ARB MT64 Suspension (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mudwagon
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Sounds like BP51s without the bypass/adjustability/external reservoirs so it's probably right in the sweet spot of what most people need and are looking for.
- Thread starter
- #4
You might be right for the front, but the rear development vehicles looked like they have a small attached reservoir. 6112 are 60mm, so slightly less.
I'm definitely in the market for something like this. Price isn't crazy either. BP51's are just overkill unless you are crazy overloaded and offroad weekly/monthly.
Might be better option than IMS for 120-150 platform. The IMS for 250 would be same as 300 series and use 60 mm piston. Still smaller but not that much.
trail4runner.com
The All New OME MT64 Suspension For 5th Gen 4Runner
A Brand New Suspension Line From ARB / OME - The MT64: A Perfect Middle Ground Between The Affordable Nitrocharger & The Race-Inspired BP-51.
trail4runner.com
r2m
Richard
I read somewhere in the past couple days that ARB is coming out with a new suspension system and I'm sure the 150 series will top of the list for their roll out.Might be better option than IMS for 120-150 platform. The IMS for 250 would be same as 300 series and use 60 mm piston. Still smaller but not that much.
The All New OME MT64 Suspension For 5th Gen 4Runner
A Brand New Suspension Line From ARB / OME - The MT64: A Perfect Middle Ground Between The Affordable Nitrocharger & The Race-Inspired BP-51.
It also appears they are aiming at the Ironman FCP kit, which is at the same price-point and is also a large-diameter digressive shock. I'll be curious how they compare, but it seems to be a good market (midrange shocks) for them to get into.
Ironman are twin tube foam cell. This is monotube high pressure gas. It would behave differently.
Agreed 100% they will behave differently, just curious which one ends up being "better", although it's moot as I've invested in the FCPs and like them
. I mainly picked them for the beefiness, long service interval, and the fact that they can be DIY-serviced at home - which if the MT64s are high-pressure, I am guessing will be off the table.Better would always depending on your use. Foam cell technically should last longer. Monotube technically should react much faster. The Digressive monotube valving can be considered sporty or harsh depending on your preference.
Best is active auto adjust. SDI eclick seems to be the most advance currently but a bit steep at $5K and only available for stock travel.
Best is active auto adjust. SDI eclick seems to be the most advance currently but a bit steep at $5K and only available for stock travel.
It seems ARB is moving to different front spring design. They are not compatible with OEM coilover. The bottom part of spring are much bigger diameter.
There are 3 levels of shocks:
1. Basic Nitro Plus. Replacing Nitro Sport. I think they are still twin tube low pressure nitrogen shocks. Difficult to find detailed information on it.
2. MT64. Standard on Trailhunter Tacoms
Non reservoir monotube 2.5" bore rubber bushing. This probably would be optimal for most user. No need to fiddle with the adjustment.
3. BP-51 this supposed to be top of the line adjustable bypass but always been plagued with marketing stigma due to its only 2" size. I am really thinking this is the main reason why they change the bottom diameter of front spring. I would make it possible to make BP-64 or maybe even BP76 with external bypass just like BP-51.
There are 3 levels of shocks:
1. Basic Nitro Plus. Replacing Nitro Sport. I think they are still twin tube low pressure nitrogen shocks. Difficult to find detailed information on it.
2. MT64. Standard on Trailhunter Tacoms
Non reservoir monotube 2.5" bore rubber bushing. This probably would be optimal for most user. No need to fiddle with the adjustment.
3. BP-51 this supposed to be top of the line adjustable bypass but always been plagued with marketing stigma due to its only 2" size. I am really thinking this is the main reason why they change the bottom diameter of front spring. I would make it possible to make BP-64 or maybe even BP76 with external bypass just like BP-51.
Last edited:
I'd reached out to Mudify (one of the primary distributors for OME in the US?) and asked if they had an ETA for MT-64 in an 150 specific application, and they said somewhere between 2H and late 2024. I didn't want to experiment with the 4Runner one and having to find different springs for it, so I'd ended up going Dobinsons IMS as everyone else does, but the combination of rubber isolation, huge bore, and some adjustability was interesting to me. We'll see if someone decides to go this route next year.
