I ran stock gearing on 37’s and didn’t mind it. 4.88’s would have been better and I’ve since switched before moving onto the 40’s but my feelings echo @toofrigginswt
A 200 is meant to have 37’s (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter LC200JG
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I'm tempted to take this next step if only for the hobby of it. Thinking of a different approach at the rear. Extending the wheelbase and pushing the rear axle aft about 1" would help clearance around the door and minimize body mods there. Yes, that would require more mods at the rear that could be covered by the rear bumper. More importantly, the rear bumper/departure angle is a primary limitation that this would help minimize the big butt of the 200-series. Would help weight bias between the F/R axles with overlanding loads.
nwfl4runner
GOLD Star
Would require some plumbing work around the rear AC lines. At full bump you’re getting pretty close in the rear too, but I agree keeping the doors intact is absolutely preferable!
Here’s a shot of mine as I was cutting.
Last edited:
Very nice! Was this to clear the rear without extending the wheelbase?
nwfl4runner
GOLD Star
Nope I actually had tons of room (relatively speaking) at the door. This was to clear at full bump. Was binding on both pinch welds in the rear
Makes sense as the tires get pushed aft with the sagitta of the trailing links. Even with 35s, I'm into the stock rear tupperware at the spot, especially when the other side is articulated downwards. Extending the wheelbase by an 1" would require this cut to be that much more aggressive.
nwfl4runner
GOLD Star
I will say, increasing the rear links and moving everything back also has me wondering if it could be an opportunity to do a rear coilover conversion (since I don’t have a spare or long range tank). Similar to what 4wheel underground does. But then I’d be ditching AHC and I’d only want to do that if there was a way to modify a spidertrax knuckle to accept a Toyota speed sensor and solid axle the front. Dangerous rabbit hole!!
Only reason my rear link arms are sitting in the garage for over a year is because the top ahc sensor bracket is welded on.
I have yet to correct the wheelbase and angles but i did just get my PCK in.
I will be pulling the tops and measuring soon. Im sure youll beat me to it though as ive been so tied up lately.
No real plans at the moment for me. If I'm being honest I can still achieve more clearance and capability doing more sensor lift and trimming the stock tuperwear higher. I'm only sensor lifted about 1.75" front and 1.25" rear so not high enough to really demand PCK yet, but I'm being conservative to ensure towing performance. Maybe once the cybertruck comes and it can demonstrate some ability to take over towing duties, I'll take it to the next level.
Rabbit hole for sure! I toy with thought of relocating the AHC upper shock mounts to the outside of the frame to change the motion ratio and get more functional stroke.
No real plans at the moment for me. If I'm being honest I can still achieve more clearance and capability doing more sensor lift and trimming the stock tuperwear higher. I'm only sensor lifted about 1.75" front and 1.25" rear so not high enough to really demand PCK yet, but I'm being conservative to ensure towing performance. Maybe once the cybertruck comes and it can demonstrate some ability to take over towing duties, I'll take it to the next level.
Jason Andrews
Modaholic
While I agree it's much easier to trim the rear of the rear wheel well, I find it odd how my truck sits with regard to the rear axle position and the pinion angle with only a sensor lift. Here it is with the rear fully tucked on one side. Gobs of clearance at the door. Also pinion angle is pretty bad for such a minimal amount of lift. If I had my preference I'd add shorter UCA's, but no one makes adjustable ones with the AHC bracket welded on. Anyone have an idea why the pinion angle is pointed so high above the transfer case if I only have a sensor lift? You can tell how rotated the pinion angle is by the orientation of the in-coil bump stops not having square engagement with the axle. Hard to get a good view of where the rear pinion angle is pointing.
Are you me?
Ive been complaining about this for a hot minute. I got Ironman to give me half my money back on the UCAs sitting in my garage because of this weld problem.
See my build thread. Dr. KDSS bracket coming soon, and I will put on the lower trailing arms at some point. I just have yet to find a single alignment shop in the state Texas that actually knows what they are doing.
@TeCKis300 not sure why you are liking the post, you have denied these issues since day one whenever i bring them up lol
I didn't get a chance to write back but I like @Jason Andrews feedback on clearance rearward of the wheel-well.
IMO, there's no issue with pinion angle. It's optimized for wear and vibration at ride height, and can support articulation to the axle travel extents. Hard to tell from the pics but pinion angles have a science to them, generally pointing at parallel planes, rather than pointing directly between output shaft of the transfer case and input of the diff.
Jason Andrews
Modaholic
Yeah, you’re right. I forgot that pointed directly at the transfer case is for double cardan/CV shafts. Stock is supposed to split the angle between the two.
Unfortunately have not had time or patience to play with this on my end but yeah, the original intent was to preserve the OEM arm ratio.
It is next to impossible to eyeball this correctly though and why I need a really precise 4 wheel alignment rack to do.
If the shafts were fixed and paired for axle centering at my 2” ish of lift, it would be nice and drop in.
All I would be able to do in my garage at home would be way too crude for both of our standards.
All very less than ideal and more reason why they are sitting there for so long now.
Check out the state of the rear bar too:
This and the UCA recall makes me want to throw it all in the trash.
Too bad thats what I had to do when I moved with all my OEM take offs…
They do be having the crappy LX 600 for sale though.
The gap between the jam nut and bar, and the rust seemingly weeping out of the threads makes me suspect that jam nut is loose... Maybe?
Yes, it was definitely loose and I had neglected my typical OCD on the truck since Ive moved but its tight now.
Just also busy atm and not really focused on mods/upgrades.
Pretty sure the rust was the culprit but who knows. It is going to be warrantied along with the arms and then my bar relo bracket will go in.
Would you happen to have any photos or measurements of how much space you gained by rolling the rear fenders?
Not so much the loss of power that concerns me.
The 5.7 already loved making power higher in the rpm range. 2500-3500 is where it’s happy. So it handles large tires mostly everywhere pretty well as long as you use the engine.
With real technical rock crawling that’s not always as controlled as one would need. especially going up large walls when the weight dist. is all on the rear tires the truck struggles to turn 35s even. Especially when below the stated rpm range.
I find myself two footing a ton. I couldn’t imagine 35+ without gearing in the big stuff.
That’s my main complaint with this truck.
Someone needs to figure out a lower low range gear, or ultimately a way to do dual transfer cases
