Silver FJC with Old Man Emu Lift with 285x70x17 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter logic2
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
FirstToy said:
They pioneered this kit?I was on the phone with Slee (I think the gent's name was Christoph or something like that) earlier this evening and didn't get that impression. I might have misunderstood but he basically said that there is no kit that he knows of other than the 4runner kit and that kit is built for a truck of a different weight and balance setup. He said that it would be better to wait until this setup had been road / trail tested extensively before making a decision on what the kit should contain. When I mentioned that I thought ARB had issued a TPS about the kit he mentioned that the stuts being talked about (140's) have been backordered since January and that they are definately not available in the quantity needed to sell mass amounts of these kits.
Bummer... I was trying to put in my order from him
If someone has an idea where I can get this "kit" (with the 885 fronts and the 896 rears) please let me know (for a decent price).
Thanks,
Shawn
- Thread starter
- #23
rickr-sao said:
I replied twice, but I guess it was email - not the public post.
I purchased them from "Toyota Parts" at the Toyota dealer in Las Vegas - Centenial Toyota to be specific. If you want to be exact, call them and ask for Bill Dunlap "sales" and ask about the "step ups" as he called them on the Silver FJ that went to Texas.
Good Luck
FusionCruiser said:
I was on the phone with Slee (I think the gent's name was Christoph or something like that) earlier this evening and didn't get that impression. I might have misunderstood but he basically said that there is no kit that he knows of other than the 4runner kit and that kit is built for a truck of a different weight and balance setup. He said that it would be better to wait until this setup had been road / trail tested extensively before making a decision on what the kit should contain. When I mentioned that I thought ARB had issued a TPS about the kit he mentioned that the stuts being talked about (140's) have been backordered since January and that they are definately not available in the quantity needed to sell mass amounts of these kits.
Bummer... I was trying to put in my order from him
If someone has an idea where I can get this "kit" (with the 885 fronts and the 896 rears) please let me know (for a decent price).
Thanks,
Shawn
Shawn,
The OME Prado suspension was really first supplied by Slee for the 4Runner and Tacoma. The V6 4Runner OME kit is what you see as forFJ Cruiser. This was all sorted out with the help of Ben at Slee a long time ago. At this point, it is not a big deal to abstract that r&d into the FJC.
884's up front (same as 4.0V6 4R) w/ 140s shocks
885's up front if you want to add a bullbar (885's for the V8 4R)
Christoph (Christo, maybe?) is correct. The 895's for the rear are going to be too stiff and there is no turnkey OME setup.
This kit is designed for the PRADO . They are technically too stiff for the 4Runner as well but it is close enough that it isn't as great an issue.
The FJ C has a much shorter wheelbase so it really needs it's own rear coils. The 3dr Prado rear coils would be closer (I dont know if OME offers these)
In actuality, it would be smart to wait if OME is going to come out with a true pkg. w/ unique springs for the FJC.
Deaver rear coils might be a good option since you can customize the spring rate. This has been a strong point of r&d w/ 4R owners since they want to move on from OME into Hoes and further refine the rear suspension.
Also Bulldog has really come up with a great solution for the suspension-
Donahoe front coilovers (same part for FJC) and custom rear coils w/ OME 80 series shocks. This has given the onroad comfort and offroad articulation/capability he has been looking for.
So back to OME- I think that what ever Slee said is the right info. I know the OME parts that will fit but it will not be appropriate for the weight/wheelbase. Putting in softer shocks to soften the ride is false too as it's the springs that are causing the 'problem'.
895's in the 4R are stiff but acceptable.
896's in the rear are bone jarring on the 4R- might be good w/ a steel rear bumper.
I would think 896's in the FJC would be buckboard-ride and totally inappropriate.
And despite being new on the FJC, these OME parts have already seen extensive use and feedback on 4R's and Prados.
Talk to Slee, Darren (4x4atsdotcom), bulldog-yota and people that really know the pluses and minuses of it.
JMHO
I didn't quote you so you can edit this. You might want to wait until ARB's announcement about what they recommend...
FirstToy said:OME 885/895's or 884/895's (896's are heavier rear coils ) OME 140s/142 shocks or 141's in the rear, which are softer shocks
885's up front will be better if you are putting a ARB bullbar on it.
Another option-
Donahoe coilovers up front, custom deaver rear coils, bilstien 5100 or 7100's custom valved
Sway-away has 2.0 and 2.5 coilovers
you can move to uniball uca's if you want to beef up the front (total chaos)
There aren't a ton of options yet but more seem to be coming to market. Donahoe had a wicked looking uca that they were coming out with (don't think it is anymore due to cost?)
If anyone in socal is in need, I'll help pop in a suspension and we can zip up to Rowher and flex it out
How about I quote myself? I am not about revisionist history so I'll not be editing any info I put here.
LOL! Okay, you have PM...
According to ARB's announcement last night (per Tim Lund):
Here is the "official" FJ Cruiser suspension application info:
Front no bbar or winch:
OME884
N140s
Rear:
OME895
N141
If using a Bullbar and winch, use front coils OME885.
In driving tests with the OME884 and the N140s, the FJC rides extremely good.
We would probably not recommend the 883s or the N139S as they will be too light.
With the *884*, N140s, 895, and N141 combination:
Lift gain front: 2-1/4"
Lift gain rear: 2"
So. Now that ARB has blessed it, the arguing and hand-wringing can stop.
Let's build 'em, wheel 'em and move on!
Here is the "official" FJ Cruiser suspension application info:
Front no bbar or winch:
OME884
N140s
Rear:
OME895
N141
If using a Bullbar and winch, use front coils OME885.
In driving tests with the OME884 and the N140s, the FJC rides extremely good.
We would probably not recommend the 883s or the N139S as they will be too light.
With the *884*, N140s, 895, and N141 combination:
Lift gain front: 2-1/4"
Lift gain rear: 2"
So. Now that ARB has blessed it, the arguing and hand-wringing can stop.
Let's build 'em, wheel 'em and move on!
Just to muddy the waters a little, I will share my thoughts...
ARB is currently recommending 884 for no bull bar or winch, 885's for a bull bar and/or winch.
At this time, based on my findings, I must very respectfully disagree.
The Prado's weight is 4,508lbs.: +458lbs. vs. 2x4 FJC, +213lbs. vs. 4x4 FJC
I believe that the better applications are:
(Front)
883 if remaining stock (Prado recommendation is for loads of 0 to 110lbs)
884 if planning for a bumper/winch (Prado recommendation is for loads of 110 to 220lbs)
885 if planning for a bumper/winch and plan to wheel fairly aggressively (Prado recommendation is for loads of 220 to 330lbs) …I think 885's will be too firm for all but the hard core.
All front springs have a spring rate of 590lbs/sq.in.. The spring heights vary in increments of 10mm and are set to deliver 25mm (.984”) of lift on a Prado)
(Rear)
895 if typical cargo loads are none-light (Prado recommendation is for loads of 0 to 330lbs)
896 if cargo loads will be in the medium to heavy range (Prado recommendation is for loads of 330 to 880lbs)
897 if cargo loads are expected to be near vehicle capacity (Prado recommendation is for loads of 880 to GVWR)
The GVWR of the Prado is 6,283lbs.; the GVWR of the FJ Cruiser is 5,570lbs (4x4) and 5,330lbs. (4x2).
Rear springs have a spring rate of 260, 318 and 387lbs/sq.in. respectively. All rear springs are rated to deliver 40mm (1.575”) of lift on a Prado).
Based on this, I think the best combination for most (mall wheelers) is:
883 F / 895 R
With the addition of a bumper 883’s might be adequate, but 884’s are probably a better solution. Adding a winch to it would likely definitely require 884’s. I doubt there would be any benefit for using the 885’s, as that would be adding the weight capacity of the Prado weight difference. If you figure more than half of the weight difference is attributed to the front, say 125lbs., and the extra weight capacity of the springs (220lbs. to 330lbs.), then that would be adding something like 345lbs. to 455lbs, which I think would just be too much.
As far as the rear goes, the FJ Cruiser is configured similar to the Prado, in that the spare tire is mounted aft and above. I think for most users (mall running), the 895 will suffice. The 896 would be suited to those anticipating heavier loads (i.e. extended camping), while the 897 would be for regular heavy loads and towing. In that situation, the customer would have to expect and accept a harsher, firmer ride when the vehicle is unloaded and the 897’s would, in all probability not have an application for this platform.
Shock selection is simpler: the front shocks are valved firm. The rear shocks are available in medium valving or firm valving. N141’s are recommended for 895’s or 896’s that are regularly driven with light loads, with N142’s used for those who anticipate regularly carrying heavier loads.
____________________________________________________________
I do not claim to be a guru of any sort. Tim Lund has forgotten more about suspensions setups in general and OME in particular than I can ever hope to know. My findings are just based on my research, my theories and the real-world testing we have done on not only the FJ Cruiser, but the 4Runner and Tacoma platforms as well.
In the world of Toyota, this process is called Kaizan... continuous improvement. As the information and application is thoroughly investigated we will gain more knowledge, but as of now I believe our recommendations are pretty accurate.
I will be interested to hear Tim's perspective and will post any further commentary from him or ARB, whether positive or negative.
ARB is currently recommending 884 for no bull bar or winch, 885's for a bull bar and/or winch.
At this time, based on my findings, I must very respectfully disagree.
The Prado's weight is 4,508lbs.: +458lbs. vs. 2x4 FJC, +213lbs. vs. 4x4 FJC
I believe that the better applications are:
(Front)
883 if remaining stock (Prado recommendation is for loads of 0 to 110lbs)
884 if planning for a bumper/winch (Prado recommendation is for loads of 110 to 220lbs)
885 if planning for a bumper/winch and plan to wheel fairly aggressively (Prado recommendation is for loads of 220 to 330lbs) …I think 885's will be too firm for all but the hard core.
All front springs have a spring rate of 590lbs/sq.in.. The spring heights vary in increments of 10mm and are set to deliver 25mm (.984”) of lift on a Prado)
(Rear)
895 if typical cargo loads are none-light (Prado recommendation is for loads of 0 to 330lbs)
896 if cargo loads will be in the medium to heavy range (Prado recommendation is for loads of 330 to 880lbs)
897 if cargo loads are expected to be near vehicle capacity (Prado recommendation is for loads of 880 to GVWR)
The GVWR of the Prado is 6,283lbs.; the GVWR of the FJ Cruiser is 5,570lbs (4x4) and 5,330lbs. (4x2).
Rear springs have a spring rate of 260, 318 and 387lbs/sq.in. respectively. All rear springs are rated to deliver 40mm (1.575”) of lift on a Prado).
Based on this, I think the best combination for most (mall wheelers) is:
883 F / 895 R
With the addition of a bumper 883’s might be adequate, but 884’s are probably a better solution. Adding a winch to it would likely definitely require 884’s. I doubt there would be any benefit for using the 885’s, as that would be adding the weight capacity of the Prado weight difference. If you figure more than half of the weight difference is attributed to the front, say 125lbs., and the extra weight capacity of the springs (220lbs. to 330lbs.), then that would be adding something like 345lbs. to 455lbs, which I think would just be too much.
As far as the rear goes, the FJ Cruiser is configured similar to the Prado, in that the spare tire is mounted aft and above. I think for most users (mall running), the 895 will suffice. The 896 would be suited to those anticipating heavier loads (i.e. extended camping), while the 897 would be for regular heavy loads and towing. In that situation, the customer would have to expect and accept a harsher, firmer ride when the vehicle is unloaded and the 897’s would, in all probability not have an application for this platform.
Shock selection is simpler: the front shocks are valved firm. The rear shocks are available in medium valving or firm valving. N141’s are recommended for 895’s or 896’s that are regularly driven with light loads, with N142’s used for those who anticipate regularly carrying heavier loads.
____________________________________________________________
I do not claim to be a guru of any sort. Tim Lund has forgotten more about suspensions setups in general and OME in particular than I can ever hope to know. My findings are just based on my research, my theories and the real-world testing we have done on not only the FJ Cruiser, but the 4Runner and Tacoma platforms as well.
In the world of Toyota, this process is called Kaizan... continuous improvement. As the information and application is thoroughly investigated we will gain more knowledge, but as of now I believe our recommendations are pretty accurate.
I will be interested to hear Tim's perspective and will post any further commentary from him or ARB, whether positive or negative.
Similar threads
