The parts are $219 because I trashed the Mudflap, frankly its not worth the time to go and scavage the junkyards for them. The guy said I could cobble the old one back on, but it will start to come apart in 6 months and I will be back bitching.
I don't understand why Toyota didn't make it so the flap tears off, not the whole damm piece. Actually, I was suprised my Wife wasn't more pissed since she drives it most of the time. I have to say I noticed the new 100 doesn't have the flairs to tear off.
This crap wouldn't have happened in the Pathfinder. No flaps to tear off and more clearance, just no damm lockers. Anyways, the thing goes in Monday for the repair, kind of screwed up my mountain bike slush fund. Now to put on the low lift springs.
Interesting. Was there a change to the design of the 80 mudflaps on 95-97? I've torn mine off, and have also seen 2 other 93/94s torn off - all without flare damage. You just put them back on after straightening the metal brackets in the flap, and once on mine it broke a fiberglass tab off the flare that I fixed with epoxy. Are yours fiberglass, or did I hear that they are a type of brittle plastic?? (Edit - Maybe when they went to the girlie light duty transmission they also figured nobody'd wheel the newer ones and went with wimpy flares?)
You picked that one out. The 91-94 flares are fiberglass and the 95-97 flares are a plastic material. I do not know why the material change was made, only that it happened. Since the flares changed at the same time airbags were introduced and the weight of the vehicle became an issue that may be why. There are benefits to both I suppose. The fiberglass flares are less likely to be ripped off the vehicle or to have the mounts broken. But, they are more likely to transmit damage to the body panels (fenders, rear doors and quarters) in an impact. Since a door or a quarter costs a thousand bucks or more (in the box, before you even get close to done) that may be nice........