35's vs. 37's

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Darren, what stops the axle side mount from rotating on the axle? Or does it? I can't see any other mounting holes than the stock ones. Obviously, you wouldn't be able to prevent rotating without another set of holes and bolts or other form of support.
 
619TOY said:
Hypothetically speaking, running a 3" spacer with 37's should net the same results as running a 2" spacer with 35's (concerning the point at which the tire contacts the upper/inner wheel well surface). I had thought I was running 2 1/2" but it turns out that it's only 2".

I just went out and took some pics and measurements and it does look like like raising the axle side panhard mount is a viable option, as it does in Kevin's pics. I have about 5 3/4" until I make contact with the bumpstop and about 10" before the axle would contact the frame. Leaving 3 1/2" of safely usable height. obviously Kevin's pic indicates that there is more than this, but it definately looks do-able.
Click to expand...

Absolutely does look doable.

Now figure out how much you can afford to space down your shock travel. Easier way than I posted above is disconnect the axle end of the OME shock and let that side droop until the coil unseats. The distance between the end of the fully extended OME shock and fully drooped shock mount is how much you could move the entire travel down.

I figure if you have even 2" you are golden, because you could run a 4" bumpstop drop and still have over 10" of shock travel (you might even raise the lower shock mounts a bit to fine tune). No question in my mind that at this point the 37's fit better than the 35's do today if you raise the axle end panhard to account for side to side travel.

I'll be interested to hear the results if you do this since the taller coils on the market understandably tend to be tuned to weight bearing, which means less extended length. That's the quandry on the 80 - how to get the down travel/suspension travel without losing the necessary load bearing with available coils.
 
Nay said:
Make sense?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty good at math so I will assess your advice but I think I think I may have had a few too many:beer: to make an intelligent decision tonight:D. BTW I am right down the street from Fox, so someday I will see what they can do for my rig:D. I know that Bilstein makes 14" travel shocks that are the size of 12" travel shocks. I took some measurements of a 14" travel Fox and it didn't look like it would fit "as is".
 
ats4x4dotcom said:
I would say, by the time you allow 30mm of crush on the bump stop [std practice in the suspoension world for toyotas] you have around 4.5" of room left.
Click to expand...

Agreed, also the above measurement is flex, full axle stuff would be slightly less. Have been doing some playing with it tonight and mine is going to be ~4". That will raise the rear roll center 2", should slightly reduce body lean/roll.

ats4x4dotcom said:
We have had coils made that stay captive with up to 14" stroke shocks for the rear, so the travel wont see the coils become unseated, and not held captive. These coils have a 80mm taller free height than a normal lift spring of the same height. The vehicle below with A frame has 16" stroke shocks, and the slinky springs we had made for it "rattle" in the seat, almost become non captive. My 80 has 3-4 " coils that stay captive with a 29" shock on the rear.
Click to expand...

My L's are spaced, so effectively 27" shocks if measured from the stock location and the J springs are still captured at full droop. I can move them by hand, but still have spring pressure (don't rattle) in the above pic.

ats4x4dotcom said:
If you want the a frame, then design like below fits in the standard bush holes on the chassis, and you can remove it and bolt the standard arms back on if required.
Click to expand...

I had a U three link that on the plan a couple of years ago. Was told that the stock frame side mounts wouldn't handle the side load, so didn't do it. As of now, I'm happy with the way this truck preforms for it's use and want something light, nimble, open, etc. So will probably not do much more to it, enjoy it for long trips, when i want A/C, etc and build something very light weight, mostly tube, less/no pretty body work, etc, to run local trails on nice days.:D
 
Nay said:
you could run a 4" bumpstop drop and still have over 10" of shock travel .
Click to expand...

Don't the L's have 11" of travel? That's what I thought I'd read.

Nay said:
I'll be interested to hear the results if you do this since the taller coils on the market understandably tend to be tuned to weight bearing, which means less extended length. That's the quandry on the 80 - how to get the down travel/suspension travel without losing the necessary load bearing with available coils.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason I shouldn't put coil retainers in? Since I adjusted the pinion angle, the spring seats are at a pretty good angle and I worry about them shooting out/coming un-perched at droop:D
 
619TOY said:
Darren, what stops the axle side mount from rotating on the axle? Or does it? I can't see any other mounting holes than the stock ones. Obviously, you wouldn't be able to prevent rotating without another set of holes and bolts or other form of support.
Click to expand...

The axle mounts are a neat fit in the square holes, and the bolts hold it in location, the pivot point is heim joint mounted onto the x section of the 2 axle mounts and the factory bushes in the original chassis mounts.

ToolsRUs said:
I had a U three link that on the plan a couple of years ago. Was told that the stock frame side mounts wouldn't handle the side load, so didn't do it.
Click to expand...

This truck running 35's and 38's with 600 rw hp which broke the aftermarket swivel last week, has had no other issues with the a frame, apart from the swivel, which is now a heim joint. All the rest is coping very well.
 
619TOY said:
Don't the L's have 11" of travel? That's what I thought I'd read. ...
Click to expand...

The spec is 11.2", but IIRC mine actually measured more.
 
LC80Ducati996 said:
...
You want it centered on the truck at normal ride height so you dont go down the road dog tracking like some hick in a ford with big lift and stock panhards..
...
Click to expand...

My understanding of "dog tracking" is where the axle is shifted forwards or backwards on one side. So the tires aren't parallel with the chassis centerline, ie toe out on one side and toe in on the other. Lifting an 80 causes the axles to be pulled, but the tires are still parallel with the chassis centerline, so it has little if any impact on the handling.
 
Since the panhards drop down on opposite sides the vehicle will look crooked. The wheels should be parallel to the frame at both ends. If you look at the tires the offset will be visable. I know what you mean but a non steering live axle like the rear can not toe in nor out. It can be crooked as viewed from a point of view directly below or above the vehicle. I have seen trucks like that as well on the road.

Cornering forces, uneven traction forces try to push an axle into misalignment like that as well. It is this type of misalignment that a triangulated 4 link is better at preventing than a upper y link. I have talked to prerunner builders and the few that run solid front axles in the sand and they have found they liked the four link better when going fast.
 
Alright, I picked up some 37" MTR's today off of Craigslist with about 10% of the tread left for free. I will use these for "testing purposes". Now I just need some wheels. I really want Walker Evans beadlocks but haven't determined how likely they are to leak yet or what they weigh. My second choice would be the same Tundra wheels that Kevin is running. Just a little closer today:D.
 
You guys gety the funky reverse angle panhards front to back, because you have the steering wheel on the wrong side :flipoff2:

But they will 'crab' down the road when lifted, if you dont correct this.

We find the walker wheels arent an issue for leaks, or the robby gordon wheels, but BTR's are cheaper here, but we have been replacing the bolts with L9 spec, on everyones wheels, inc allieds, as on 6000lb + trucks we see fatigue on the bolts often.
 
619TOY said:
Don't the L's have 11" of travel? That's what I thought I'd read.

Is there any reason I shouldn't put coil retainers in? Since I adjusted the pinion angle, the spring seats are at a pretty good angle and I worry about them shooting out/coming un-perched at droop:D
Click to expand...

I'd probably retain the springs. L's are about 11" travel, but I wouldn't be focused all that much on travel. Getting to 37's is going to matter a lot more than a 12" vs 10" vs. 11" shock.

In other words, keep the coils on the tower for almost all the travel (or all of it if it works), and then see the max travel shock you can run and bumpstop accordingly. I would not even think twice if I only ended up with a 10" travel shock - that is still a ton of travel and the 80 needs big tires way more than it needs long travel since it is a long wheelbase rig.

Sounds like you have the 37's to test, so time to tune it :cheers:. There is no way I would go more than a 12" shock in the rear unless I was redesigning the front end.
 
96r50 said:
What do you do to correct for this when you lift a truck?
Click to expand...

Our panhards both go the same way, so its not as much of an issue for us, and adj panhards and big tyres will rub, if you try to adjust with panhards to centre at lifted ride height.

Better to relocate panhard, so horizontal at ride height, of a frame the rear from the stock mounts.
 
Well, I got my rig up on the forklift today to take some measurements. I will be fabricating a new panhard mount. This should dramatically reduce the side to side shift that my wheels/tires have during articulation. If anyone is interested, I may be able to have the bracket (semi) mass produced. For my rig however, it may be a two or three piece process (free prototype). Here is a pic of my axle at it's most stuffed position with 35's. I will use this as a reference rather than assuming that I will always run 37's once I make the move. The only area that looks like it may be a little close is the rear most section of the LSPV arm bracket, which I think can be dealt with:D.
4-08 003 (Small).webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom