Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Toyota Flex differences
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
Toyota Flex differences
Pretty concise question I know...
But will a stock 80 series 3 link front suspension set up out flex a stock 4 Runner 5 link or Surf rear suspension setup?
Cheers
But will a stock 80 series 3 link front suspension set up out flex a stock 4 Runner 5 link or Surf rear suspension setup?
Cheers
80 series arms flex really good, but they still have nothing on links. the surf rear even with 400mm long lowers or whatever they are will still nearly drop to verticle without shocks.
nemesis has some great pics of his before he sas'd the front and it was a 33 below the sill and the other tucked right up inside the guard.
nemesis has some great pics of his before he sas'd the front and it was a 33 below the sill and the other tucked right up inside the guard.
turbos are nice but i'd rather be blown
the point of comparing front suspension on one vehicle to rear suspension on another is?
generally the 3 link setups bind and don't articulate very well. but they are good for on-road control and lateral stability on side hills.
5 links also bind though.
what are you trying to achieve?
generally the 3 link setups bind and don't articulate very well. but they are good for on-road control and lateral stability on side hills.
5 links also bind though.
what are you trying to achieve?
Free air locker to the first 20 callers!
Halfway through putting 60 series diffs under my Runner.dumbdunce wrote:the point of comparing front suspension on one vehicle to rear suspension on another is?
generally the 3 link setups bind and don't articulate very well. but they are good for on-road control and lateral stability on side hills.
5 links also bind though.
what are you trying to achieve?
Has 80 series RA front.
Rear was planned to be standard 4 Runner with 80 series lower arms (200mm longer) but retain the crappy 300mm Runner upper arms which severely limit droop.
Thought was 80 series RA on the rear, with spacers between the castor brackets and bushes to allow better flex before the RAs physically touch the castor bushes.
It's a big decision in this diff swap job and it's easier to mount RAs at the rear than control arms IMO, but they need to offer better flex if done right.
Cheers
your probably like me and dont wanna touch the fuel tank atm. heaps of ppl are telling me to 3link the rear. but I dont wanna atm, and thinking about chasing some allpro upper arms from the states and reinforce the upper link mounts on the housing. should have alot less binding in theory.
'91 Toyota Surf SSR Ltd. 2.4 TD Auto, Coil SAS, Duals, 4.88, Longs w/ front ARB, 35" MTRs
'97 Toyota Surf SSR-G Intercooled 3.0 TD Auto. 2" lift, Xrox bar, Waeco, Drawers, 32" BFGs
'97 Toyota Surf SSR-G Intercooled 3.0 TD Auto. 2" lift, Xrox bar, Waeco, Drawers, 32" BFGs
Twisted by Design
Sure its not your shocks limiting droop? I used to get heaps out of my rear. I bent the stock upper arms (from it hitting the tank etc on full droop), but once the uppers were beefed up, it was fine.Struth wrote:Rear was planned to be standard 4 Runner with 80 series lower arms (200mm longer) but retain the crappy 300mm Runner upper arms which severely limit droop.
I think a standard front 80 setup will be pushing it to match that. Had heaps of rear steer but.
2012 FJ Cruiser
1984 BJ42 - Stretched and Coilovered
1977 HJ45
1984 BJ42 - Stretched and Coilovered
1977 HJ45
That is pretty much the sort of info I am after, reasons why I shouldn't do this.troopymad wrote:wha-t your thinking of radius arms on the back?
i heard you can get bad antisquat with a radius arm setup in the rear
which will make your rear end jump up and down quite bad and the bigger the hill the worse it gets for some reason
but someone else will have a better idea
It's a thought I had that needs to be investigated, before I choose a mounting method for the rear diff.
Cheers
I have thought of that, longer arms combined with the axle brackets angled rearward.Dougster wrote:Struth, what would be wrong with longer rear upper arms as well as raised mounts on the diff to match up with the longer 80 lower arms ??
A lot less work than RA rear and would work better IMO.
Cheers
Shocks were out and I have never acheived droop like that from mine.TWISTY wrote:Sure its not your shocks limiting droop? I used to get heaps out of my rear. I bent the stock upper arms (from it hitting the tank etc on full droop), but once the uppers were beefed up, it was fine.Struth wrote:Rear was planned to be standard 4 Runner with 80 series lower arms (200mm longer) but retain the crappy 300mm Runner upper arms which severely limit droop.
I think a standard front 80 setup will be pushing it to match that. Had heaps of rear steer but.
Perhaps one issue is that I never released the tension on the control arm bolts when it was lifted, so the bushes were already twisted in the droop position before it even flexed.
Cheers
You could check out Pajero arms as well - they are Radius in the rear, the front chassis mounting point is different to the 80 series though as they have a pin, Range Rover style.
Good for flex, not so good for the big lifts.
Good for flex, not so good for the big lifts.
1994 NJ SWB, 3.5, 5 speed manual, 33's, XD9000, 4.9 diffs, Front & Rear ARB's, Safari Snorkel
2008-2009-2010-2011 Pavlova in the shed.
2008-2009-2010-2011 Pavlova in the shed.
Maybe crosslink rear! you never know, might be good.oldmate wrote:That sucks. Can you pull one of the bolts out to get it flexing? I imagine handling wouldn't be too badly affected by it.midi73 wrote:Just to and another negative to radius arms. Bunderas have radius arms in the rear, and are know for there bad rear articulation because of it.
Yep longer diff to upper arm brackets will help offset the longer lower arms.bazzle wrote:AND keep the pinion angle "more" correct.Dougster wrote:Struth, what would be wrong with longer rear upper arms as well as raised mounts on the diff to match up with the longer 80 lower arms ??
A lot less work than RA rear and would work better IMO.
Bazzle
Cheers
Disco2 is setup with RA rear. With 4" + 35's there are no probs like that.troopymad wrote:wha-t your thinking of radius arms on the back?
i heard you can get bad antisquat with a radius arm setup in the rear
which will make your rear end jump up and down quite bad and the bigger the hill the worse it gets for some reason
but someone else will have a better idea
RA in my opinion will hinder outright articulation for an offroader, but will give enough for a DD.
Cheers
Slunnie
Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Slunnie
Discovery TD5, Landy IIa V8 ute.
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:45 pm
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, or on a rig somewhere in bumf*ck idaho
choppy choppy on fuel tank
is there any reason a three link and panhard wouldn't work well on the rear?
failing that could you do longer top arms with a bend in them to clear the tank?
i would steer clear of radius arms on the rear like the plague. great to have them on the front to control roll axis, but both ends would be limiting. You would be better off just putting leaves back under there
is there any reason a three link and panhard wouldn't work well on the rear?
failing that could you do longer top arms with a bend in them to clear the tank?
i would steer clear of radius arms on the rear like the plague. great to have them on the front to control roll axis, but both ends would be limiting. You would be better off just putting leaves back under there
http://www.populationparty.org.au/
Maybe one day it will get more than my modified 5 link, but I haven't got time to change too much, it has to be ready and tested for a trip to tassie in January.rockcrawler31 wrote:choppy choppy on fuel tank
is there any reason a three link and panhard wouldn't work well on the rear?
failing that could you do longer top arms with a bend in them to clear the tank?
i would steer clear of radius arms on the rear like the plague. great to have them on the front to control roll axis, but both ends would be limiting. You would be better off just putting leaves back under there
But judging by some of the pictures in this thread the standard set up will flex pretty well.
Cheers
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:45 pm
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, or on a rig somewhere in bumf*ck idaho
He's already got a four link and panhard rear. but the foreskinner fuel tank limits the length of upper links that can be replaced in a custom application.75 cruser wrote:just go the 4 link rear, and if your not happy the way it drives you can all ways put a pannard in latter
rob
Now get back into your box you G a y tard drunken bum
http://www.populationparty.org.au/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest