Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner

61 - 78 of 78 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
To address both the above, a quote from a thread on PBB late last year.

Without getting into too much tech:D Keep in mind I have never built an FJ, I bought it:smokin: That being said, I have built many rigs over the years and have sold them right here on Pirate. Any time you start swapping axles there is a good chance you are going to have to fab bracketry (w/exception of a Jeep) Also keep in mind you are on a slippery slope. Once you start building it will never be good enough and you will continue to throw $$$ at it:D So my .02 cents is build it right the first time, trust me it will save you $$$ later.
first off 4:88's are correct and will take you to 37's if you want later. Due to your axle width requirement, you can cross out all mini truck rear ends due to 55"-58" width depending on year. 4 Runners (96 and newer) around 60" so that would require wheel spacers (not recomended) unless you have to. The RJ is over kill for what you want to achieve. That being said, if cost really isn't a big factor, my top two choices would be a Spyder 9" (no question) or Currie 9" due to availability, weight, options. That being said, I have seen several FJ 80 Axles on here (in classifieds), with the cost factor, electric lockers, full floater, and aftermarket chromally shafts from Longfield this would be a great choice. You probably would have little fabbing to do due to simiar suspension design, it is 63.5" width vs your 64.25 FJ so you are right in there. This would be a great option and you could do the SAS later very affordable plenty of axles. Trust me, if you stay on the rocks, it is a slippery slope and you will eventually do a SAS. Do not do Coil overs in the rear, it's not worth punching 2 holes in your truck. (Been there with my 1990 Range Rover on portals and 42"s). Use the OME 418's (3" coil lift) that will clear up to 37's easily. Call Tony as Rock Equipment and get one of his buggy sway bars (it's not bolt on and will require very little welding)
FAB= None of us were born Fabricators, in the long run, you will save yourself a lot of $$$ and headache by learning to weld. Keep in mind your not building a tube buggy:flipoff2:You just need to be able to buy brackets/links and be able to weld them on. Tires=KM2 BFG (yeh, I'm sponsored by BFG) however, best choice for your application, Good Year MTR 2nd choice

I hope some of this info helps
I left untouched, for purpose of establishing context.

@tacocat. Did you read a thread that had completed an FZJ80 drivetrain conversion? To me it sounds like a decent start, at least the axles would, considering the width (which took me awhile to find where I'd read the width. Thanks for info above).

If running the center differential, then it'd be a matter of mating to the tranny, and cutting out anything that got in the way. If using axles only, not sure how that'd adapt.

As far as not using coil overs in the rear, not sure why. I get not poking holes, and considering a narrower axle, an outside of the frame coil over isn't an option, but wonder why that's been suggested?

All to further debate and prompted by a local UZJ-120 (actually a 2004 GX470)motor possibility. It's the
2UZ-FE 4.7L V8 and A750F transmission, so in the right direction of things. Be a monumental task, but just thinking it through, anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,642 Posts
As far as not using coil overs in the rear, not sure why. I get not poking holes, and considering a narrower axle, an outside of the frame coil over isn't an option, but wonder why that's been suggested?

Think you are looking at one person's personal experience and it doesn't necessarily take into account the whole picture/system constraints.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
Think you are looking at one person's personal experience and it doesn't necessarily take into account the whole picture/system constraints.
One of which I'm assuming is a low COG. Not sure how it's possible to maintain, if looking at both SAs, without going to a coil over rear, and still gain appreciable travel, unless going to leaf springs, like Sol.

I can't recall if his rear was penetrated, or not. Hahahaha.
I couldn't resist. Going to go see, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
I've spent a lot of time going over the sdhq build in progress. Granted, it's a totally different design strategy but there are some interesting "outside the box" options suggested by that build. The rear suspension uses a mezzanine arm so that some short coils are delivering long travel. They did a build for Jesse James which similarly cantilevered some coil overs for long travel in a truck.

The point is that if you're already cutting up an FJ, you can carve and reshape the body to accommodate some suspension options without the hole-in-the-floor problem. It's just up to your imagination and budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
While you could do the SAS on a 4x2 and certainly make it work, I think the best option would just to call this guy...

2007 fj on tons - Pirate4x4.Com

or this guy (again apparently :lol:)

08 FJ Cruiser, SAS, Atlas, Tons, etc etc - Pirate4x4.Com

because it is far cheaper to buy a rig that is done already than to build from scratch. The first post, he said 23ish k....that is an excellent price.

Shoot, sell your rig to some teenager and it would be the rig of his dreams and then move on up to a completed SAC for a reasonable price.

or is that too much reality for this "thought provoking convo"? :rofl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
To address both the above, a quote from a thread on PBB late last year.



I left untouched, for purpose of establishing context.

@tacocat. Did you read a thread that had completed an FZJ80 drivetrain conversion? To me it sounds like a decent start, at least the axles would, considering the width (which took me awhile to find where I'd read the width. Thanks for info above).

If running the center differential, then it'd be a matter of mating to the tranny, and cutting out anything that got in the way. If using axles only, not sure how that'd adapt.

As far as not using coil overs in the rear, not sure why. I get not poking holes, and considering a narrower axle, an outside of the frame coil over isn't an option, but wonder why that's been suggested?

All to further debate and prompted by a local UZJ-120 (actually a 2004 GX470)motor possibility. It's the
2UZ-FE 4.7L V8 and A750F transmission, so in the right direction of things. Be a monumental task, but just thinking it through, anyway.
Here are some links. It "appears" to be a rather straightforward conversion.

Do that and use a gear driven case out of a sub-95 Toyota truck and Inchworm's O5 and up Preunner adapter.

The Hiluxes (or Hiluxs) give me wood. There's an '05 Taco in there.
Who reused FJ80 front suspension for SAS on mini/4Runner? - Pirate4x4.Com


The 1998 has an A340F transmission, so his T100 swap should be good for a 2003-2004 4Runner
4landrunner build-up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
The FJ80 axle and radius arm swap is fairly straight forward. The first one I performed was back in the late 90's. The second swap is probably the one the poster from Pirate was refering too. I built an 86 4-Runner Turbo with FJ80 front axle/radius arms, moddified rear suspension from a second generation 4-Runner, and the rear axle was wide full floater from Toyota dually 1 ton. Fun ride. Now I'll stop talking about my old projects and help you get busy with your's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,642 Posts
One of which I'm assuming is a low COG. Not sure how it's possible to maintain, if looking at both SAs, without going to a coil over rear, and still gain appreciable travel, unless going to leaf springs, like Sol.

I can't recall if his rear was penetrated, or not. Hahahaha.
I couldn't resist. Going to go see, though.

Sort of, in that thread you were talking about a LT front and a suitable rear to match. Lots of unsprung weight is great for rock crawling and thats what rundog was referencing. However, with a LT front its not a massive enabler for rock crawling...it is suited for going fast, so you'd really want mimize your unsprung weight in the rear to help it keep up with a LT front. I.e. not go with the most bloated rear end you can find.

From the context of making it a purpose built rock crawler you want the weight down low and the unsprung mass is actually favorable since you aren't cycling your suspension rapidly. Possible to do, but not always the easy with the frame and body layout on the FJ and trying to shorehorn 40" tires in.

As BellyDoc noted there are a variety of options out there. Cutting holes in the body might "look cool", but isn't neccessarily the most practical option (do you need a 16" coilover if you only pull 12" of travel?) unless you are planning to make the FJ a full race rig down the line like Jeff. There are alternative wasy to skin the cat for a daily driver than having coilovers come up right in the middle of your rear storage and exposed to the environment. A cantalever setup is one option and potentially keeps everything out of the cab. Or like Doc said, sheet metal is your friend.

You can setup a rear end thats well suited for rock crawling and still keep the interior looking OEM and all your seats. Here's a 14" tavel shock on mine



I had already ditched my rear seats well in advance so the location wasn't an issue. Could have easily adjusted the axle mount point as well to make it less obtrusive...all tradeoffs. Easily could have been orientated differently to enable you to retain the rear seats and still blend in with the OEM sheet metal and interior.

All really just depends on what you are looking for in the end. If going through the effort of tossing in a SA front and redoing the rear, would you also be tossing in a roll cage as well?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,079 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #74
It's a detraction that it has no pedigree.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,079 Posts
Then you have to spend more money fixing all of someone elses build mistakes. :lol::thefinger:
:cheers: Worse than starting from scratch when you connsider rebuilding it right includes rebuilding axles & everything else, even if just tearing down to inspect.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #77 (Edited)
So to not clutter the forum with more BS, figured I'd list here.

After considerable time researching, inspecting, crawling under the 80s, posing the following question.

Why not use a J-Arm for an SAC, opposed to traditional 3 link?



(best pic I could find. From MAF's website)

To me, it looks like it may not articulate as well, but I know that's not the case on the 80's I've seen.

Kind of wondering why a similar configuration couldn't be used on the rear? If it were possible to eliminate the upper link(s), would that in turn allow more articulation? Could this configuration be used like a 3 link, and eliminate a Panhard?

Just thinking and posing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
That's just another version of the radius arm technique, and it can be made quite strong. My F350 stock front suspension is radius arm design. There are plenty of aftermarket options to look at for ideas. Many of the Jeep kits are based on radius arm technique.

There's controversy about whether or not radius arms work well for rock crawlers, but the fact that there are both successful stock vehicle designs with these, as well as upgrade choices, says to me that it's a satisfactory design technique for many people.

One of the more prevalent concerns about radius arms is that when they articulate, they bind. The issue is that when the axle droops, the caster angle goes negative. When it goes up, the caster angle increases. So what happens when it articulates? One end of the axle is up and the other end is down. The caster angle on a SOLID AXLE has to be the same on both ends. The axle housing can't twist. Therefore, the radius arms have to be built to allow for some stretch and compression somewhere.

For systems where there isn't expected to be a lot of twist articulation, you can just use rubber bushings that allow some slop. That's how my F350 is set up. For some high twist designs, there are actually telescoping parts. I would imagine that this allows for some axle wrap that would otherwise not be possible in a linked design.

The other thing that you don't have a lot of control over is antisquat/antidive. I don't see any designs that incorporate adjustable mounting points.

If you're looking at some of the "outside the box" options, you might also consider a doing a 3 link design with an A-frame upper. It's like doing a double triangulated 4 link in that it doesn't need a panhard bar.

There's also "1-link" design, although it uses a panhard. I doubt that a 1-link would be useful on the FJC, but it's a design that seems to have appeal for some junkyard geniuses and it's interesting to think about. In some ways, the 1-link is the ultimate radius arm solution. You mount the "radius arms" rigidly to the axle, and bring them together to one enormous centered ball joint on the frame. Then you run a panhard for lateral stabilization.
 
61 - 78 of 78 Posts
Top