LX470 Build-up just about done

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

Derek: Gotcha. Understand all that. Front clearance has never been a problem. In most slower off-road situations the IFS offers more. Sure, when dropping down a ledge and both shocks compress the diff heads down. Got all that, though it's never been a problem. In fact I in the 100 usually clear in the front what 80's hit in the front because we're going slow over obstacles and my diff is way UP in the air.

Follow you too on the newest tech (RRover and GX). Love to have that newer stuff on the 100. New RRover people admit though a New RR can't touch a 100 in the tough stuff because of mods and tire size ability.

Last comment (what I've always said): If you OME 3-inch lift an 80 and OME 3-inch lift a 100, they will both do EXACTLY the SAME trails and pretty much EQUALLY well (except the 7% where a 100 might not fit DUE TO SIZE). Why do the 80 owners not admit this? I'm stunned! It's not about supremacy, it's not about IFS...the smaller 80 with more mods wins no contest. Why can't some of the 80 dudes not see this?
 
One last comment....the New RR front and rear travel specs dwarf even an 80. Does this make it better off-road? 10+ inches front and 13+ inches rear. WOW! New thread? If travel is all that matters then an 80 must kill a 100....and a new RR kills an 80......right? Stock form, my money's on the Rover.
 
ShottsUZJ100 said:
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.
(The front wheels do go MUCH higher into the wells than on our 80.)
Click to expand...

I can see empirically you're you're getting the same amount of total travel, but when on uneven ground what does the six inches of upward travel do for you with only two inches of down? If there isn't a relative amount of down travel you will three wheel. This happens quite a lot on the 4runner vs the 80 an I would think the similarities would be there between the 80 and the 100.
 
DARN! NO RESPONSES TO THAT STUPID "ROVER COMMENT"? I WAS TRYING TO BAIT A FEW OF YOU 80 OWNERS WRITING ON THIS THREAD.

Reality is with the Rover's small tires and lack of upgrades.....we bury it.

PORIOMANIA:

I'm learning a lot from this thread. I'm trying to grasp what I read in some mags and some of these posts. I'm stuck on figuring what the advantage is of a live axle....the "twist" part? So when one side droops, the other side reacts upward. So what (is all I can figure?). If both wheels are touching the ground whether live axle or IFS then what matters?

Signed,

Dummy
 
ShottsUZJ100 said:
I'm stuck on figuring what the advantage is of a live axle....the "twist" part? So when one side droops, the other side reacts upward. So what (is all I can figure?). If both wheels are touching the ground whether live axle or IFS then what matters?
Click to expand...


Perhaps one day gravity will satisfy your quest for knowledge....

TJK
 
dclee said:
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.
Click to expand...

4Runner also has XREAS which mechanically connects all 4 shocks but I think it is intended as an on-road system. I don't know if it improves off-road ability like the RR or KDSS but it sounds like the same principle as the RR.

XREAS is cross-connects opposite corners thru proportioning valves developed in conjuction with Yamaha.
 
First Toy your correct the Xreas system on the 4runner is a on road/rough road system, not for off road. I think the 4runner is dialed in more for on road use that 98% of SUV owners use them for, this is based on comparing how things are tucked up better on the 100 series. The KDSS system is really slick and should of been offered on the 4runner before the GX470. JMHO
 
LX470 Build-up just about fawked

Well for lack of better judgement I'll continue to chime in.
Derek, you are functionally correct that the 80 travel is limited by springs and shocks but that goes to the original thread topic of a "build up". The 80, like the 100, is ultimately limited by the mechanical joints - the upper/lower control arms and panhards. The springs and shocks could conceiveably only limit compression by how much physical space they occupy under full compression and limt extension likewise. Tires have a nasty way of limiting compression as well as they crumple up into your fender.

But the difference for the time being is that you can easily bolt on longer and/or adjustable control arms and panhards for the 80 that will allow you to locate the axles appropriately for some large lifts while still maintaining some degree of driveability. 37's can and do ride under a few 80's that are still completely streetable and easily do 4+ trails. By monkeying around with these bolt-ons the travel of the wheel through it's arc (up & down) it's quite easy and affordable (relatively speaking - that is relative to doing something similar on, say a non-random example like a 100!) to get close to 8" upward travel from static ride position to 8" downward travel from static.

John, sorry to continue shooting "F"'s your way but you still don't seem to want to think about and discuss the "build up" of the front IFS on the 100 as being nothing more than a simple differential case drop bracket. The "upgraded" torsion bars are not adding lift. This was experienced by IFS minis/4Runners a decade ago when everyone was rushing to install Downey/Rancho "beefier" torsion bars only to find that using one that was thicker greatly increased the torsional resistance made it much more difficult to compress. When you crank up the adjusting bolt on the torsion bar you've taken away a substantial amount of the "travel" the bar can accept - it's non-linear in its resistance, as you continue to twist the bar the reistance goes up higher per degree rotation. So folks started just using the stock ones that were cranked up and they behaved "flexier" in that they would allow you to stuff your tire all the way up into the wheel well until the A-arms hit the bumpstops. Of course breakage happened but stock t-bars were/are cheapo and "kind of easy" to replace.

So, to repeat previous posts - you got 7.5" of complete travel in your IFS - period. The shocks and t-bars will not change that. Nearly all of that travel is compression travel (upward) and if your t-bars are too thick, cranked to high or your tires too big, you won't even see that go to the limit. This is WITH the "build up" - ie, the actual thread topic. Does the 80 have this much travel stock? Don't know but that isn't the topic. The 100 2" lift is about $1100 whereas the 2"+ lift for the 80 ~$700. Now which one can get more travel? The photos from Moab show both of these setups and the 80 is even on 33's. If you can't see the difference in travel you just aren't wanting to see - break for Dr. Phil moment "Don't ask the tough questions if you don't want to hear the tough answers!"

Lastly, a point you don't seem to consider when looking at photos or comparing 80s & 100s on the same trail is stability. This goes back to travel/articulation/flex. As TJK mentions, maybe gravity will help clarify this concept. If you consider the Moab photos think about someone (or something) pushing up on the DS rear wheel of each truck. You would nearly up-end the 100 before the PS front wheel came in contact with the bottom of the crack. On the 80's, even with the 33s (and it would be even better if it had 35s) neither truck would move without the resistance of the suspension controlling it. The best image I've seen of this that everyone can appreciate is from Junk's page(http://www.yourlandcruiser.com/images/fu/hum.mpeg). Sure the H1 is capable but there's no wheel travel so the PS front has drooped as much as it's IFS will allow. Not too stable.

Oh, and if you still don't think your 80 can go where your 100 can't only due to size then your 80 isn't set up right - certainly not as the "rock crawler" companion to the "expedition overlander". In your current configuration you could drop $1100 more into the 80 for all of Christo's 6" goodies (damn that sounds dirty - sorry Christo & John) and you would leave the 100 at the bottom of a lot of hard-a$$ trails.

And I like Rovers. Give me a turbo diesel 110 with a 5-speed please.

Mike R.
 
OK clownmidget, I'm learning....I think...let's see if I get it?

"The "upgraded" torsion bars are not adding lift. This was experienced by IFS minis/4Runners a decade ago when everyone was rushing to install Downey/Rancho "beefier" torsion bars only to find that using one that was thicker greatly increased the torsional resistance made it much more difficult to compress. When you crank up the adjusting bolt on the torsion bar you've taken away a substantial amount of the "travel" the bar can accept - it's non-linear in its resistance, as you continue to twist the bar the reistance goes up higher per degree rotation. So folks started just using the stock ones that were cranked up and they behaved "flexier" in that they would allow you to stuff your tire all the way up into the wheel well until the A-arms hit the bumpstops. Of course breakage happened but stock t-bars were/are cheapo and "kind of easy" to replace."

*****Yes, I understand this stuff. When I added the stiffer bars I gained only about 3/8" due to the higher spring rate. And yes, asking that bar to twist that far makes the resistance large. The truck did flex "easier" when stock. Now, it does take quite a "spot" to top out the front wheels though it does happen. To keep things working well I had to stop at 33's. It wasn't until I did Doron's diff-lowering that I then could fit 35's with the same CV angle as the 33's. Was very happy with that improvement overall. Yes, and I agree totally, I wish I could maintain the same lift, however have the T-bars set for equal up and down travel. Maybe that spacer kit they're working on will be enough.*****

"The photos from Moab show both of these setups and the 80 is even on 33's. If you can't see the difference in travel you just aren't wanting to see - break for Dr. Phil moment "Don't ask the tough questions if you don't want to hear the tough answers!"

*****How did you know the wife and I watch Dr. Phil? Any how, I think I'm puzzled as to why on very rutted terrain or climbing a ledge or whatever we do a lot here in AZ, the pictures usually look pretty much the same between the 80 and 100 (like those I posted even). I see the Moab Golden Crack pix and just go :confused: . Knowing that top 80 has 33's does make even more flex eveident. I guess this is why I resist the negative comments on the 100?*****

"Oh, and if you still don't think your 80 can go where your 100 can't only due to size then your 80 isn't set up right - certainly not as the "rock crawler" companion to the "expedition overlander". In your current configuration you could drop $1100 more into the 80 for all of Christo's 6" goodies (damn that sounds dirty - sorry Christo & John) and you would leave the 100 at the bottom of a lot of hard-a$$ trails."

*****I see your points. They are well taken. I draw my conclusion because we do runs almost weekly and many times with other Cruisers and I don't experience any trouble. What can I say? As for my 80, it's setup specifically for the extremes. Besides a 4-inch suspension lift, the front and rear frames were cut about 4-inches each and special bumpers were fabricated.

http://www.expeditionswest.com/vehicles/adventurepartners/john80.html

I'd bet my approach and departure angles (not breakover of course) equal or probably better the 80 with the 6" lift in the bottom Moab pix (because of the ARB bumper, etc)? As for leaving the 100 behind? Sure, for example, I doubt I could climb the Step at Charouleau Gap (pix...though old....before sliders and rear bumper) in the 100. My front bumper sticks out too far. If I cut frames on the 100 like I did on the 80 though, I'm sure I could, but that would destroy the truck's focus for which it was built. (And, I have the 80 for obstacles like that) This is why I say "size stops me". As for 4.5 and up trails like around Moab? Haven't been there yet. Dying to go. I'm sure out there my 80 would prevail and handily over my 100. DANG FRONT AND REAR BUMPERS!*****

So, I think I'm learning more on this stuff. Thanks for everyone's help. :D
 
not even exactly sure what subject we are on now, but the overall topic appears to be 80 series versus 100 series, I am no expert on vehicles, but I have owned several 80 series and one 100 series landcruiser, I know just own one Cruiser, a 94 fzj80, which I am really happy with (5 inch lift, 35's, arb bumper etc.) having owned both vehicles my conclusions is this, the 100 series seems to be far better built, I'm not just talking about the stats, frame crossmembers etc, I'm talking about slamming doors, the feel of the truck etc, the kind of stuff you can't put numbers on, but you can notice after driving for awhile. I will admit that the 100 series has it's draw backs, harder to lift etc, but I think when eqquiped the same, it would take an extreme offroader to notice the difference between these two rigs, and maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember someone saying the the uzj100 is 8 inches wider, no way, I don't have the specs, but I can tell you that seems crazy, looking at both vehicles from the back, the first thing you really notice is that the uzj100 does not have fender flares and does not angle up as drasticaly, so you basicaly end up with a vehicle that at it's extremes is not much wider, but has a lot more usable space inside, just my opinion, and just one final thought, the 80 series does have more style and looks better from most angles, although the 100 series is awsome too!
 
Is that pic of the gold 80 at the same place in AZ [charlough? gap?] as this pic?

[as you approch it, it has a cheat track to the right before it, and a grass flat area on the left?]

If so, Im the one with no hair, and christo, and John Hocker spotting, and Heather Hocker to his right minding the kids, watching Pat Takash heading up there.

pat%20at%20gap_3.JPG
 
Last edited:
FZJ: Very good analysis IMO. I agree with you:

1. No compariosn in vehicles in terms of quality. Advancements in the 100 design make it 10-times the overall truck

2. Yes, the 80 is certainly more user-friendy to modify and it's capabilities are beyond the 100.

3. As for size, the specs don't tell the story. There are 3 points about the 100 that make it BIG compared to an 80.
A. The 100 body is MUCH wider. Look at an 80 and stretch the entire body to equal the flare width. BIG difference in tight spots.
B. Front body (hood/bumper) overhang is several inches greater lessening approach angle.
C. rear bumper longer and lower lessening departure angle.
While mods like mine improve dramatically from stock, a similarly modified 80 keeps ahead overall. Cutting frames of whatever I could never get my 100 down to my modified 80's size and angles.

Shed Guy: Yep, that's the Step. It used to be easier for LWB and tougher on Jeeps/SWB. Since the flash floods last year it's now FAR tougher for us LWB because the creek/road level is much higher. Your rear wheels are basically in dirt/sand making your front wheels do most the work. VERY TOUGH GETTING UP LAST TIME. It took dangerous running starts! Now the dang Jeeps show US up! (No single best off-roader....huh?)

Pitbull: Thanks a bunch! Ya, since I had the 100 first and outfitted it to the max I figured I'm make the 80 for as some say "quasi rock crawling". While I'd like a nicely outfitted 80 too, I figured since I had the 100 I'd do something different. I can attempt and go places in my 80 that most 80's cannot. Luv those bumpers!
 
Back to the original issue with the mods for an 100......Heres a pic of a customers 100 series rebadged as a Lexus with an ARB Safari front and TJM rear installed. I also got an extra inch or 2 with fidiling with the hydraulics. No flaming necessary, this what he wanted, this is what he got.
Gary
P1010063.webp
P1010064.webp
 
Are the hydraulics just the same as stock with the exception of the "over 20mph" sensor de-activated?
 
Waggoner, I would say nice rig and all, but there would have been one thing that I would've done differently... I would get rid of the u-haulitz hitch and picked up one of slee's hitch's that you can screw into the rear bumper. After all that's wats those holes are for.

- Newb
 
SWEET CRUISER. NOTHING LIKE PAINT-MATCHED CUSTOM BUBMPERS!
When I get Slee's rear bumper I plan on painting it, the high-lift jack, tire carrier and all. Should look really good (I hope). Of course the underside of the bumper will be left alone.....for touch-ups!
 
Waggoner5 said:
Back to the original issue with the mods for an 100......Heres a pic of a customers 100 series rebadged as a Lexus with an ARB Safari front and TJM rear installed. I also got an extra inch or 2 with fidiling with the hydraulics. No flaming necessary, this what he wanted, this is what he got.
Gary
Click to expand...


If it's a 100 series LC rebadged as a Lexus, how did you fiddel with the hydraulics when the LC doesn't have it? Did you install hydraulics on the 100? If so that must have been a project! :)
 
Gary, that truck looks very nice even with the "L" - talk about discretionary spending on a project...

For those of you with the ARB bar, which winch are you using? And are you installing inside controls or has the remote control units rendered that idea useless?

I can hardly stand looking at these 100s though because it keeps my mind screaming "MUST GET 105 TO US". Of course the 105 front live axle with 4.7 L petrol & APS turbo and 5-spd manual isn't really anywhere other than in my mind...

Mike R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom