Long time listener, First time caller

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

Roy Park

Roy Park

Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Threads
18
Messages
534
Location
Orange County
Website
www.sgu.life
I have been eyeing the 200 series for quite some time. I currently have a Long Travel Tundra but I kept my stock length LCA and TC UCA because I heard I could use them on a 200 series build. The time frame for the LC200 has gotten close and now I’m starting to plan out the details. I did a search but couldn’t tell, so here’s my stupid question: Does the Tundra swap affect the KDSS system? Do I need to delete the system or does it play nice.

Also does anyone have experience with the Total Chaos adjustable rear link kit? What length shock and mounts did you have to obtain?

Thanks in advance.
 
Roy Park said:
I have been eyeing the 200 series for quite some time. I currently have a Long Travel Tundra but I kept my stock length LCA and TC UCA because I heard I could use them on a 200 series build. The time frame for the LC200 has gotten close and now I’m starting to plan out the details. I did a search but couldn’t tell, so here’s my stupid question: Does the Tundra swap affect the KDSS system? Do I need to delete the system or does it play nice.

Also does anyone have experience with the Total Chaos adjustable rear link kit? What length shock and mounts did you have to obtain?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I second @SQRRRL, KDSS will have absolutely no problem with tundra control arms. I'm not a big fan of doing it, but some people are happy with their setup, and that's all that really matters in the end.

And for the Rear Control arms, here's a recent thread of them.
Total Chaos Adjustable Rear Links
 
Awesome. Thanks for the input guys. I understand that all things are a compromise. It’s just that the group I wheel with are a bunch of go fast dudes, I want the LC to be able to keep up when I have the family in tow. For guys trips, I’ll probably just take the Tundra.
 
Roy Park said:
Awesome. Thanks for the input guys. I understand that all things are a compromise. It’s just that the group I wheel with are a bunch of go fast dudes, I want the LC to be able to keep up when I have the family in tow. For guys trips, I’ll probably just take the Tundra.
Click to expand...
I had a long traveled FJ, so I get it. It's just that unless you make the rear track width the same as the front, you can get a lot of rear end wandering, much more so on the significantly shorter wheelbase 200 than your tundra. It's probably the biggest complain of the current 70 series trucks. I'm sure your used to it, or have made other changes with your tundra. But I'll tell you that you won't have any smoother ride on your tundra control arms than a standard width 200. Really just some extra tire rubbing. Canguro racing can go pretty fast with their factory track width 200.

I'm sorry, I'm on some ridiculous quest to stop "tundra long travel" 200s, but I either way, you'll love the 200, it's a wonderful platform and welcome to the forum. Hopefully you'll be able to come to some of the many awesome 200 trail rides that this group puts together every year.
 
What's the rationale NOT to do the Tundra long travel, just the difference in offset in width front to rear? (Pros/cons)? My pros list far outweighed my cons list when I made the decision to go Tundra.

I'm a half inch wider in front on either side running spidertrax in the rear, never noticed this wander you speak of. I look at it like an OEM mid-travel kit but for like.... A quarter the price of something aftermarket that would yield a 3.5" front track width without spacers.

Doing the Tundra swap cost me an extra $600 using all oem parts (CV axles were used, pulled from a Tundra a bit younger than was my cruiser). And if you already have the parts and they are in good shape? Why not.

Canguro is limited to the class they want to run in, I'm sure if they were going for additional performance they'd look to longer arms.
 
Mogwai said:
What's the rationale NOT to do the Tundra long travel, just the difference in offset in width front to rear? (Pros/cons)? My pros list far outweighed my cons list when I made the decision to go Tundra.

I'm a half inch wider in front on either side running spidertrax in the rear, never noticed this wander you speak of. I look at it like an OEM mid-travel kit but for like.... A quarter the price of something aftermarket that would yield a 3.5" front track width without spacers.

Doing the Tundra swap cost me an extra $600 using all oem parts (CV axles were used, pulled from a Tundra a bit younger than was my cruiser). And if you already have the parts and they are in good shape? Why not.

Canguro is limited to the class they want to run in, I'm sure if they were going for additional performance they'd look to longer arms.
Click to expand...
Cons would be adding a 3" track width gives you only about .5" of additional up travel but with a larger turning radius and requires you to run rear wheel spacers which exposes more rear end brake components to damage off-road.

From a speed standpoint, a high end coil over will give you much more stability at high desert speeds than a .5" of up travel. So money would be much better allocated to that then longer arms.

So you could of taken that $600 you spent, and gotten a much more composed shock than a Bilstien and a Fox 2.0 for noticeable results on the dirt.
 
Last edited:
Mogwai said:
What's the rationale NOT to do the Tundra long travel, just the difference in offset in width front to rear? (Pros/cons)? My pros list far outweighed my cons list when I made the decision to go Tundra.

I'm a half inch wider in front on either side running spidertrax in the rear, never noticed this wander you speak of. I look at it like an OEM mid-travel kit but for like.... A quarter the price of something aftermarket that would yield a 3.5" front track width without spacers.

Doing the Tundra swap cost me an extra $600 using all oem parts (CV axles were used, pulled from a Tundra a bit younger than was my cruiser). And if you already have the parts and they are in good shape? Why not.

Canguro is limited to the class they want to run in, I'm sure if they were going for additional performance they'd look to longer arms.
Click to expand...

As someone who has done the Tundra swap, do you think I can run wheels with a +25 offset or do I need to run RW’s?
 
Taco2Cruiser said:
Cons would be adding a 3" track width gives you only about .5" of additional up travel but with a larger turning radius and requires you to run rear wheel spacers which exposes more rear end brake components to damage off-road.

From a speed standpoint, a high end coil over will give you much more stability at high desert speeds than a .5" of up travel. So money would be much better allocated to that then longer arms.

So you could of taken that $600 you spent, and gotten a much more composed shock than a Bilstien and a Fox 2.0 for noticeable results on the dirt.
Click to expand...
If it only nets .5” up travel, do you happen to know what it gets in droop? I’m pretty sure my LT kit on the Tundra gets more of a bump in up travel than that, but it too gets more droop than up travel bump. Without changing the geometry, it’s pretty hard to get a significant up travel bump, no?
 
I run stock wheels, no problem.

So when I was looking at this I really wanted to go all out (Tundra front end, King coilovers all around, active bump stops, etc...) but my budget and desire not to push my lift off any longer (had already been a year running stock). I was drawn to the Bilstein 6112/5160 setup as a compromise but alas no 5160 application for the 200 (for now but they are coming) so for now the Fox but those will get swapped out.

Personal driving style and SoCal local is what pushed me towards the Bilsteins with Tundra setup over stock stance lifts in the same price range, gotta love that German ride, especially at speed. I also wanted a wider stance, both because I just lifted the truck 3" and for visual aesthetics haha. And I don't worry about the small 1.25" spacers in the rear.
 
Mogwai said:
I run stock wheels, no problem.

So when I was looking at this I really wanted to go all out (Tundra front end, King coilovers all around, active bump stops, etc...) but my budget and desire not to push my lift off any longer (had already been a year running stock). I was drawn to the Bilstein 6112/5160 setup as a compromise but alas no 5160 application for the 200 (for now but they are coming) so for now the Fox but those will get swapped out.

Personal driving style and SoCal local is what pushed me towards the Bilsteins with Tundra setup over stock stance lifts in the same price range, gotta love that German ride, especially at speed. I also wanted a wider stance, both because I just lifted the truck 3" and for visual aesthetics haha. And I don't worry about the small 1.25" spacers in the rear.
Click to expand...
Stock wheels have the +50 offset like the RW’s. Hmmmm.
 
Roy Park said:
If it only nets .5” up travel, do you happen to know what it gets in droop? I’m pretty sure my LT kit on the Tundra gets more of a bump in up travel than that, but it too gets more droop than up travel bump. Without changing the geometry, it’s pretty hard to get a significant up travel bump, no?
Click to expand...
The same .5” of droop with stock tundra arms. At least that’s what I measured when I tested the arms. I’m sure with a TC upper tundra arm you could get much more.

I found it wasn’t hard to get a couple inches of uptravel on long travel kits, but it took that 2.5-3.5” of increase to start to see it.

I just feel that drivers find the grass is always greener on the other side. Toyota made the track width a way for a reason. No one is out there saying their stock tundra handles high speed dirt better than a 200. You yourself are much happier with your long traveled tundra than it was when stock. And your stock is a 200s long travel. Unless some on here really gets after it and puts tundra long travel arms on a 200, so that’s 8” of increased track width, yeah that will be awesome.

I definitely am not the do all know all, I’m just a simple man whose done a few long travel kits in the past and drove them a bit fast for some years, and it’s got a lot of hidden negatives.

But this is normal in the automotive world. Changing something must be better, and honestly it’s the only way to really find out what actually works. So I say do it.

But I also say compare apples to apples. People go from completely stock or low end suspension components to long travel with good to great components. Then say how great their long travel is.

I challenge someone to put on a high end coil over with longer arms, then really push the truck for an extended period of time. Then return to stock length arms. Then take an honest assessment.

A recent example I have is I bought my 200, when strait to braid lines and “performance” pads. Then I did that for 18 months. Then for fun I return to my old stock pads. Stock pads stop faster than my Hawk LTS pads, in all conditions. But we have to test to find these results. Not just rush to change and leave it forever.

Rant over, I’m sorry guys, you all know I enjoy everyone’s builds. Do what makes you happy, that’s what really matters.
 
Taco2Cruiser said:
The same .5” of droop with stock tundra arms. At least that’s what I measured when I tested the arms. I’m sure with a TC upper tundra arm you could get much more.

I found it wasn’t hard to get a couple inches of uptravel on long travel kits, but it took that 2.5-3.5” of increase to start to see it.

I just feel that drivers find the grass is always greener on the other side. Toyota made the track width a way for a reason. No one is out there saying their stock tundra handles high speed dirt better than a 200. You yourself are much happier with your long traveled tundra than it was when stock. And your stock is a 200s long travel. Unless some on here really gets after it and puts tundra long travel arms on a 200, so that’s 8” of increased track width, yeah that will be awesome.

I definitely am not the do all know all, I’m just a simple man whose done a few long travel kits in the past and drove them a bit fast for some years, and it’s got a lot of hidden negatives.

But this is normal in the automotive world. Changing something must be better, and honestly it’s the only way to really find out what actually works. So I say do it.

But I also say compare apples to apples. People go from completely stock or low end suspension components to long travel with good to great components. Then say how great their long travel is.

I challenge someone to put on a high end coil over with longer arms, then really push the truck for an extended period of time. Then return to stock length arms. Then take an honest assessment.

A recent example I have is I bought my 200, when strait to braid lines and “performance” pads. Then I did that for 18 months. Then for fun I return to my old stock pads. Stock pads stop faster than my Hawk LTS pads, in all conditions. But we have to test to find these results. Not just rush to change and leave it forever.

Rant over, I’m sorry guys, you all know I enjoy everyone’s builds. Do what makes you happy, that’s what really matters.
Click to expand...
Copy that. I see what you’re saying and can appreciate that. I’ll probably give it a go and see how I like it.
 
25mm offset wheels with the tundra conversion will push the wheels outside the wheel wells.
With proper bump stops to limit up travel, you won't touch the fender, but you will be slinging more sand/mud/rocks up the side of your truck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ethernectar
Radiator time @ 140k
Replies
18
Views
2K
TLC2013
TLC2013
P
Time to replace power steering pump?
Replies
4
Views
621
PlumbersCrack
P
C
Time for another round of series 200 maintenance at 400 K miles
Replies
6
Views
663
Craig Haworth
C
M
Sold my 100, now it's decision time
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
skrypj

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom