Diagnose my Cruiser (1 Viewer)

[96Cruiser13]

I second stan. And if he answers yes, I'm in... lol

 

[NCFJ]

Can I get one installed for less than $300?

You should stick with the spark plug wires

 

[lumbee1]

Glad to know I'm not the only one. I hope mine works like that for at least that many years.

The Cruiser get washed but only after I have driven it and can feel the weight of the mud stuck to the frame and body.

 

[lumbee1]

Well.... I think I have two independent issues. I drove the truck this morning and it idled fine. I still need to replace the wires since my current wires are 22 years old. However, I think the vibration at speed might be bad shocks.
Indicators of bad shocks:
Body roll - Oh yes
Brake dive - LOTS
Harsh ride - yes
Soft ride - confirmed

When I was installing my rear bumper, I noticed quite a bit of body movement when pushing/pulling on the bumper. I think the shocks are allowing the tires to bounce on imperfections in the surface which then transmit into the truck as random vibrations. I've had the truck for 4 1/2 years and the ride quality has gone down quite a bit. The back roads around Uwharrie with sharp turns and hills make for a white knuckle ride. Small potholes in the road cause harsh impacts to the vehicle.

 

[izzyandsue]

Is the vibration all over of just the front? Could be the steering stabilizer too.

 

[lumbee1]

Is the vibration all over of just the front? Could be the steering stabilizer too.

It notice it driving on smooth straight roads more than any other time. The suspension is so soft I can press on the tailgate and move the truck quite easily.

 

[Malleus]

In response to your first question, yes there's a check for the wires: max resistance < 25 kOhms, all plug wires and coil wire. >$100 is a lot to spend on replacing good wires; I'd check them first.

I'd doubt that's the problem. (My voodoo intuition)

 

[lumbee1]

@Malleus I figure the wires are 22 years old and probably need to be replaced as part of preventative maintenance. I will check them afterwards and keep the good wires as spares.

I'm more convinced that the shocks are shot. The current shocks are custom Bilstein 4600 from the Frankie's Offroad kit. I don't know if they are stock or custom valving, sized differently, etc.. I'm looking at the Fox IFP 2.0 shocks for $500 for 4. It's about all I can afford after all the other modifications I've done recently.

 

[lumbee1]

The plug wires have been swapped. My original wires looked perfectly fine and I removed them with care. I plan on checking resistance on each wire with my DMM soon to check their status. All six plugs were pulled and looked great with no signs of oil contamination or steam cleaning from coolant.

I started up the truck and noticed something odd. Everytime the truck sits for at least a day, on startup it stinks BADLY of unspent fuel. The smell is quite noxious and I've always chalked it up to being an older vehicle. As I was walking around the truck tonight, I could not detect any smell and the last time it was driven was Saturday. I even hung out at the rear bumper waiting and while it wasn't roses and granny's apple pie, it was significantly better.

I didn't drive the truck but idle was maybe smoother than before. I can't wait to test power and acceleration tomorrow morning.


Speaking of acceleration, braking with the Cruiser needs to be addressed very soon. My LSPV is leaking and I just want to bypass it completely. Searching the forums says that braking performance increases without the LSPV since the pressue is split 50/50 between the front and rear. The LSPV has two inputs, a high pressure line and a sense line, and one output to the axle. My plan is to use a union between the input high pressure line and the output to the axle. I will remove the sense line and cap the hole. Beno weighed in on one thread and suggested using a T instead.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

Braking performance should only improve with the LSPV if you're lifted and haven't extended the rod to compensate. In reality it would function to improve braking by adjusting how the brakes are proportioned depending on load. Without a proportioning valve (at all), if your brakes function properly, it's possible (if not likely) that under emergency braking scenarios, your rear wheels would lock up before the front, which is dangerous.

For the fuel smell, don't equate that to "old vehicle" other than to say that something's broken, usually in your EVAP system. How's your charcoal canister?

 

[lumbee1]

Braking performance should only improve with the LSPV if you're lifted and haven't extended the rod to compensate. In reality it would function to improve braking by adjusting how the brakes are proportioned depending on load. Without a proportioning valve (at all), if your brakes function properly, it's possible (if not likely) that under emergency braking scenarios, your rear wheels would lock up before the front, which is dangerous.

For the fuel smell, don't equate that to "old vehicle" other than to say that something's broken, usually in your EVAP system. How's your charcoal canister?

Charcoal canister is fine. I replaced it two years ago with a VC120 due to pressure buildup in the tank. I've had a P0401 for at least 8 years.

From what I've read, the LSPV only degrades braking performance by pushing most of the load to the front. Others have commented that a 50/50 bias works much better than letting the LSPV control the bias. There are several solution available from cutting the rod ans ziptie it to the full open position, installing a T, or removing the ABS completely. Even Beno installed a T to bypass the LSPV.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

From what I've read, the LSPV only degrades braking performance by pushing most of the load to the front. Others have commented that a 50/50 bias works much better than letting the LSPV control the bias. There are several solution available from cutting the rod ans ziptie it to the full open position, installing a T, or removing the ABS completely. Even Beno installed a T to bypass the LSPV.

The LSPV is supposed to push most of the braking load to the front when there's no load in the back to prevent the rear brakes from locking up before the front. That's it's job. It's a scary thing to have your rear lock up before the front. That said, usually the LSPV rusts up or is not reconfigured after a lift. If the LSPV is not reconfigured after a lift it essentially reads "negative load" and can completely disable the rear brakes (bad). The proper fix is to lengthen the LSPV by the amount you lifted the truck from stock. The forum says that on a lifted truck, removing the malfunctioning/misconfigured LSPV, you would see an increase in braking performance just by the fact that the rear brakes are now doing something.

Does the 80 have a proportioning valve other than the LSPV? I want to say no, but don't know for sure.

My point is that I would not recommend deleting the only proportioning valve from a truck. Not a good idea. If you get rid of the LSPV, that's fine, but install a different proportioning valve.

While in the past I've personally said "yeah, ditch the LSPV", I'm changing my tune after experiencing a few too many panic-stop situations in Moonshine without a proportioning valve. You don't need a LSPV, but you do need a proportioning valve.

 

[Malleus]

The plug wires have been swapped. My original wires looked perfectly fine and I removed them with care. I plan on checking resistance on each wire with my DMM soon to check their status. All six plugs were pulled and looked great with no signs of oil contamination or steam cleaning from coolant.

I started up the truck and noticed something odd. Everytime the truck sits for at least a day, on startup it stinks BADLY of unspent fuel. The smell is quite noxious and I've always chalked it up to being an older vehicle. As I was walking around the truck tonight, I could not detect any smell and the last time it was driven was Saturday. I even hung out at the rear bumper waiting and while it wasn't roses and granny's apple pie, it was significantly better.

I didn't drive the truck but idle was maybe smoother than before. I can't wait to test power and acceleration tomorrow morning.


Speaking of acceleration, braking with the Cruiser needs to be addressed very soon. My LSPV is leaking and I just want to bypass it completely. Searching the forums says that braking performance increases without the LSPV since the pressue is split 50/50 between the front and rear. The LSPV has two inputs, a high pressure line and a sense line, and one output to the axle. My plan is to use a union between the input high pressure line and the output to the axle. I will remove the sense line and cap the hole. Beno weighed in on one thread and suggested using a T instead.

View attachment 1411833

I replaced my LSPV two months ago for the same reason. I never considered removing it. Having worked for a tier 1 automotive supplier, who by the way supplied axles and transmissions to Detroit, et alia, I can say that, IMHO, braking system design is not something you want to do if you haven't learned it from someone who knows it. There are plenty of threads in the 80 forum on deleting the LSPV, if you're set on it.

 

[lumbee1]

I replaced my LSPV two months ago for the same reason. I never considered removing it. Having worked for a tier 1 automotive supplier, who by the way supplied axles and transmissions to Detroit, et alia, I can say that, IMHO, braking system design is not something you want to do if you haven't learned it from someone who knows it. There are plenty of threads in the 80 forum on deleting the LSPV, if you're set on it.

I'm set on removing the LSPV. I considered removing my ABS pump as well but would rather keep that installed. I could drive in slippery conditions with no ABS but I don't want the wife panic stopping in the Cruiser and locking up the wheels.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

I'm set on removing the LSPV. I considered removing my ABS pump as well but would rather keep that installed. I could drive in slippery conditions with no ABS but I don't want the wife panic stopping in the Cruiser and locking up the wheels.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that it's just as dangerous, if not more so, to drive a truck with no proportioning valve than it is to drive without ABS.

Imagine driving down the road on a rainy day and stepping on the brakes hard because someone in front of you stopped short for whatever reason. Your rear end locks up and slides around so you're sliding sideways down the road. That's what happens.

 

[SeanLX]

^ Johnny has a good point.

A lot of people don't realize that you want the front to lock up first. The front provides up to 75% of the braking and it might seem counterintuitive that you'd want to lock them up first but you do.

If the rear tires lock up first they have less stopping power than the front and the car will try to spin 180°. If the fronts loose traction and the rears still have more braking force (i.e. not locked up) then the rear of the car will stay in the rear.

 

[lumbee1]

This is not dangerous and many others have done it including Beno. Other have installed manual proportioning valves and came to the same conclusion that 50/50 is best for a lifted 80 series Land Cruiser. Even after bypassing the LSPV, the rear brakes still have a hard time locking up in slippery conditions.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

The factor I haven't considered is that with a properly functioning ABS system, the scenario of rear lock-up probably wouldn't happen because ABS will kick in to prevent it. Still, I don't know how the truck would react to the rear ABS actuating without the front actuating. This means that you have to ensure that your ABS stays functional unless you put another proportioning valve in.

Thus, the question becomes "Is it safe to remove the proportioning valve in a truck that's equipped with ABS?" That question is more difficult to answer than if the truck didn't have ABS.

Do you know if there is another proportioning valve in the system between the ABS actuator and the rear circuit or is it just the LSPV?

I wouldn't be so quick to say it is or isn't dangerous based on a "many" other people's experience. Toyota wouldn't have put a LSPV in there if it wasn't correcting a problem it saw in the FJ60 (since the LSPV concept was introduced in the FJ62).

Interesting discussion.
ABS & Proportioning Valve Question

 

[lumbee1]

I am fully aware of situations where the rear locks up and causes a loss of control. I similar situation is installing your best tires on the rear whether your car is front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. You want the most control coming from the rear. No problem I get that. My point is that my brakes are nowhere close to locking up and my rear brakes barely participate in emergency braking (I've tried).

 

[weejub]

This is not dangerous and many others have done it including Beno. Other have installed manual proportioning valves and came to the same conclusion that 50/50 is best for a lifted 80 series Land Cruiser. Even after bypassing the LSPV, the rear brakes still have a hard time locking up in slippery conditions.

If you don't have to worry about ABS, you can test on a gravel road and lock up your brakes and have a friend see where / when what locks up. No idea with ABS