Time has proven the driveline on the 100 can handle 35's and A LOT OF DIFFICULT off-roading. The same off-roading I do in my 80. Plus the V8's are lasting into the 300K's.
Anybody regret going with 35's?
- Thread starter Morty
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Time has proven the driveline on the 100 can handle 35's and A LOT OF DIFFICULT off-roading. The same off-roading I do in my 80. Plus the V8's are lasting into the 300K's.
My truck did NOT like grades/altitude with 35s and stock gears. Now? MO BETTA. It's not about if it can handle it or not, it can. Is it enjoyable with stock gears and 35s? No its really not.
All that's good news cause I didn't wanna swap gears. My 80 suited me fine with stock gears. I'm sure a 100 would be the same...was only concerned with a few posts that raised questions in my mind on the strength of the transmission.
Thanks for the responses.
Thanks for the responses.
Not driven my 100 with 35s....but drove an FJC with 295x70x17 (about 34) tires that were E rated and very heavy from east coast to Rockies and then spent a week inOuray, Telluride, Ophir, etc at high altitudes. On the highway I had some performance issues going over Continental Divide and such.....but it was only a week at those altitudes in mountains so was not a concern...plus when in 4wd I never noticed it once while crawling around the different passes and roads.
If I lived in that area I would have put in 4.56 gears or 4.11 at minimum to get it to stock or better.....but for occasional trips never worried. Here in the flat lands I lost a little bit of performance but only issue in stop and go traffic....as I liked the lower RPMs on highway once I got up to speed.
Only other thing I have ever heard is the strain on the CV Axles from 35 inch tires especially if you have front locker and get into a high traction situation with wheels turned like in MOAB....I think it would be susceptible to breakage of the axle...as happened in the FJC under those situations.
Normal driving and average wheeling in the flat lands, I dont think you will have an issue....though I am going to stick to 33-34" tires as I dont personally see a big advantage for 90% of wheeling situations by going over 33-34 inches for tires and 3 inches for lift. My personal opinion.....I think it gives you all the benefits with fewer of the problems overall. Reliability, capability, performance, Center of Gravity, MPG, etc....
If I lived in that area I would have put in 4.56 gears or 4.11 at minimum to get it to stock or better.....but for occasional trips never worried. Here in the flat lands I lost a little bit of performance but only issue in stop and go traffic....as I liked the lower RPMs on highway once I got up to speed.
Only other thing I have ever heard is the strain on the CV Axles from 35 inch tires especially if you have front locker and get into a high traction situation with wheels turned like in MOAB....I think it would be susceptible to breakage of the axle...as happened in the FJC under those situations.
Normal driving and average wheeling in the flat lands, I dont think you will have an issue....though I am going to stick to 33-34" tires as I dont personally see a big advantage for 90% of wheeling situations by going over 33-34 inches for tires and 3 inches for lift. My personal opinion.....I think it gives you all the benefits with fewer of the problems overall. Reliability, capability, performance, Center of Gravity, MPG, etc....
Has (is) not been the case on the 100. Huge difference between the FJC and 100. I'm actually amazed at the fact the 100's CV's do not give out considering how powerful the steering is on the thing. Locked front and simply turn the wheel at will and it turns...even right up a huge rock or ledge. No creaking, no breakage.
That is good to know....I am liking my decision to get a 100 more and more every day. 
sleeoffroad
Supporting Vendor
What does the one have to do with the other?
Nah, just 17 steering racks
As for gearing and 35's. You do not know what you are missing.
He was responding to my input as I thought likely the CV axles between FJC and 100 might be very similar...and they were a weak link on FJC with larger 35"+ tires, taller lifts, in high traction and wheel turned incidents for a lot of people. He informed me they are nothing alike so will sit back and color....LOL
I was not relating powerful steering to breaking CV axles but rather the torgue and strain on the CV axles at those angles with the leverage exerted against them when locked in front and pushing, pulling, etc in those situations.
Sorry to throw in unrelated info...or going on a tangent
That being said I am sure I will regear and go larger one day...
Last edited:
sleeoffroad
Supporting Vendor
Correct, but Shotts was throwing in power full steering. Yes, any CV or birfield is vulnerable when turned, but that has nothing to do with how powerful the steering is.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
What I mean here is that the 100's steering is so powerful and it'll turn that wheel whenever and wherever and however fast you want it too and up and over everything even if your front is locked up. One would think that would make breakage a more regular occurance...but it has not. That surprises me.
And I correlate this to the 80-series. The steering is far weaker. You try and turn up big rocks and/or ledges and the system just can't always make it. It poops out so you have to back up and try something else.
On the 100, it JUST TURNS! This tells me that the forces exerted on the 100's components by the more powerful steering well exceed the forces on say the 80. Think of it as torque. The 80's steering is V6 powered. The 100's is V8 powered. The V8 power puts more stress on those components though the performance (turning factor) is much higher. How they don't break!?
Last edited by a moderator:
Trunk Monkey
Moderator
And it's back to 80 vs. 100 . . . .
sleeoffroad
Supporting Vendor
Yes, that means people can do stupid things easier. That I do get.
They are two totally different systems. One can also argue that the 80 steering is better since it does not allow you to turn in certain conditions without overpowering the steering components.
On the 100, it JUST TURNS! This tells me that the forces exerted on the 100's components by the more powerful steering well exceed the forces on say the 80.Totally different design. Rack and pinion vs steering box. Nothing to do with what is driving it. In both cases it is a hyrdraulic pump. In the case of the 80, it is better since it is gear driven and the belt can not slip or ever break, like it can with a 100.
The motor has nothing to do with it. Could be a v16 turning the pump.
If the 100 is superior then why are you blowing out steering racks?
PS. you will not argue that is the price to pay and preventative. That is BS. You should have regeared and not bought new driveshafts
Last edited by a moderator:
The motor has nothing to do with it. Could be a v16 turning the pump.
If the 100 is superior then why are you blowing out steering racks?
PS. you will not argue that is the price to pay and preventative. That is BS. You should have regeared and not bought new driveshafts
You didn't get my analogy on the V6/V8 deal. Think of how excess torque can stress or break axles when you're racing cars, etc. When you hit the gas that V8 in the Mustang GT sure hits those rear axles with more force than the V6 model.
That's what I'm saying here and I think in your one statement we agree. It's not about which steering is better 80 vs 100. It's the fact that the 100's steering is more powerful (Mustang GT) than the 80's is (Mustang V6). One would think we'd be breaking CV's with our "GT steering" though we're not.
So the 100's main components (CV's, etc) have held up well. If you wheel a lot and with 35's the price you pay to play (your phrase
) is new steering racks every 40K miles.
Trunk Monkey
Moderator
As Christo said, they both go through a PS pump first. The HP the engine makes does not have ANY effect on that pump. It's not part of the drivetrain. A turbo'd 100's PS pump does not push out more PS fluid than a non-turbo truck.
Next you're going to say the AC is colder because of the V8.
Of course the engine doesn't matter. Did you read my last post? It's an analogy.
I see what you're saying now but it's coming across that you're talking about the actual engine in the 80 and 100. maybe I shoulda caught that since the 80 doesn't have a v6 anyway.
Let's try another analogy!
OK...let's use imagined ft/lbs to show my point here.
Can we agree that the more ft/pounds you exert on a given "whatever" then the more power and stress you exert on the "whatever". In this case the whatever is the amount of force that the power steering system has to push/turn the vehicle's wheel.
OK..we know the 80 is weaker and has more trouble turning and or forcing wheels. So let's say the 80's PS exerts 100 ft/lbs of torque to turn the wheel.
Now, the 100 turns much easier and is far stronger. So let's say that the 100's PS exerts 150 ft/lbs or torque to turn the wheel.
From this you can conclude that the 100's PS can exert MORE force to the wheels and therefore CV's and other components because it can push HARDER on them. Then consider the fact the components (CV's etc) do not fail is a big plus.
It's not possible for me to type a better picture. I failed writing in High School.
OK...let's use imagined ft/lbs to show my point here.
Can we agree that the more ft/pounds you exert on a given "whatever" then the more power and stress you exert on the "whatever". In this case the whatever is the amount of force that the power steering system has to push/turn the vehicle's wheel.
OK..we know the 80 is weaker and has more trouble turning and or forcing wheels. So let's say the 80's PS exerts 100 ft/lbs of torque to turn the wheel.
Now, the 100 turns much easier and is far stronger. So let's say that the 100's PS exerts 150 ft/lbs or torque to turn the wheel.
From this you can conclude that the 100's PS can exert MORE force to the wheels and therefore CV's and other components because it can push HARDER on them. Then consider the fact the components (CV's etc) do not fail is a big plus.
It's not possible for me to type a better picture. I failed writing in High School.
I never consider the steering as a reason for CV axles breaking.....I always attribute it to the torgue or force of the drivetrain trying to TURN THE WHEELS and that when at extreme angles it puts more stress on the axles and causes breakages. A stationary wheel turned to full lock with the front diff and axles trying to move forward while the rear is pushing...is what I associate with axle breakage.
That was my comment....the torgue of drivetrain in high traction situations where you are running oversized tires seemed to cause a lot of cv axle breakages in the FJC community when I had my FJC. Never heard anyone say it was because of steering capability as most were not while they were trying to TURN the wheels but rather trying to move forward while the wheels were ALREADY turned in this same high traction event.
In any case...i am firm believer that 35+ inch tires do make other parts more susceptible to breakage such as CV axles due to the extra weight, rotational mass, and the angle of your CV with the lifts and larger tires that go together. Upgraded CV axles or carrying spares would be a must have if it was me.
Then again I was always under the thought I would rather my hubs blow out on trail than my axles or diffs. The more you beef up the more you have other items that become your weakest link and they are usually never cheaper alternatives. Hubs vs axles vs differentials vs transmissions....something is always the weak link. Just depends on how far you will go, how much you will spend,and what is needed realistically for 90% of the wheeling you expect to be involved.
Now back on topic...
Nope no concerns with 35" tires...but I would consider different CV axles or carrying spares if it was me and I was going to do any rock crawling.
That was my comment....the torgue of drivetrain in high traction situations where you are running oversized tires seemed to cause a lot of cv axle breakages in the FJC community when I had my FJC. Never heard anyone say it was because of steering capability as most were not while they were trying to TURN the wheels but rather trying to move forward while the wheels were ALREADY turned in this same high traction event.
In any case...i am firm believer that 35+ inch tires do make other parts more susceptible to breakage such as CV axles due to the extra weight, rotational mass, and the angle of your CV with the lifts and larger tires that go together. Upgraded CV axles or carrying spares would be a must have if it was me.
Then again I was always under the thought I would rather my hubs blow out on trail than my axles or diffs. The more you beef up the more you have other items that become your weakest link and they are usually never cheaper alternatives. Hubs vs axles vs differentials vs transmissions....something is always the weak link. Just depends on how far you will go, how much you will spend,and what is needed realistically for 90% of the wheeling you expect to be involved.
Now back on topic...
Nope no concerns with 35" tires...but I would consider different CV axles or carrying spares if it was me and I was going to do any rock crawling.
Maybe Slee can better explain.
Turning/steering is a big factor when that front diff is locked. No question. And on a vehicle like the 100 where you can turn with the front locked up and do just about anything you want, you're asking for breakage. Like he said that makes stupid people do more stupid things. I am just amazed the 100's are not breaking.
Turning/steering is a big factor when that front diff is locked. No question. And on a vehicle like the 100 where you can turn with the front locked up and do just about anything you want, you're asking for breakage. Like he said that makes stupid people do more stupid things.
I am just amazed the 100's are not breaking.
