I wish I had the "daf gghlatlt atobg" to put an aggressive looking tire on my 100 like you have on yours. 
4.88 + ARB front locker + 35"
- Thread starter spressomon
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
spressomon said:
???
- Thread starter
- #23
The Bilsteins that Christo is working on...
ShottsUZJ100 said:
LOL, John you are like a broken record. If you think that an extra 1 1/2" of downtravel offers "FAR more capability" than a front locker, I think that your ARB must be broken. Spressonmon's Cruiser has plenty of suspension travel and it is already heavily biased towards the rear, I doubt that making it more biased to the rear wouldn't offer him any more capability on the trail.
DirtyHarry said:
I'm glad you find my post funny Harry. I find your comments on the funny side too.
I don't believe you have a UZJ and/or a lot of in-the-seat-100-four-wheeling experience so I do understand your reaction to my comment? That's where I think we might differ. I have UZJ100 off-road experience over the years with almost every different build-configuration out there (various tire sizes, shocks, lifts, TRAC, lockers, etc). I've experience pretty much all the setups. It's because of this that I make such a statement. It's up the the reader to evaluate and form their opinion.
You see...with a 2000+ 100-series and ARB rear locker, you have a setup that almost NEVER requires the use of a FRONT locker even on the nastiest of trails. TRAC up front offers added traction AND full turning capability. If I would have made the same statement about a 98-99 OR an 80-series, that would have been way out of line.
The deal is that the traction I've gained by adding the 2.6" rear travel outweighs the slight added benefit of locking the FRONT DIFF VS FRONT TRAC ALONE. I also find it amazing how having a more secure rear compresses the front wheels better too.
So, I stand by my statement....on a 2000+ outfitted with large tires and ARB lockers. You can form your own conclusion.
Poser Pic #1: Locked rear AND FRONT...I tried and tried and couldn't get higher up the rock without jerking and sliding. I feared of slipping off and gave up at this point. The rear wheel kept coming of the ground and that's when the crap started
Power Pic #2: Same rock...this time with N74L and REAR-LOCK ONLY. An EASY climb, no challenge, no wheel lifts. (And no front locker on)
Imagine the above scenarios climbing rocks and ledges along the trail you're on (not posing)? I've done that. I'd give up my front locker for the N74L in a HEARTBEAT! The best thing....on a 100 you don't have too. You can have it all!
Another example. SOME of the added "levelness" between the images might be due to the added weight of the Slee Rear Bumper. Obviously though 80% of the improvement is due to the suspension change.
Check the FRONT tire out too. Since the rear stays so planted now, the FRONT stuffs much better...making the front "easier" to articulate. I see this all over all the trails. Keeping all 4 down.....I hardly EVER lock the rear any longer.
Check the FRONT tire out too. Since the rear stays so planted now, the FRONT stuffs much better...making the front "easier" to articulate. I see this all over all the trails. Keeping all 4 down.....I hardly EVER lock the rear any longer.
I guess that the humor is lost on you, the "funny" part was that you seem to turn every post in this section into an L shock thread. Wasn't this about 4.88s and ARBs???
Well then you might like to know that spressomon's 100 is a 99. You might also want to qualify your statement by saying "the nastiest of trails" that you would run in a 100 too, because there are plenty of trails that even the most built 100 will never see. I don't have much seat time in a 100 but I have driven plenty of those trails in various rigs, enough to know what works and what doesn't.
This makes no sense. Please explain to me how more articulation in the rear makes the front easier to articulate.
ShottsUZJ100 said:
Well then you might like to know that spressomon's 100 is a 99. You might also want to qualify your statement by saying "the nastiest of trails" that you would run in a 100 too, because there are plenty of trails that even the most built 100 will never see. I don't have much seat time in a 100 but I have driven plenty of those trails in various rigs, enough to know what works and what doesn't.
ShottsUZJ100 said:
This makes no sense. Please explain to me how more articulation in the rear makes the front easier to articulate.
Last edited:
DirtyHarry said:
Simply look at the picture. Ths has been discussed and it's hard to explain. It just works. Picture = 1000 words (or 2000 of my words
)DirtyHarry said:
Got a better idea Harry. Look, you luv wheeling, you're a super photographer, you got a sweet website......and you submit stories to magazines.
How about you writing and shoot a story here in AZ? Here's the deal:
We'd get 2 35" UZJ's....one regular lifted with OME and mine with N74L. You could take shots of both vehicles on the same obstacles to compare setups. ALSO...you could ride in the one 100 and then in mine and YOU could draw your own conclusions and write about them.
OK.....back to Spressomon's truck. He's waiting for Billies....or until Harry does the above story.
I don't know if I could get the story run (maybe in 4WD Toyota Owner???) but I like your thinking John. If you (or I) can find a suitable rig I will make an effort to be there. The problem is that there really aren't that many BUILT 100s out there...
DirtyHarry said:
David would run it. He's running a story I wrote from AZ in the next issue.
I do think it would make for an interesting story. Hmmm....maybe I'll search for a truck.
Let me know if you find one. Or maybe I could talk Spressomon into meeting you half way in Vegas, I know some great wheeling spots just out of town.
sleeoffroad
Supporting Vendor
Not Agaaaaain
sleeoffroad said:
Yep. (Until you find a better solution
)
:shotts:
LandCruiserPhil said:
x2 Phil!
