use some spacers in the front but since rear 100 is semi-float this could be the chance to go full float in the rear. A set of 80 axles would do the job too but I wouldn't put the smaller mini-truck birfields in a heavier UZJ100.
/td
mustard, why would you buy the rear axle and rims?
[/quote]
I beleive the 105 and 100 axles have different widths, look the rim of the 100 and 105 and you see the difference, You can use some spacers in the front but since rear 100 is semi-float this could be the chance to go full float in the rear. A set of 80 axles would do the job too but I wouldn't put the smaller mini-truck birfields in a heavier UZJ100.
/td
does a real landcruiser diff fit in an 80 diff housing? cause i think your 105's also run the mini diff in the front as well 
[quote author=98LXand99LC link=board=2;threadid=10624;start=msg96356#msg96356 date=1075311695]
For God's sake, please someone tell me what is so blasphemous about an IFS? Seems like a lot of work. What's ROI here?
[/quote]
There is nothing terribly wrong with the setup, just not the best for offroading especially with a heavy vehicle.
The advantages of a solid axle is being very robust. When driving offroad and going over an obstacle, because of the spring placement, as one tire is raised it forces the opposite tire down. The spring acts like a pivot point. In a IFS/IRS system as a tire raises it applies pressure to the diagonal tire. Not as good for traction. Also in an IFS/IRS system there is alot more force applied to the frame and a greater chance for alignment issues after a hard drive. This is where the weight comes in, the heavier the vehicle the greater the chance of problems. Toyota was quick to pont out the stiffer frame of the 100 when it came out. It had to be for that reason.
For God's sake, please someone tell me what is so blasphemous about an IFS? Seems like a lot of work. What's ROI here?
[/quote]
There is nothing terribly wrong with the setup, just not the best for offroading especially with a heavy vehicle.
The advantages of a solid axle is being very robust. When driving offroad and going over an obstacle, because of the spring placement, as one tire is raised it forces the opposite tire down. The spring acts like a pivot point. In a IFS/IRS system as a tire raises it applies pressure to the diagonal tire. Not as good for traction. Also in an IFS/IRS system there is alot more force applied to the frame and a greater chance for alignment issues after a hard drive. This is where the weight comes in, the heavier the vehicle the greater the chance of problems. Toyota was quick to pont out the stiffer frame of the 100 when it came out. It had to be for that reason.
