Axle Width Difference? early semi-float vs. late full float (1 Viewer)

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

Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Threads
160
Messages
1,306
Location
Truckee, CA
ok, i've searched till i'm blue in the face.

Is there a width difference between the early semi-float rear axle and the later full float?

i know the mounting points are same-same.
i hear rumor but the only small reference i found was on the Cruiser wiki page here:

Toyota Land Cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it mentions:
Width 1,830 mm (72.0 in) (1990-91)
1,930 mm (76.0 in) (1992-97)

BUT, i'm guessing that could be body width, and maybe the fender flares and 8" wheels make the difference?
 
I don't think so. Wms to wms is the same I think. The fronts are the same other than a few mm in the birfs on the abs rigs. I can see a few mm, but 4" seems a bit much. I have a FF sitting in my garage that I intend to swap into my 91 once I can save up for tires to go onto my 17" tundra wheels. I will go measure it and get back to you shortly.

Edit: 63" wms to wms on the FF axle

Not sure how that compares to the SF but I am pretty sure it is the same
 
Last edited:
it mentions:
Width 1,830 mm (72.0 in) (1990-91)
1,930 mm (76.0 in) (1992-97)

BUT, i'm guessing that could be body width, and maybe the fender flares and 8" wheels make the difference?

I think they are talking about the body witdth (flare change maybe?) the axles are the same, I swapped a FF into my 91. Make sure you have the ebrake cable from the FF axle. The Semi Float ebrake cable is the wrong length between the nounting points at the brakes. Too long if I recall. Other than that it's a direct swap.
 
I have a 91 and it had a SF rear. I juat swapped my 94 FF rear under my 91 and the tires sit the same. I didn't bother measuring since all that i have read the 2 axles were the same size. Just 1 was SF and the other was FF.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom