Why no Icon suspension for 100s?

[bamabrock]

That make coilover shock upper mounts designed to work with IFS?

They are builder mounts. You have to make them fit. They had upper coilover mounts meant to welded to boxed frames. I don't think the upper mount s are too difficult to fab but the lower mount on the ifs would be trickier. My experience is with installing Dana 60s and coilovers under jeeps.

http://www.bluetorchfab.com/Category/24/Axle-Brackets-Tabs.aspx

https://www.ballisticfabrication.com/mobile/home.asp?#page-186

 

[2000UZJ]

I wonder if you could simply chop the OEM mount off and weld a lower profile shock mount and install coil-overs. With the right placing, you would have more clearance for larger shock bodies.

 

[bluecruiser]

You need more travel realized before installing any kind of shock...as I think we all know, even if you get a coilover in there, it would not do anything for you the way the cv's, and everything else is currently setup...its going to start with new upper and lower arms, knuckles, and cv's to make things work...that's going to be big $ and a one of a kind build, probably not a plug and play....we can always hope though...

 

[spressomon]

Then there's the issue of lowering the rack...or the relative fragility of same with 35"+ tires.

The 100 is just not a realistic platform for more than ~ 2" of front suspension lift. But that's not to say it doesn't have redeeming design qualities that shine in other areas. Like what it does best and leave the rest alone; its futile. Or crazy money.

 

[Mxndrnks]

Funny how this same subject comes up about every two years.... and the same ideas get hashed out....

 

[bamabrock]

Funny how this same subject comes up about every two years.... and the same ideas get hashed out....

toyota ditched the torsion bars and went with coilovers/struts for the LC200, as we as GM, Ford, Dodge and Toyota did the same with their trucks and SUVs. Nothing really new to figure out other than what would fit a stock vehicle and the mounts. The 100 series would handle a lot better than it does now

 

[Chris Sandstorm FJ]

Then there's the issue of lowering the rack...or the relative fragility of same with 35"+ tires.

The 100 is just not a realistic platform for more than ~ 2" of front suspension lift. But that's not to say it doesn't have redeeming design qualities that shine in other areas. Like what it does best and leave the rest alone; its futile. Or crazy money.

x2.. The 100 series is your family overlander cadilac... Able to leap small boulders with a single bound.. And it will get you home... I have seen several FJCs with aftermarket upper and lower A-rms and those rigs broke on every trail I was on.

I had ICONS on my FJC loved them but even my LR UCAs had bushing issues..

I guess my point is messing with all this as a one off without the financial backing of a large automobile stress testing department, is a no go for me.

Now without giving him free advertising..There is one person I would ask his opinion and if he made a kit for this, I would consider it.... Maybe he will speak up and add his own .02

 

[spressomon]

^ I've learned the hard & expensive way. Spherical bearings in lieu of ball joints...poly bushings instead of OEM rubber = more maintenance and failed expectations for little to no real world benefit relative to the design center of a 100. It seems its easy for us to fall in to the trap of wanting what racers use...but then forget most of these parts get replaced on an event basis.

To the OP and what has already been mentioned: The shock damper space has been well satisfied IMO. Can't see another brand offering anything more than what is already available...especially considering the relatively low unit volume potential within our platform.

 

[Mxndrnks]

^^ Ditto....