Builds The Mountain Goat - An FJ140/2UZ-FE/Ute Build (1 Viewer)

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

A 3rd gen 4runner rear window might be cool. They are power roll up and plentiful used. Although if you have a box back their it might not be very useful to you.
This is what I was kind thing or maybe a 1st gen Sequoia?
 
I put the sequoia rear in Yoda, the unholy ute project. Worked great, but that rear gate has such a curve to it, it used up valuable space behind the seat. In the pic below, you can see the angle we put the window section in the upper half. The lower half curves back about 3 inches into the cab space, plus the door is about 4 inches deep, so there is not much rear storage area behind seat.
416-jpg.1505910


However, we talked about retracting windows on page one of this thread. My recommendation if you needed retracting (which OP said not needed) was the chevy kit.
 
Any progress?

Unfortunately not. Been cranking on a couple customer projects trying to get ahead of the game a bit before holiday break. I'm working on a FJ40 which is getting an R2.8 that's a pretty interesting and exciting one it its own right so that keeps me distracted from this at times.
 
Understandable! Well, I look forward to seeing progress. You do great work. If you can figure out how to mate that 2UZ to an H55, I'll be dropping my 60 off! LOL, that's a dream of mine!

It would be cool to get a couple of shots of that 2.8 40 too!
 
Yup seen that on ebay.... not quite sure what to think about it. Showed the wife last night and she said "WTF is that? Why did they chop the back off??"
 
Came across this... A little different than what you're doing, but still, you don't see too many FJ60's with the roof chopped!

Thanks for the link, that's an interesting build. Looks pretty well executed, but it's definitely not for everyone. Personally if I want something with an open top I'll pick a Scout or Bronco, that way you can put the hardtop on when the weather isn't cooperating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PCC
I like this build! I put 12,000 miles on my 2UZ 40 with 4.11 gearing and 35's. I never wished it had more power. I had to go about 45 up the 550 between Durango and Silverton, but we were loaded down and pulling our trailer. Off road, especially in 4L, I never felt the desire for more, and if I had it, there's a good chance I'd be doing some trail repairs.
 
Next step in the reconstruction is to graft on the lower corner/taillight sections. Originally I welded in a brace across the rear tailgate opening and cut all this off as one piece. You can see it laying in the floor in the photo below. My idea was to keep it all as a single unit to maintain relative positions of the taillights and make it easy to keep everything square.

IMG_20181111_180108 (1).jpg

When I lifted this unit up into position it was clear this wasn't going to work. Much like I found in the upper corners, the lower portion of the rear body has some taper. This was evident when I tried to match the surfaces where the side panels and character lines run on the two pieces. The rear sections were about 1/2" too narrow to match the surfaces where the body is cut at the C pillar.

The only way forward was to separate the two sides and fit each corner separately. I cut the cross brace out, cut off the upper crossmember/corners and then began prepping the individual lower corners. I had originally left some of the inner structure in those panels but after some quick test fits found that I'd have to strip everything out from the interior so all that was left was the skins. After some careful work with the sawzall and cutoff wheel I was left with this.

IMG_20190105_181042.jpg


Test fitting started by overlaying the rear corner on the existing metal surface of the body. The first step was to get the cut line at the top edge trimmed to just the right height. The key reference for this is the indented body line and corner lip just below where the glass runs. As you can imagine, this is an exercise in patience. I spent a lot of time slowly creeping up on the fit so that I wouldn't cut too much and have large gaps to fill in. The shot below is it in "pretty close" condition.

IMG_20190105_195112.jpg


As I was working through this, the next big problem jumps out. The body has a small ledge that runs under the rear quarter window. As the window comes up at the rear that ledge curls up and everything blends back in to the main surface. Because I've cut the D pillar sections back to behind the rear window I've lost that ledge and the blend is now gone. The closeup below shows how the two overlay and difference in planes between the D-pillar in front of the rear vent and the C-pillar plane which is above that ledge.

IMG_20190105_212254.jpg


I debated how to address this for a while. You could try to pie slice the panel just below the pillar vent and pull that section in to match the C pillar, but I think that would require too much stretching and the surfaces wouldn't quite align so I didn't go that approach. Blending the forward flange of the vent and the corner of the C-pillar seemed like the best idea, but it will leave a small vertical wall where the door frame comes up (just above the chrome trim). In an ideal world we wouldn't have that sort of overhang but it seemed like the most aesthetically appealing solution given the choices. By making a custom corner transition I can blend the two surfaces into a single plane and only have a small step in the body at that corner. (I know this sounds a little complicated, future pics will help illustrate).
 
With that decided, I went ahead and cut out the C pillar sheet metal in that area. The top of the cut aligns with the top of the corner piece, the lower edge is where the black sharpie is in the shot above - right in the middle of that small vertical surface where I need to align the two pieces. I also trimmed back the main side panel in the body to match the corner piece. Here's the fit after all this trimming:

IMG_20190106_103237_1.jpg


As you can see above, the C-pillar has been cut out where that ledge mismatch was and later I'll make a custom fit filler panel. In this phase I spent a lot of time making small tweaks to raise/lower the corner panel and match the body lines as best I could. There's a little difference in the radii of the body lines which will somewhat be addressed when it's welded by grinding down the bead and shaping that corner but it may also take a little hammer/dolly work and/or body filler to help make the transition seamless. Since these two sections were originally a couple feet apart in the stamped panel it's not too surprising they aren't a perfect match.

Once I was happy with the fit I started stripping all the paint at the edges in prep for welding. Here's a shot of just the body so you can see how the C-pillar and underlying sheet metal have been trimmed.

IMG_20190106_150556.jpg


With both panels ready to weld I did final alignment and fitting. Once again taking a lot of time to get things lined up as good as possible. Next step, lay down some beads and make it a single piece.

IMG_20190106_152530.jpg
 
Any updates? Love the work you've done thus far.
 
Any updates? Love the work you've done thus far.

Unfortunately not. This build has slid to the back burner for a bit, busy with customer projects and the sort unplanned and scope-creeping job of paint and mild restoration on my other FJ60. I hope to get some time on it soon, but probably not for another month in all likelihood.
 
I have one comment, I have thought of this same body conversion, but I want to extend the frame and put a 6x6 bed on the back. I was also looking at the rear body graft. I was going to leave more distance on that C-D blend. Probably fill in what was left of the front and rear radii of the back window with a solid panel a few inches wide. It solves the ledge blending you had to do, but also, you will be smashing your head on the rear window while seated in the back. Go sit in your regular 60 and see just how far back you recline and where you head lands. There is a reason the rear window is vertical on pickup trucks. By using the rear of the 60 cab your glass is tilted forward, hence needing a bit more room.

I also think you found one of the issues with reusing the back section, the body of a 60 is not a perfect rectangle. The sides bulge out slightly, hence the gap you had to create in the middle of you rear patch panel. It is a subtle visual cue borrowed from the greeks. A perfectly straight line will look concave while looking at it from an oblique angle. But by bulging a car body out slightly in the center the vehicle will look smoother, straighter and probably improve aerodynamics a bit.

When Toyota does this factory conversion on the new 79 series, the rear panel is vertical, and I believe the factory rear seat of the 4 door 78 is actually moved forward a couple of inches to alleviate the lack of back of head space on the crew cab. But it reduces leg room.
 
I have one comment...

Sharp observations. I did spend quite a bit of time looking at the head position of rear seat passengers and you're right, it's going to be close. I may pull the rear seat forward a bit to help with the issue, but of course that does compromise leg room. It's pretty rare I carry extra passengers in the back of my truck so it would hopefully be only a small nuisance for anyone sitting back there to lose an inch or two of legroom.

This is definitely one of the trickiest parts of this build and a lot of what makes it an experiment of sorts. I haven't had time to work on it lately, but as I get into the fab and fit of that rear window I'll post up results, thoughts, etc. If I end up not liking it I guess the sawzall will be called to duty again and I'll try a different approach. :oops:
 
It's not so much about capability of the hardware, more about the robustness of the design/development work done. What huge faults are you seeing in Toyota production vehicles? Every one I've drive has been pretty darn bulletproof from a calibration standpoint.

Sure, a standalone system has a lot of knobs to turn and that can be advantageous depending on your goals. Yes, you can tune based on IAT and MAP, but did you actually test it at all conditions or just extrapolate the map out and hope for the best? In essence I'm asking the small tuner shop if you have the time (or if your customer will pay for it) to turn each knob and optimize the system for all possible conditions? I do believe that any OEM calibration is a significantly more robust system than what an aftermarket/performance/tuner shop can produce in terms of reliability and driveability across a wide range of conditions. That's the bias I was referring to. For a racecar with a limited operating envelope I'd be running a standalone, but that's not what I'm building. Even street cars with fairly standard usage in a known environment can perform quite well with custom tunes, but we're talking about off-road, out-of-country overland vehicles here. It's a different demographic.

Custom tuning, standalone systems, etc is certainly a viable business model as has been proven by many shops. It makes sense when you're talking about performance builds because the factory systems do leave things on the table in the name of durability and conservative tuning for tails cases (ex: Joe Blow puts the s***ty 85 octane gas in Colorado in his turbocharged DI engine). This isn't a high performance build though, and the overland community doesn't seem to desire the last 5% of performance at the expense of reliability. The purpose of these vehicles is to take you across landscapes, altitudes, locations, and seasons without a hitch. Sacrificing some peak performance is a reasonable tradeoff for robustness to varying conditions.

My goal for this one is to drive it to Patagonia. That means huge changes in weather, altitude, and fuel quality. I want seamless operation in all environments (at the expense of peak power) so I'm relying on Toyota and their development process because it's far more thorough than what I can complete on my own. If I (or my customers) just wanted peak HP I'd just put an LS in it (and probably still use a GMPP computer).
Patagonia is a bucket-list item for me. No Question. To drive it would be a dream.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom