trw? What do you think of the above comparison? The 80 above is equipped like the majority of modified 80's. The 100 is similarly equipped to the 80. Both have 35's. Look close in the flex arena?
LX470 Build-up just about done
- Thread starter sleeoffroad
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
ShottsUZJ100 said:
WTF.
Number one, I can't believe how this thread started and where it is now and the sheer number of crack-pipe posts. The 100/LX470's that have been modified perform great and the biggest point I see here is that some people in the US are actually taking them off road and using them in ways that takes them to the limits of their engineering. That will always be cool to me. It's just the next iteration of how folks that owned 40's and 60's (& 55's) felt when they saw their first 80 on a trail. But, the engineering goal was a bit different with each iteration of LC and the 100-series had the most significant compromise for on-road comfort, handling, safety, etc with the IFS. If someone feels that Toyota implemented the IFS based on off-road performance (not gravel roads/washboard but actually off-roading as it manifests itself here in the US) please elaborate.
Given this, the IFS will always have limited travel regardless of what you do to the front differential - lower it ??? To get more travel up there you will have to deal with the A-arms as shedguy pointed out in the thread on A. Podvin's truck. You'll likely need to deal with the CV joints too once you've increased the angles they operate at with your new arms. Then the ball joints and steering issues arise. All of this is old news to IFS owners. You easily spend thousands of $$$ just on the front end to eventually get up to ~13" travel and the life-span on any component can be one day of tough wheeling. That's why a boat load of IFS owners continue to see the "economy" of cutting out the entire front end of their otherwise great truck and stick a 20-yr old front axle in there - or if they're really up to ponying up the $$$, what do you know, they stick an 80 front axle in there.
John, come on - 7.5" front travel almost as much as an 80???? Also, the rear springs on both are the same - OME 863 springs. So I don't see why they wouldn't be very similar in flex capabilities. However, with the 80 I can pick up a phone and actually order all bolt on components to get 6"+ lift front and rear and have it drive and wheel safely. That's just not there for the 100 and if and when companies start doing the front IFS arms, CV's , etc., etc. good luck driving it around without ruining tires every 5000 miles or limping home off a trail with a busted A-arm. This is just old news to IFS folks. I regularly see the Baja-style pre-runners off-roading with the mondo-travel A-arms and they are great for essentially just that style of fast, hummocky roads. In the bigger rocks when engine torque starts building up on the drive-train with lots of resistance all of those smaller articulating parts start seeing stresses they can't handle and s*** breaks.
But to get back to the obvious thread focus - my 80 will eat your 100 and crap GX470's. But it is not stock...
And I'm willing to come over for some fun. Road rally down to Sonoita, play down in the Huachucas. Or stay closer and do Chiva Falls. I'm more envious of your location than your truck...
Ok, bladder empty.
Mike R.
I agree with your comparisons as I've wheeled both. When stock to stock or minor mod to minor mod, the 100 is more fun to me and both are equally competent rigs. But, if one wanted to build an extreme rig, and had to choose between these 2, the 80 gives more options and can be done up much better. Me, I'd throw an 80 front under the 100, get it up about 6" and not worry about the body damage of tight trails. From what I heard of Podvins rig though I'm leaning towards a body lift and keeping stock angles with some bigger shoes. Seemed his rig did pretty well out there. I guess the ? is what is more desireable, an 80 with a V8 or a 100 with a solid front? I'd take choice #2.
tom
tom
Alans 100 with 37's worked well on all but the hariest of rock crawling. He did most of the tuff stuff at Moab this year with highly modified Cruisers. All of this with an open front end. He does admit, that the 80 will go where the 100 won't. I will be getting a 100 only when I can figure out how to get a 105 here, but thats going to start a whole new argument. Can't wait.
Gary
Gary
I have heard the oil pan on the 2UZ-FE is too low for a solid axle (though if lifted...hmmm...).
The problem with IFS is that as one wheel lifts, the diff does not lift with it, which leaves the undercarriage prone to strikes. The thing that is nice about a SFA is that once you put one tire on a rock, you know that your entire front end will be free and clear until you come down.
The problem with IFS is that as one wheel lifts, the diff does not lift with it, which leaves the undercarriage prone to strikes. The thing that is nice about a SFA is that once you put one tire on a rock, you know that your entire front end will be free and clear until you come down.
This back and forth stuff is not only fun but we all can learn a lot about build and design issues. I'm glad responses keep coming. OK, there are a few things to respond to:
***If someone feels that Toyota implemented the IFS based on off-road performance (not gravel roads/washboard but actually off-roading as it manifests itself here in the US) please elaborate***
YIKES....definately not. It obviously was for on-road AND off-road "ride and handling" improvements. The 100 handles better in both situations. Some of these improvements are also due to 9 crossmembers in the 100 vs 5 in the 80. Structurely the 100 is far more tighter and stronger (technology??) As for off-road "off-roading", of course the IFS does not equal a live axle, however the difference are not as great as many (who have never seen 100's in the bad stuff) state. The buddies in my Club dogged the IFS when I first pulled up for a run. Now, they're silent as the 100 has proven itself greatly. IFS has never stopped this truck even on 4-rated runs. It's size has been the only limiting factor so far.
***the front differential - lower it ???***
Yes, mine is lowered thanks to Doron's smarts. It allowed for another inch lift, OK CV angles (80K HARD miles on them), and 35's to run on the 100.
***get up to ~13" front travel***
Unless you want to run those worst of trails 4+, you don't need 13-inches front travel. The typical highly modified 80 doesn't have that either. Buying a 100 to run those trail types is silly any way. IT'S TOO BIG!
***John, come on - 7.5" front travel almost as much as an 80??***
This is what I've been told in the past though I do not remember the exact 80 spec? I believe it was 9-10 inches WITH L-series shocks??? Anybody measured it?
***the rear springs on both are the same - OME 863 springs. So I don't see why they wouldn't be very similar in flex capabilities.***
Not so. I have 865 springs and the travel is limited by the shocks, not the springs. I suppose the shocks may travel farther than the 80-shocks....though the 80 L-shocks have 1-inche more travel than the 100's.
***my 80 will eat your 100 and crap GX470's. But it is not stock***
You're right clownmidget. In the really bad stuff, your, AND MY 80 will eat my 100. I've never said the opposite. What I do say is that you can grab the off-road books, select 92% of the trails in them and I can run them and without incident despite IFS, despite 6-inches lift, and I can do it in far more comfort and in some situations have even more control (like when a rear locker isn't enough....I can run a locked rear and traction-controlled front giving me full turning capability while you risk breakage being locked up front. Of course if need still more I can lock the front too, though the traction control on the 100 is amazing and rarely do I need a locked front.
***Or stay closer and do Chiva Falls***
It's not final, but I should be running Chiva in November as a AZLCA Club leader (in the 100). You're more than welcome.
***Why not just get a 105 front end here and replace the 100 front?***
A 105 option here is a dream for many. Personally, I would NEVER give up my IFS on the 100. It does the job 93%of the time. For the 7% extreme runs I can live with the poopy ride and handling of the solid axle and count on it to get me through. That's why I have an 80.
If I could only afford only ONE Cruiser, I'd be lost at what I'd take? Because we off-road so often I think it'd be a 100. There's too large a difference in power, driveability, and comfort. Factor in slippery conditions and you're even more happier with it. Since I could do almost all the trails out there.....ya, I think it still be a 100 and not a 105 or an 80. Thank God many of us can afford 2 Cruisers. That makes these "wars" more fun! Build 'em for different uses.
***If someone feels that Toyota implemented the IFS based on off-road performance (not gravel roads/washboard but actually off-roading as it manifests itself here in the US) please elaborate***
YIKES....definately not. It obviously was for on-road AND off-road "ride and handling" improvements. The 100 handles better in both situations. Some of these improvements are also due to 9 crossmembers in the 100 vs 5 in the 80. Structurely the 100 is far more tighter and stronger (technology??) As for off-road "off-roading", of course the IFS does not equal a live axle, however the difference are not as great as many (who have never seen 100's in the bad stuff) state. The buddies in my Club dogged the IFS when I first pulled up for a run. Now, they're silent as the 100 has proven itself greatly. IFS has never stopped this truck even on 4-rated runs. It's size has been the only limiting factor so far.
***the front differential - lower it ???***
Yes, mine is lowered thanks to Doron's smarts. It allowed for another inch lift, OK CV angles (80K HARD miles on them), and 35's to run on the 100.
***get up to ~13" front travel***
Unless you want to run those worst of trails 4+, you don't need 13-inches front travel. The typical highly modified 80 doesn't have that either. Buying a 100 to run those trail types is silly any way. IT'S TOO BIG!
***John, come on - 7.5" front travel almost as much as an 80??***
This is what I've been told in the past though I do not remember the exact 80 spec? I believe it was 9-10 inches WITH L-series shocks??? Anybody measured it?
***the rear springs on both are the same - OME 863 springs. So I don't see why they wouldn't be very similar in flex capabilities.***
Not so. I have 865 springs and the travel is limited by the shocks, not the springs. I suppose the shocks may travel farther than the 80-shocks....though the 80 L-shocks have 1-inche more travel than the 100's.
***my 80 will eat your 100 and crap GX470's. But it is not stock***
You're right clownmidget. In the really bad stuff, your, AND MY 80 will eat my 100. I've never said the opposite. What I do say is that you can grab the off-road books, select 92% of the trails in them and I can run them and without incident despite IFS, despite 6-inches lift, and I can do it in far more comfort and in some situations have even more control (like when a rear locker isn't enough....I can run a locked rear and traction-controlled front giving me full turning capability while you risk breakage being locked up front. Of course if need still more I can lock the front too, though the traction control on the 100 is amazing and rarely do I need a locked front.
***Or stay closer and do Chiva Falls***
It's not final, but I should be running Chiva in November as a AZLCA Club leader (in the 100). You're more than welcome.
***Why not just get a 105 front end here and replace the 100 front?***
A 105 option here is a dream for many. Personally, I would NEVER give up my IFS on the 100. It does the job 93%of the time. For the 7% extreme runs I can live with the poopy ride and handling of the solid axle and count on it to get me through. That's why I have an 80.
If I could only afford only ONE Cruiser, I'd be lost at what I'd take? Because we off-road so often I think it'd be a 100. There's too large a difference in power, driveability, and comfort. Factor in slippery conditions and you're even more happier with it. Since I could do almost all the trails out there.....ya, I think it still be a 100 and not a 105 or an 80. Thank God many of us can afford 2 Cruisers. That makes these "wars" more fun! Build 'em for different uses.
> LX470 Build-up just about done
John, this is what I mean by IFS travel. I think your 7.5" is complete travel; ie, compression and extension, whereas the SFA in the 80 is much greater. These are shamelessly stolen from Jim Brantley's writeup from Moab this year so Jim I owe you a bottle at S-n-T but it is to illustrate the point only. Amando's 100-series has 35's and the first 80 has 33's and the difference is clear. The "full droop" on the IFS just isn't all that much, especially after you "crank up" the torsion bars to get enough lift to clear 35's. So then you are left with just compression travel. Either way, if you were able to actually get the entire range of travel for the IFS it's nowhere near the SFA. The last 80 has 35's(?) and the 6" lift (?) and even though it's following a bit different line you can see the much greater travel. But hey, who crosses the crack every day????
Mike R.
John, this is what I mean by IFS travel. I think your 7.5" is complete travel; ie, compression and extension, whereas the SFA in the 80 is much greater. These are shamelessly stolen from Jim Brantley's writeup from Moab this year so Jim I owe you a bottle at S-n-T but it is to illustrate the point only. Amando's 100-series has 35's and the first 80 has 33's and the difference is clear. The "full droop" on the IFS just isn't all that much, especially after you "crank up" the torsion bars to get enough lift to clear 35's. So then you are left with just compression travel. Either way, if you were able to actually get the entire range of travel for the IFS it's nowhere near the SFA. The last 80 has 35's(?) and the 6" lift (?) and even though it's following a bit different line you can see the much greater travel. But hey, who crosses the crack every day????
Mike R.
I want the bottom one!
Yes, I was quoting complete travel. What great shotts (get it?).
I think some flex differences can depend on road dynamics. Like in those pictures above of mine. If the front and rear travel is more on the 80......why did the 80 front pass axle not droop more to keep the front more level? That also would have lowered the rear end and possibly eliminate the rear wheel lift. But the pictures show in that circumstance they performed about the same 80 vs 100.
Back to the Crack. Yezzzz, while the 100 may have decent travel, the torsion bar lift setup limits down travel (why we beg for front spacer lifts, though lowering our front diff helped!) and you can see some of that in the picture. What I also see in the picture though is that the rigs, while close, are positioned a bit differently. While Amando's 100 is pretty much level, the top 80 is not. It looks as the pass front is setting a few inches lower than the drivers. Because the 80 is tipped it looks as though it flexes a bit more than it is (though you can tell the down travel from the wheel well is greater for sure). It looks as if Amando is a tad more toward the right (which is deeper...the V) and a bit further back...not much though? I bet if you snapped this picture with him 3-6 inches more through the crack, his front end would have tipped down like the 80's did and the "look" on the picture would have been closer? No doubt though there is more front travel in this situation. Not sure my 100 would go through this without hitting that Sahara Bar of mine?????
And that bottom rig? HEE HEE. If I didn't have a 100, I'd of equipped an 80 kinda like that. Made it a monster! What a beast! I'd a liked one of those mega-travel Podvin 80's!!!
Yes, I was quoting complete travel. What great shotts (get it?).
I think some flex differences can depend on road dynamics. Like in those pictures above of mine. If the front and rear travel is more on the 80......why did the 80 front pass axle not droop more to keep the front more level? That also would have lowered the rear end and possibly eliminate the rear wheel lift. But the pictures show in that circumstance they performed about the same 80 vs 100.
Back to the Crack. Yezzzz, while the 100 may have decent travel, the torsion bar lift setup limits down travel (why we beg for front spacer lifts, though lowering our front diff helped!) and you can see some of that in the picture. What I also see in the picture though is that the rigs, while close, are positioned a bit differently. While Amando's 100 is pretty much level, the top 80 is not. It looks as the pass front is setting a few inches lower than the drivers. Because the 80 is tipped it looks as though it flexes a bit more than it is (though you can tell the down travel from the wheel well is greater for sure). It looks as if Amando is a tad more toward the right (which is deeper...the V) and a bit further back...not much though? I bet if you snapped this picture with him 3-6 inches more through the crack, his front end would have tipped down like the 80's did and the "look" on the picture would have been closer? No doubt though there is more front travel in this situation. Not sure my 100 would go through this without hitting that Sahara Bar of mine?????
And that bottom rig? HEE HEE. If I didn't have a 100, I'd of equipped an 80 kinda like that. Made it a monster! What a beast! I'd a liked one of those mega-travel Podvin 80's!!!
- Thread starter
- #91
No they are not, Robbie was scared 
Actually his was not at the same spot as the first two. It was at the upper section of the crack. This shows the standard 7.5" of 80 series front travel
Actually his was not at the same spot as the first two. It was at the upper section of the crack. This shows the standard 7.5" of 80 series front travel Show Off. You're Lucky You Make Good Parts!
OK, now you're nitpicking. I could very well say the EXACT same thing of your pics of 80 vs. 100, i.e. "The 80 was an inch over, but if it had really been on the same line as the 100, it would not have lifted a wheel." Blah blah blah. Regardless of which line they took, simply look at the space between top of the tire and the bottom of fender lip (minus one inch from Amando's 100 to equalize his 35" vs. the 80s 33"). I think it's very obvious which has more travel.
Oh well, it seems this has become a religious discussion, like Ford vs. Chevy, Mac vs. Wintel, or 9mm. vs. 45ACP. I guess we should just agree to disagree, and move on.
Oh well, it seems this has become a religious discussion, like Ford vs. Chevy, Mac vs. Wintel, or 9mm. vs. 45ACP. I guess we should just agree to disagree, and move on.
Derek: Didn't I say that about the fender well? Yep. Really though the 100 looks just about to tip down and it would have changed the entire picture in regard to flex (though we know the winner, right?)
A lifted 80 has much more DOWN travel than a lifted 100. As to overall front travel it's not that much a difference (as my pictures show).
I'd like to see one of those spacer lifts for the 100 so the suspension can be lifted without sacrificing down travel. That's when we'll see an even better 100 off-roader.
A lifted 80 has much more DOWN travel than a lifted 100. As to overall front travel it's not that much a difference (as my pictures show).
I'd like to see one of those spacer lifts for the 100 so the suspension can be lifted without sacrificing down travel. That's when we'll see an even better 100 off-roader.
ShottsUZJ100 said:
John, me thinks you need to wear a hat more often as the heat of the desert sun and UV radiation has denatured some important proteins in yer' knoggin. You can't have it both ways - you say "much more DOWN travel" then say "it's not that much of a difference". The bottom line is your front IFS has as much suspension travel stock as it does lifted, as it ever will until you start replacing parts. Not adding spacers to drop the differential, nada. You might gain tiny increments if you remove the bumpstops or use low-profile ones. You might be able to fit bigger tires if you add spacers. But until you change out the A-arms, that OEM parrallelogram o' travel ain't gonna change dimensions.
Since you have both an 80 and a 100, remove the shocks from the front of both and do a little flexing. Heck, you can run the IFS w/ t-bars without shocks amazingly well but you won't notice any increase in travel.
Mike R.
dclee said:
Oh, yeah! My votes: First On Race Day! Mac! 10-mm!
All hail the three kings!
King of Beers - Budweiser
King of NASCAR - Richard Petty
King of Rock&Roll - Elvis
Did anyone get the Rocky paraphrasing of eating 100's and crappin' gx's????
UV has been very high out here Mike. Factor in a bad sunburn from yesterday's wheeling and anythings possible.
I know the travel bit though I'm a grade C in writing at best.
A better statement would have been: Yes, the appearance on the Crack pix is that there is more extension on the 80....and there is though the real difference in overall flex is less than it appears. The 100 does have less downtravel from it's normal height, though it does have more uptravel than the 80. So while the picture shows the lack of downtravel it doesn't reveal the full articulation possible. Here's what I mean:
Say, just say that both rigs have 8-inches full travel?
On an suspension like the 80 has (preferred) let's say it has 4-inches down and 4-inches up travel from it's normal sitting height.
What I'm saying about a 100 (because of T-Bar lift) is that it might have only 2-inches down travel (ala that picture) though 6-inches up travel from it's sitting height.
In this scenario, flex could be the same though depending on terrain because overall they both have 8-inches. How'd I do? A? B? C? D? F?
(The front wheels do go MUCH higher into the wells than on our 80.)
I know the travel bit though I'm a grade C in writing at best.
A better statement would have been: Yes, the appearance on the Crack pix is that there is more extension on the 80....and there is though the real difference in overall flex is less than it appears. The 100 does have less downtravel from it's normal height, though it does have more uptravel than the 80. So while the picture shows the lack of downtravel it doesn't reveal the full articulation possible. Here's what I mean:
Say, just say that both rigs have 8-inches full travel?
On an suspension like the 80 has (preferred) let's say it has 4-inches down and 4-inches up travel from it's normal sitting height.
What I'm saying about a 100 (because of T-Bar lift) is that it might have only 2-inches down travel (ala that picture) though 6-inches up travel from it's sitting height.
In this scenario, flex could be the same though depending on terrain because overall they both have 8-inches. How'd I do? A? B? C? D? F?
(The front wheels do go MUCH higher into the wells than on our 80.)
Well,
after mr shotts suggestions I think he may be right, I am going to put 900lbs of concrete into my truck, flare the fenders so the car is 8" wider, move the front bumper forward, and the rear bumper down and back so aproach and departure are less, then Im going to limit the wheel travel to 7 1/2" and then my truck should wheel much better than it does now.....
Now we have that sorted shottsy, can you tell me is the best muffler bearing to run
after mr shotts suggestions I think he may be right, I am going to put 900lbs of concrete into my truck, flare the fenders so the car is 8" wider, move the front bumper forward, and the rear bumper down and back so aproach and departure are less, then Im going to limit the wheel travel to 7 1/2" and then my truck should wheel much better than it does now.....
Now we have that sorted shottsy, can you tell me is the best muffler bearing to run
25mm on the muffler. Full flow and 89 cu ft/sec thrust.
the shed guy said:Now we have that sorted shottsy, can you tell me is the best muffler bearing to run
Aaarrgghh!!! 80sCool flashback!!! I run Koyo muffler bearings, BTW. Gotta stay with OEM!
John, on suspension travel, the 80 is limited by coil spring (and shock) length. Easy to change. On the 100, as clown says, the A-arms are the limitation. Fixed length and not easy to change. And anyway, so what if the A-arm flexes? When it's up, the other wheel stays stationary, which means your diff/undercarriage does not lift and clear obstacles. Land Rover has sort of fixed this IFS-inherent problem: on the new Range Rover, when one wheel lifts, electronics sense this and force the opposite shock to expand, forcing the opposite wheel down, so the whole things acts like a solid axle. The GX470 has something similar with its KDSS system, that empirically increases RTI scores over non KDSS 470s, although KDSS works on the sway bar, not the shocks. But same idea.