fj60 larger rotors?

[Miltos]

I have looked and can not find any other upgrades for the fj60 front brakes than 4runner calipers. Is this because this is all that is available? with in reason of course.

 

[Mace]

yes,

If you went to larger rotors you would end up having to relocate the calipers. Not an easy task..

Of course, with enough money, anything can be done..

 

[GLTHFJ60]

You can retrofit Tundra rotors and calipers onto a FJ60 front axle if you use IFS hubs and these brackets from front range offroad. Baxter650 used these to mount Tundra brakes for his build:

http://frontrangeoffroadfab.com/nfo...d=136&osCsid=3298950822b675f9efbbcd7790bb3f42

 

[Mace]

Interesting, I had not heard of that conversion.

http://www.toyota-4runner.org/3rd-g...ements-231mm-13wl-tundra-calipers-rotors.html

Still not sure that it's particularly an upgrade tho. It will widen your front axle (IFS hubs add something like 1.5" per side IIRC). And cause issues with rim clearance. The thicker rotor is nice. But I can't see if the actual diameter of the rotor is any different. I just measured the stock 60 rotor at 300mm. JT outfitters lists the 2003 V6 4wd taco as having a 11 3/4" rotor which is like 298mm (same diameter).
http://www.jtoutfitters.com/front-disc-brake-rotors-toyota-tacoma-4runner-prerunner-p-2501.html

So, the added width is neat. The caliper upgrade is a bit of a question.. The pistons may be bigger, but that will change a lot of things upstream (pedal feel mostly).

But in the end, are you really changing that much to the overall braking quality?

 

[kling-on]

I did 4runners and Power slot rotors and my 35 stop better then stock brakes and 33

 

[GLTHFJ60]

Mace, later Tundra rotors are 231mm. Take a look here. Side-by-side comparison of factory J6x rotors to Tundra rotors.

https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=6927254&postcount=540

https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=6931693&postcount=549

https://forum.ih8mud.com/60-series-wagons/177156-some-pics-tonight-11.html

 

[land crusher]

I just put on OEM rotors and pads (replacing parts that came from napa--not mountain, but cheapies) and also replaced a wonky caliper (pistons on one side not moving evenly causing pad to be non-parallel with rotor). Anyhow, my brakes feel and work great now, probably an improvement over the previous parts even before the caliper problem developed.

I think a lot of of complaints about cruiser brakes relate to three issues: using crappy parts that don't perform well or lose effectiveness quickly, not maintaining your brakes properly (especially since these trucks are old), and folks who learned to drive on vehicles with oversized brakes and ABS systems that do their thinking for them. The last one is all well and good, but I think people who learned to drive before that technology have a different perspective on brake performance. Like anything, equipment is only part of the driving equation.

 

[Mace]

Mace, later Tundra rotors are 231mm. Take a look here. Side-by-side comparison of factory J6x rotors to Tundra rotors.

If they are bigger, they aren't 231mm if that is a diameter. Stock 60 series rotors are 300 mm.

 

[Miltos]

I grew up learning to drive with a thing called planned stops! But if I can get this thing ready for cross country with a 1500lb trailer in tow that would be a plus.

 

[TobyB]

There's something to be said for THICKER rotors- if what you're looking for is prolonged gradability
and thermal margin. And warping resistance.

If you want one quick stop, more aggressive pads will do it.

t

 

[GLTHFJ60]

If they are bigger, they aren't 231mm if that is a diameter. Stock 60 series rotors are 300 mm.

I see what you're saying now. I don't know what the 231mm measurement is if not overall diameter. Maybe rotor hat diameter?

They sure look bigger in Baxter's pics!

 

[Mace]

They absolutely do!

But again, remember that you would be adding width to the front axle as well, so either spacers or a new axle in the rear is needed.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Not necessarily, depending on how much wider the stock front axle is than the rear and how much the brakes add on. Front track widths are typically wider than the rear.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

Not necessarily, depending on how much wider the stock front axle is than the rear and how much the brakes add on. Front track widths are typically wider than the rear.

IFS hubs add 1.5" per side, so 3" total WMS. That brings the J6x front end to ~61" wide.

It's wide enough that you'd notice I think.

 

[Godwin]

You can retrofit Tundra rotors and calipers onto a FJ60 front axle if you use IFS hubs and these brackets from front range offroad. Baxter650 used these to mount Tundra brakes for his build:

http://frontrangeoffroadfab.com/nfo...d=136&osCsid=3298950822b675f9efbbcd7790bb3f42

So, I wonder if using the IFS hub if wheels with a greater backspace could be used without the need for spacers.

 

[GLTHFJ60]

So, I wonder if using the IFS hub if wheels with a greater backspace could be used without the need for spacers.

Sure could, but then to get the desired effect, you'd have to run something like a 4" BS on the front and something like a 2.5" backspace on the rear. I don't know about you, but I HATE running different wheels in the front than the rear.

 

[Slowerthanu]

You'll get a greater performance increase with a decent tire and pad combined with proper maintenance.

Larger brakes work well on a properly designed system. We tend to piece things together and end up with better pedal "feel". More times than not, there is no actual increase in braking performance short of a slight increase in fade resistance.

My HJ60 with stock rotors, pads, calipers, M/C and no rear prop valve brakes better (on 33's and OME) than my FJ62 with 4Runner calipers, 80 series M/C and a properly bled and adjusted rear prop valve (it is also on 33's and OME).

Dan

 

[60Works]

This is, to me at least, a very exciting thread. Even with the 4-Runner calipers and booster mods and heat treated rotors, our 60's braking still isn't modern. With the 28" stock tires the mechanical lever of a 12" rotor was sufficient. With 33's" or larger tires the lever is inadequate especially with all the extra weight we add with accessories. The only real solution is larger rotors.

Now there is an option short of swapping in 80 axles.

When I see these IFS hubs, I see a whole new range of wheel options that we haven't had before because of the need for the 3 3/8" backspacing. Now we can look at 17" FJC or Tundy steelies with 4 1/2" - 5" backspacing. This puts the tire back into the wheel well and corrects the steering geometry.

Wheel spacers would be needed on a stock rear axle to match so all 4 wheels could be the same. I've always avoided using them but a pair of high end units should handle the loads (if the wheel studs do). Lot's of guys already run them without issues.

Modern brakes, modern wheels, and modern tires; and all of it without messing up the steering.

The next questions are which master and booster to run with the Tundy calipers? And would it require changes to the rear drums?

Any reports from baxter650 about how the system is working for him?

 

[Mace]

Not necessarily, depending on how much wider the stock front axle is than the rear and how much the brakes add on. Front track widths are typically wider than the rear.

Yes necessarily, the front axle already is wider by a couple inches. Adding another 3" will make the rear track on entirely different lines than the front. Making following around corners a pain in the butt.. Running a front axle that is that much wider than the rear axle is not a good idea.

So, I wonder if using the IFS hub if wheels with a greater backspace could be used without the need for spacers.

Absolutely can be
http://www.sky-manufacturing.com/new/detaproduct.php?id=127

Still stresses the heck out of the trunion bearings, but it works just fine.

You'll get a greater performance increase with a decent tire and pad combined with proper maintenance.

Larger brakes work well on a properly designed system. We tend to piece things together and end up with better pedal "feel". More times than not, there is no actual increase in braking performance short of a slight increase in fade resistance.

My HJ60 with stock rotors, pads, calipers, M/C and no rear prop valve brakes better (on 33's and OME) than my FJ62 with 4Runner calipers, 80 series M/C and a properly bled and adjusted rear prop valve (it is also on 33's and OME).

Dan

I can lock the brakes up on my 60 with 80 series master, no pro valve, and 4 runner calipers with 35's. The pedal is softer than stock, but the brakes work very well.


The concept of using the FJ cruiser 17's has merit. But you have to address the rear axle. I am not a fan of spacers. I know people use them all the time, but I still do not like them. Probably better to swap to a 80 series FF rear axle and go from there.

Course, running a new master and thinking about what your rear brakes are doing is really important as well. It's a system. Not something that you make changes to individual parts and expect it all to work out to the greatest benefit.

 

[Miltos]

Yes I find this interesting as well. It would be great to have reasonable option for brake system upgrade that accomplishes something other than a stiff brake pedal.