Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm curious how the rear track width is compensated with the additional front track width long travel suspension creates?

Have some experience with a narrower pattern for rear on quads with +8 LT suspension, but I dint understand how the rear can run at 4" narrower, and not affect overall tracking on a short wheelbase FJ.

Just curious. Trying to make the hard decision of who's getting a chunk of my money, and still so many u answered questions.

Chris Delancy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
You can always run wheel spacers in the rear to increase its track width. That's the only way I know to do it besides a new axel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
You can always run wheel spacers in the rear to increase its track width. That's the only way I know to do it besides a new axel.
So it's not an issue, in all reality?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,639 Posts
I'm curious how the rear track width is compensated with the additional front track width long travel suspension creates?

Have some experience with a narrower pattern for rear on quads with +8 LT suspension, but I dint understand how the rear can run at 4" narrower, and not affect overall tracking on a short wheelbase FJ.

Just curious. Trying to make the hard decision of who's getting a chunk of my money, and still so many u answered questions.

Chris Delancy.

Normally people either leave the rear as is or simply run spacers. New extended rear axle is always an option, but you are looking at over $3k for that easily.

Rear track width is normally less than the front track width on most vehicles from the factory, so its not out of the norm by any means.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Normally people either leave the rear as is or simply run spacers. New extended rear axle is always an option, but you are looking at over $3k for that easily.

Rear track width is normally less than the front track width on most vehicles from the factory, so its not out of the norm by any means.
Thanks for confirming. Suspension, as a whole, has always been a learning experience, and I've paid dearly for the limited education. The build threads here are an awesome resource, but after reading so many, probably more indecisive.

Chris Delancy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,639 Posts
I'm right there with you. I've been learning a lot on my build and would do a few things differently if I did it all over again (isn't that always the case). Anyways, the more you do and the further you take it, the more information and lessons learned you'll be able to broadcast back to the FJ community.

I know we've stumbled onto some things with my build that other folks have yet to see first hand or experience. In the end all that info helps the next person down the line who undertakes a similar project.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I'm right there with you. I've been learning a lot on my build and would do a few things differently if I did it all over again (isn't that always the case). Anyways, the more you do and the further you take it, the more information and lessons learned you'll be able to broadcast back to the FJ community.

I know we've stumbled onto some things with my build that other folks have yet to see first hand or experience. In the end all that info helps the next person down the line who undertakes a similar project.
As I've been reading. I'm part way through yours, early stages of TCao's, and have read several others entirely. Impressive reads, especially for the technical details.
My eyes are suffering from IPhoneia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
having a narrower rear is specifically to help increase handling on short wheel base vehicles. even though the FJ isn't really that short compared to other smaller short wheel base vehicles, it still benifits from this due to it's suspension setup, it's short length / body weight / heighth radio. this allows the rear to slide more rather than grip when you begin to loose control. having a wider track is good for offroad i presume but when it comes to a critical point and you're loosing control on a short asfault based road, it will make your rear end body sway more and is more likely to cause you to roll.

having a wide track anywhere else but offroad is normally on the track with REALLY fast vehicles where the arrow shape aerodynamics play higher roles over vehicle roll over safety.

but when it comes to the FJ, using the wider long travel suspension systems, if you're picky about the looks (like i am :rofl:) just use some spacers on the rear with extended grade 8 studs (not upgrading the studs can be risky, specially if your lugs have ever been over-torqued which is pretty common out of tire shops who have noobies in the shop).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
having a narrower rear is specifically to help increase handling on short wheel base vehicles. even though the FJ isn't really that short compared to other smaller short wheel base vehicles, it still benifits from this due to it's suspension setup, it's short length / body weight / heighth radio. this allows the rear to slide more rather than grip when you begin to loose control. having a wider track is good for offroad i presume but when it comes to a critical point and you're loosing control on a short asfault based road, it will make your rear end body sway more and is more likely to cause you to roll.

having a wide track anywhere else but offroad is normally on the track with REALLY fast vehicles where the arrow shape aerodynamics play higher roles over vehicle roll over safety.

but when it comes to the FJ, using the wider long travel suspension systems, if you're picky about the looks (like i am :rofl:) just use some spacers on the rear with extended grade 8 studs (not upgrading the studs can be risky, specially if your lugs have ever been over-torqued which is pretty common out of tire shops who have noobies in the shop).
Wasn't really the overall aesthetics, but more so general tracking. My only experience with long travel, and unequal track widths is on quads. In looking at the way the dealer installed the Procomp, the front lift actually pulls the front wheels in, substantially. Actually, wouldn't matter who did it because it's non adjustable.

I'm considering King OEM performance series with comp adj, in combination with TC stock width A arm set up (all based on TCao's build/rationale) run 2.5" front lift with a stock height spring. Based on, the dynamics of the TC set up, should maintain the oem suspension geometry, yet allow for lift.

I can't believe that the lifts most sell essentially "suck" the front in so much. See why steering control has suffered, merely for the sake of being lifted.

Thoughts on the TC stock width set up?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,294 Posts
I don't really know what the point of the TC stock a arm is if you are not adding an extra shock. I don't think it will get you extra travel and the stock a arm is not THAT likely to bend (I bent the mount and the bolt on mine but the a arm was fine).

I would upgrade the spindle and coil towers before the a arm. The UCA is another issue though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,639 Posts
Ryan, your response ties into my question about your extended icon setup and whether that was getting the advertised travel numbers (see my build thread). The LCA joint may not be able to handle the angle that an extended travel coilover would put on it. Thats where they value in an LCA upgrade to the TC setup would be beneficial. That might allow you to get full travel out of an extended coilover.

I was curious to see if you knew what the limiting factor was on your previous setup and if you knew how much travel you were actually getting. That would be a good indication if that joint was an issue.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I don't really know what the point of the TC stock a arm is if you are not adding an extra shock. I don't think it will get you extra travel and the stock a arm is not THAT likely to bend (I bent the mount and the bolt on mine but the a arm was fine).

I would upgrade the spindle and coil towers before the a arm. The UCA is another issue though.
Please correct me where I am wrong. My understanding of the TC stock width control arms was the UCA and LCA allow for 3" lift while retaining the OEM geometry and spindle location. (does that make sense?). Essentially, the arms are longer by enough to move the spindle to the OEM placement. I had thought of running Kings all the way around, and I'm looking for a set up that's capable, but comfortable on road, as well. As of now, I can visibly see how far inboard the lift has moved the spindle (tire). I am going to attempt to measure, but I bet the Procomp lift actually decreases the overall front width by at least an inch.
That being assumed, the TC kit would correct back to the OEM spindle location, more travel in the control arms (not by y'alls standards, per say) while allowing for longer shock.

I was attempting to retain some of the OEM handling characteristics, while maintaining the 3" lift, and without dramatically increasing the front track width. I'm on hold on the entire portion of the build, for now, trying to determine how best to do, based on intended usage and end result.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Ryan, your response ties into my question about your extended icon setup and whether that was getting the advertised travel numbers (see my build thread). The LCA joint may not be able to handle the angle that an extended travel coilover would put on it. Thats where they value in an LCA upgrade to the TC setup would be beneficial. That might allow you to get full travel out of an extended coilover.

I was curious to see if you knew what the limiting factor was on your previous setup and if you knew how much travel you were actually getting. That would be a good indication if that joint was an issue.
So does the rationale make sense to more than me? I knew what I wanted to accomplish, before I ever bought truck, and the only set up I've seen, that for the most part I'm basing this on, is TCao's early set up. I'm starting to lean towards the LT icon or TC kit (probably TC) but I keep hanging onto the idea that I want to maintain the OEM handling characteristics, on road. Looking for best way, without having a pile of suspension components in my garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,128 Posts
it is an obvious issue when you're running narrow tires on the FJ. But, it will be fairly stable on a highway with a wider track tire (11.5" - 12"+)... yeah it sounds weird but the tires are much more planted. The more common fixes are a wider rear end (currie) or spacers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,639 Posts
Please correct me where I am wrong. My understanding of the TC stock width control arms was the UCA and LCA allow for 3" lift while retaining the OEM geometry and spindle location. (does that make sense?). Essentially, the arms are longer by enough to move the spindle to the OEM placement.
Not quite sure if this makes sense. The main differences is the uniball joint vs. the OEM ball joint. Yes the TC arms run a spacer, but I don't think that puts everything in OEM geometry. You are lifting the vehicle so the geometry of the front suspension changes (increased CV angles, alignment will need to be done).

The advantages to a TC stock width arm are:

1. Lower uniball (should allow for greater angles at that joint than OEM) However, I don't know if that is normally the limiting factor on a suspension or not. If not then its more just a "cool thing" to look at.

2. Ability to add a bypass shock.

3. Fully boxed construction (although as hornsfan pointed out few if any people have busted and LCA). Does provide a built in skid though compared to the OEM arm.

However, for a price of $1600, you are well on your way to a LT kit that would offer more travel. Imo thats a more cost effective route and still doesn't make your vehicle too wide. However, if you don't want to go that route then the TC stock width arm is an option - just not really sure how much added value you get compared to the stock arm (Dual shock mount is obvious, but I'd be curious to see if that uniball enables more travel or if something else is the limiting factor).



As of now, I can visibly see how far inboard the lift has moved the spindle (tire). I am going to attempt to measure, but I bet the Procomp lift actually decreases the overall front width by at least an inch.
That being assumed, the TC kit would correct back to the OEM spindle location, more travel in the control arms (not by y'alls standards, per say) while allowing for longer shock.
I'm not familiar with the procomp lift, so I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you running an OEM UCA? TC LCA is stock width...nothing changes for your spindle mount really other than the spacer to accomodate the uniball. So I don't understand how you are saying you will get a correct spindle position and wider track width...its a bolt in replacement for stock.

You aren't going to fit a longer shock (unless you are calling the icon extended travel a longer shock?). The two mounting points (coilover bucket and shock bolt on LCA) are the same distance that they are on the OEM LCAs. Your UCA and LCA would still be limiting factors even if you fit a longer shock in. The 2" LT kit moves this mount point out a bit wider and allows you to run a longer shock to achieve more travel (as well as the upper and lower control arms).


So does the rationale make sense to more than me? I knew what I wanted to accomplish, before I ever bought truck, and the only set up I've seen, that for the most part I'm basing this on, is TCao's early set up. I'm starting to lean towards the LT icon or TC kit (probably TC) but I keep hanging onto the idea that I want to maintain the OEM handling characteristics, on road. Looking for best way, without having a pile of suspension components in my garage.
See my above response.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I took pics, measurements (at dealer, no less) and sketches, in an attempt to explain what I interpreted the TC shorties would do, ready to post, here.

After all that , I've since talked myself out of. There's TC kit on a 09 at local dealer, and it doesn't appear, based on several measurements, to address the issue of lift "pulling" the wheel assembly inboard, like I thought they would. Possibly if only 2" or less of lift, but then back to the reason we lift. Revisiting Tcao's early build, later, but I think he was only running a 2" front (King OEM replacements).

All this being said, I'm on board with LT, but so concerned that it will be a bottomless pit if money, with a pile of components that didn't work. This based on previous suspension set ups, and didn't have the experiences here, for review.

Here's the general gist of my primary goals.


1. Maintain an reasonable handling, on road. I bought this after wanting for twenty years, or more. I'm not dependent on for a daily driver, but I drive the crap out of it, cause I love to.

2. I'd rather remain relatively tame for the sake of other component failures. I've been through three frames on other build, because every modification for wider, taller shock, whatever, eventually pushes the failure point forward on all other components.

3. Based on priors, I'm sticking to same shocks, all the way around. I've never had different "brands" work together. Love Kings. Never owned a set, but I've seen Kings fluidity on LT buggies that blew me away, unlike the other offering in desert racing. Are the King's a mistake for this purpose? Not rock crawling, yet, not looking to meet the bounds of engineering.

So many options, and immediately you'd think just throw the money at the stage 8 kit in the baddest machined billet bling there is, but I'm a little reserved for that. I'm not so sure I won't get the king OEM series shocks on, and spend the next year planning this, with y'alls help, obviously.

Wow, back to the beginning. At least there's not a corresponding pile on used components accumulating in the garage.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
And to address the original title of this thread. I don't think that a +2 LT ca set up would be much wider than the rear track. Nor do I think it would matter, if it was. When going +4 on a quad, in all reality, you may actually increase the overall front track well beyond +4 depending on spring height. On these, it almost appears that the control arm is disproportionate, in relation to overall width of track, so I'm under the assumption that the additional ca length is a requirement to run any kind of lift.

Lifting any vehicle should require a longer control arm, to still maintain the original geometry intended, right?

Almost embarrassed of the Procomp lift I have now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,294 Posts
Ryan, your response ties into my question about your extended icon setup and whether that was getting the advertised travel numbers (see my build thread). The LCA joint may not be able to handle the angle that an extended travel coilover would put on it. Thats where they value in an LCA upgrade to the TC setup would be beneficial. That might allow you to get full travel out of an extended coilover.

I was curious to see if you knew what the limiting factor was on your previous setup and if you knew how much travel you were actually getting. That would be a good indication if that joint was an issue.
Seems to me that nothing gets advertised numbers. I did not measure everything and look for the weak link. I can tell you it was definately not the UCA. That Icon UCA provides more travel than you can handle.
 

·
Wanderlust
Joined
·
4,158 Posts
And to address the original title of this thread. I don't think that a +2 LT ca set up would be much wider than the rear track. Nor do I think it would matter, if it was. When going +4 on a quad, in all reality, you may actually increase the overall front track well beyond +4 depending on spring height. On these, it almost appears that the control arm is disproportionate, in relation to overall width of track, so I'm under the assumption that the additional ca length is a requirement to run any kind of lift.

Lifting any vehicle should require a longer control arm, to still maintain the original geometry intended, right?

Almost embarrassed of the Procomp lift I have now.
First, my apologies for digressing from the original topic. You're correct in your observation that for a given lower A arm length, as more preload is used to raise the front end, the front track gets narrower as the lower A arms are pushed down more. I looked up the 2011 FJC brochure and Toyota lists the front and rear tracks at 63.2"/63.6" on stock wheels and tires (obviously). For comparison, I measured my front track and it's 63.5" +/-1/8" with about 2" of front lift and OMF beadlock-converted TRD wheels (I measured the wheel backspace at 4.84"). As I'm sure you already know that as the lower A arms pivot up and down, the front track will vary slightly from the track dimension measured at static ride height (even with the short stock length A arms which is ~15 inches from frame pivot to lower Uniball pivot). IMO, other changes to the suspension will affect dynamic stability more than the small change in front track width (such as lift height or front and rear sway bar stiffness). For my particular setup, I only needed just enough lift to fit 33" tires (255/85R16) so I have ~2" front and ~1" rear lift and stay with OE geometry since I like to drive to fairly remote locations where getting factory replacement parts such as CV assemblies and tie rods would be a little easier than semi-custom parts (e.g. longer front CV assemblies and tie rods for the LT kits). As it is, my FJ is already too modified for reliable overland travel (but that's a topic for discussion for another thread). From you other posts, I would think that a lightly modified suspension would give you the ride quality and handling that you're looking for. For me, a lightly modified suspension would include height-adjustable front coilovers and larger rear shocks. The King OEM performance suspension kit gives the lowest lift unless you add longer (and stiffer) rear springs. I chose King because they were the first manufacturer to offer 2.5"-diameter front and rear shocks for the FJC and have stayed with King mostly out of loyalty and familiarity with this family-owned company. I prefer the larger shock body which usually comes with larger-diameter shock shaft (less likelihood of bending). I could have just easily gone with ICON having owned quite a few suspension parts from this company as well. Dylan Evans (ICON Chief Engineer and GM) is an incredibly sharp Mechanical Engineer with lots of hands-on experience in designing, building, and tuning suspension (who also won the 2007 Baja 250 in a Class 3 FJC). So, lightly-modified suspension = 2.5" coilovers + front UCA + 2.5" rear shocks + optional rear springs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
So, lightly-modified suspension = 2.5" coilovers + front UCA + 2.5" rear shocks + optional rear springs.

Well put, and advice (build mimic) already taken, for sure. If the OEM LCA's aren't an issue of suspension motion, or binding, and are as tough as others have expressed, then I'll run this set up, probably permanently, but at the very least, now. I had already planned on, in the immediate future, while deciphering the need to LT.

Chris Delancy
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top