does the 80 flex better than this ? (1 Viewer)

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

Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Threads
110
Messages
685
i know from the front its no comparison , because the 80 has a solid axle , but at the back which has better flex and wheel travel?


not sure if this 80 has stock suspesion




200 series







what do you think ? are their official numbers so we can compare?
 
yes. two different suspensions on the same rig. i never had it stock, so i don't have a clue, but i've got a picture with even more flex on my home computer than these two pics show.
tim14.jpg
ian9.jpg
 
Heres mine with OME J springs and 295/75/16. Stock rear brake line with extended mount.


The black LX has same lift with 315's On the third pic you can see his tire is fully stuffed. I think he has 2" bump stop extensions like me.
DSC_0446.jpg
DSC_0430.jpg
DSC_0428.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'll play too.
borrego%20springs%20041.jpg
152.jpg
CIMG0517.jpg
 
Completely stock, 275/80/16
IMAG0853.jpg

I think it had a tiny bit more droop than that
 
dscn7654y.jpg

By trapper50cal at 2011-05-11

How did you take this fine pic while driving ;)

But back to the OP question. I believe the 200 series has basically the same rear suspension design so they should flex about the same. Hard to compare it in OEM form to all our lifted and longer travel trucks. Not really apples to apples.
 
So it appears that, yes, the 80 flexes better. But that's not really a surprise...IMHO, the new Land Cruisers (2012) are more about luxury than they are about utility.

"Appears" how? Your entitled to you opinion, but stock to stock I'd like to see the numbers that back up your claim. Same goes to Good4080. My guess is you won't able to find any. The 200 may have more bells and whistles but it remains a great expedition/overland vehicle.

Corbet is correct.

Great pictures in this thread, by the way, thanks for all who posted. The 80 is probably my favorite looking LC, a few really nice ones live close by.
 
"Appears" how? Your entitled to you opinion, but stock to stock I'd like to see the numbers that back up your claim. Same goes to Good4080. My guess is you won't able to find any. The 200 may have more bells and whistles but it remains a great expedition/overland vehicle.

Corbet is correct.

Great pictures in this thread, by the way, thanks for all who posted. The 80 is probably my favorite looking LC, a few really nice ones live close by.

My assumptions (and they ARE only assumptions) are that the new 2012 200 has WAY more electronics than an 80...great expedition/overland vehicles (IMHO) are vehicles that don't rely on too many computers and/or miles of wire. As far as I'm concerned the 93-97 fzj80's are borderline in that respect so I don't hold out much hope that a 2012 200 would be as trustable with a couple hundred miles of distance between it and a shop.

Do I have the numbers to back up apples to apples on bone stock rear flex? No I don't, but I can say that lifting and improving flex is obviously more simple with a solid-axle truck than an IFS one.
 
My assumptions (and they ARE only assumptions) are that the new 2012 200 has WAY more electronics than an 80...great expedition/overland vehicles (IMHO) are vehicles that don't rely on too many computers and/or miles of wire. As far as I'm concerned the 93-97 fzj80's are borderline in that respect so I don't hold out much hope that a 2012 200 would be as trustable with a couple hundred miles of distance between it and a shop.

Do I have the numbers to back up apples to apples on bone stock rear flex? No I don't, but I can say that lifting and improving flex is obviously more simple with a solid-axle truck than an IFS one.

That's fair enough, but by the same token one could argue that there is more chance of failure on a 15 year old vehicle than a 1 year old vehicle. BTW, just noticed the white one os your 80 - what a picture and what a truck. Looks like fun. I've only done local trails, no rock crawling.

For what it's worth, I agree that modern cars are needlessly complex making self-fixes all the more tough in event of issues. However, this is only going to continue to worsen. Even across the pond, stalwarts like the Defender are being outlawed.

Agreed on the ease of lifting SAs over a I/SA mix, and the general flex advantage of SAs. But for the below stocker this is a decent showing of IFS and shows the hardware hasn't gone soft. I think the 105 shares its suspension with the 80 but I may be wrong. All the trucks except the 200 have a replacement front bumper.
f7aa5b4c.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's fair enough, but by the same token one could argue that there is more chance of failure on a 15 year old vehicle than a 1 year old vehicle. BTW, just noticed the white one os your 80 - what a picture and what a truck. Looks like fun. I've only done local trails, no rock crawling.

For what it's worth, I agree that modern cars are needlessly complex making self-fixes all the more tough in event of issues. However, this is only going to continue to worsen. Even across the pond, stalwarts like the Defender are being outlawed.

Agreed on the ease of lifting SAs over a I/SA mix, and the general flex advantage of SAs. But for the below stocker this is a decent showing of IFS and shows the hardware hasn't gone soft. I think the 105 shares its suspension with the 80 but I may be wrong. All the trucks except the 200 have a replacement front bumper.

Thanks for the compliment:beer: You really owe it to yourself to get out to Moab, man it is really fun to see and feel what these rigs can do on slickrock...such a blast and so many great trails.

The 105 does have the 80 suspension IIRC...The 105 appears to have done the best on the ramp...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom