Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
My question is what do you want the lift for?

Your FJ is already a very capable off-road vehicle, if you’re looking at enhancing those capabilities the 3 inch is the perfect fit.

The 6 inch sounds like your wanting the look not functionality.

I've driven 4 wheel drive vehicle since I was 14 years old, the FJ is by far the most capable production 4 wheel drive I've ever driven. Stock my FJ has taken me over trails and obstacles I would have never attempted in any of the other vehicles I've owned.

IMHO the 3 inch lift put the FJ right where it needs to be it gains enough GC to allow negotiation of the more difficult obstacles. For a capable daily driver I would not go higher than the 3 inch. I would say that if you looking for more off-road capabilities than you can get out of a 3 inch lift, you need to be building a specialty vehicle. Which equals lots more $$$$.

Again just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
ok, thanks for all the feedback.

i guess i didnt make it clear that this is not for off-roading, i will do some light off-roading, mostly mudding and some trips with my local 4x4 club.

mainly, i dont have time to even travel to do good trails so no point really making it super off-road capable.

I'm 16 so lift is so i can fit 35's and it looks good and its different from mostly everybodies FJ.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
I just want to put this out there. The whole endeavor is starting to sound like a really bad idea.

Mudding requires high torque, wide open throttle, and wheel spin.

Lifting an IFS vehicle puts additional angle into the joints of the front CV axle. This wastes torque and increases material strain. You get less torque to the wheel and you start breaking stuff.

Fitting 35" wheels is a bit of a trick, but it can be done. The key isn't the lift, it's the ability to modify the wheel well. If you lift without changing the lower control arm's mounting position, you'll still rub the tire in the stock wheel well when you approach full stuff.

35" tires break CV axles even when the angles aren't overdone. I'd be very concerned about the frequency you'd be breaking them if you did some sort of non-engineered home fab IFS design, you ran 35's and then went mudding. You really couldn't do more to kill CV axles unless you applied heat directly to the joint.

You can't paint wings on your FJC and fly it as an airplane. You also can't put boggers on it and use it as a tractor. It is what it is. If you want it to be something different then it is, you can change it, but you've got to pay to play. You're going to be really disappointed when you try to cobble some crap together and expect it to still run like a Toyota.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
I just want to put this out there. The whole endeavor is starting to sound like a really bad idea.

Mudding requires high torque, wide open throttle, and wheel spin.

Lifting an IFS vehicle puts additional angle into the joints of the front CV axle. This wastes torque and increases material strain. You get less torque to the wheel and you start breaking stuff.

Fitting 35" wheels is a bit of a trick, but it can be done. The key isn't the lift, it's the ability to modify the wheel well. If you lift without changing the lower control arm's mounting position, you'll still rub the tire in the stock wheel well when you approach full stuff.

35" tires break CV axles even when the angles aren't overdone. I'd be very concerned about the frequency you'd be breaking them if you did some sort of non-engineered home fab IFS design, you ran 35's and then went mudding. You really couldn't do more to kill CV axles unless you applied heat directly to the joint.

You can't paint wings on your FJC and fly it as an airplane. You also can't put boggers on it and use it as a tractor. It is what it is. If you want it to be something different then it is, you can change it, but you've got to pay to play. You're going to be really disappointed when you try to cobble some crap together and expect it to still run like a Toyota.

I think your thinking about like "hardcore" muddin.

i dont think we are on the same page

around where i live all the highschool guys go in like fields and creeks and dig some small tranches or find muddy spots to go through

its not the whole 40" tires going through 3 feet of mud
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,954 Posts
ok, thanks for all the feedback.

i guess i didnt make it clear that this is not for off-roading, i will do some light off-roading, mostly mudding and some trips with my local 4x4 club.

mainly, i dont have time to even travel to do good trails so no point really making it super off-road capable.

I'm 16 so lift is so i can fit 35's and it looks good and its different from mostly everybodies FJ.
:cheers: You made it perfectly clear as to your intentions...I have a drop suspension 6" lift and the fact is that you can run 35" tires without changing the geometry of the CV angles. I have seen coil overs that are adjusted way to far down that pushes the suspension down creating a major angle on the CV's. These lifts including OME coil lifts change the CV angles and create more stress. Bigger tires above all will create more stress on all your componets...and with coil overs or bigger coils with bigger tires you have a greater chance of breaking things.

Some say the COG is so bad on a 6" lift compared to a 3" lift...I say B.S.

I believe a wider stance thru bigger wider tires and wheel spacers can make up the difference for the COG issues when lifting your truck.....besides the fact that 35's will not be a issue with a 6"lift compared to a 3" lift.

It's a fact...you add larger diameter tires that are heavier than stock snd sooner or later...things will wear out faster than stock.

The debate will go on and on....just folllow me on the trails and see what you can do with it! :rocker:

I go most places that most can't...no it's not a rock crawler... but it is exceptional in deep mud and water and on loose sandy trails :cheers:then again that's what it's intended use is... :cheers:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,793 Posts
Some say the COG is so bad on a 6" lift compared to a 3" lift...I say B.S.

I believe a wider stance thru bigger wider tires and wheel spacers can make up the difference for the COG issues when lifting your truck.....besides the fact that 35's will not be a issue with a 6"lift compared to a 3" lift.
How can you say that it is BS?

Lifting more than 80% of the vehicles weight 3 inches higher is without a doubt raising the COG. I say 80% as a rough estimate because the wheels have not gone higher an the rear axle is at the same height as well.

I agree that a wider stance via wider tires can make a vehicle more stable, but 35x12.50s can be ran with a 3" lift. There are tons of guys doing it. Body mount chop, different UCA, and you can do this with the 3" lift.

I have also seen on more than one occasion on the trails a vehicle with a 6" lift be more tippy through an obstacle than a vehicle with a 3" lift taking an identical line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,185 Posts
I'm sure people have plenty of fun wit 6" lifts, but In my estimation, they're primarily for looks and only secondarily for wheeling. Even then, it's because some customers would demand that they not hobble suspension performance, while many others would buy them for looks and never notice.

The point is, nobody's ever posted up any facts beyond customer satisfaction testimonials, and since there are obvious system concerns, it's up to the people professing their effectiveness to put up the data. Maybe it's out there, but I haven't seen it.

The height of the center of gravity is one of the most important determinants of linked suspension behavior, regardless of whether or not increased height is an increased risk for flops. If you raise it up 3", the rear lower links are now at a steeper angle, then the antisquat and the roll axis have both been significantly altered. If the roll axis now has a positive inclination (I don't know that it has, but I suspect this), then you'll have gone from a balance seeking to a balance shunning link behavior.

From what I understand, if the roll axis runs "downhill", then the chassis will tend to self-right in the same way that a refrigerator door closes. On a fridge, the hinge mechanism actually lifts the door as it swings out so that gravity bringing it back down tends to swing it back closed. The same is true of a well designed link suspension. Gravity tends to center it.

If the roll axis goes uphill, then the opposite is true. The low points are at the ends of the swing and the high point is in the middle. It tends to seek a leaning state and requires mechanical opposition.

Also, the steeper the rear links at ride height, the more there's an effect of rear steer. When the axle goes into twist, the wheel that goes low also hinges forward while the wheel that goes high, swings back. This changes the direction the tires are pointing, relative to the long axis of the vehicle. They start to steer.

The FJ Cruiser doesn't have a lot of suspension movement, and most of it's twist capability happens with rear suspension articulation while the body tends to parallel the angles of the driving surface that the front suspension is on. Because of this, the rear suspension geometry is even more important... and almost completely overlooked when people start talking about suspension kits.

I've never once seen anyone use link calcs to evaluate the kits that they think are so great. That would probably put a lot of this ongoing blah blah blah to rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I'm sure people have plenty of fun wit 6" lifts, but In my estimation, they're primarily for looks and only secondarily for wheeling. Even then, it's because some customers would demand that they not hobble suspension performance, while many others would buy them for looks and never notice.

The point is, nobody's ever posted up any facts beyond customer satisfaction testimonials, and since there are obvious system concerns, it's up to the people professing their effectiveness to put up the data. Maybe it's out there, but I haven't seen it.

The height of the center of gravity is one of the most important determinants of linked suspension behavior, regardless of whether or not increased height is an increased risk for flops. If you raise it up 3", the rear lower links are now at a steeper angle, then the antisquat and the roll axis have both been significantly altered. If the roll axis now has a positive inclination (I don't know that it has, but I suspect this), then you'll have gone from a balance seeking to a balance shunning link behavior.

From what I understand, if the roll axis runs "downhill", then the chassis will tend to self-right in the same way that a refrigerator door closes. On a fridge, the hinge mechanism actually lifts the door as it swings out so that gravity bringing it back down tends to swing it back closed. The same is true of a well designed link suspension. Gravity tends to center it.

If the roll axis goes uphill, then the opposite is true. The low points are at the ends of the swing and the high point is in the middle. It tends to seek a leaning state and requires mechanical opposition.

Also, the steeper the rear links at ride height, the more there's an effect of rear steer. When the axle goes into twist, the wheel that goes low also hinges forward while the wheel that goes high, swings back. This changes the direction the tires are pointing, relative to the long axis of the vehicle. They start to steer.

The FJ Cruiser doesn't have a lot of suspension movement, and most of it's twist capability happens with rear suspension articulation while the body tends to parallel the angles of the driving surface that the front suspension is on. Because of this, the rear suspension geometry is even more important... and almost completely overlooked when people start talking about suspension kits.

I've never once seen anyone use link calcs to evaluate the kits that they think are so great. That would probably put a lot of this ongoing blah blah blah to rest.
Finally! Was waiting to see that said.

Again as stated its what you intend on doing with your lift. But again be careful if you do a 6" lift with 35's I've seen people snap CC axles simply from goin off a red light in town because their CC axle angle is too tight.

Honestly if you want a reliable life that will give you the looks and the functionality while being strong and reliable... do the total chaos 2" extension system with the 4340 axles and extended links. You'll have the looks and never have to worry about breaking something. You wont get 6 inch but you can do this... gives 4" lift plus if you get the bushwhackers fender flares it'll definitely look like you've got a freakin one foot lift... plus no other fj will have anything on you then.

If it were me, I'd save a bit more and go total chaos.... you can't go wrong with it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Finally! Was waiting to see that said.

Again as stated its what you intend on doing with your lift. But again be careful if you do a 6" lift with 35's I've seen people snap CC axles simply from goin off a red light in town because their CC axle angle is too tight.

Honestly if you want a reliable life that will give you the looks and the functionality while being strong and reliable... do the total chaos 2" extension system with the 4340 axles and extended links. You'll have the looks and never have to worry about breaking something. You wont get 6 inch but you can do this... gives 4" lift plus if you get the bushwhackers fender flares it'll definitely look like you've got a freakin one foot lift... plus no other fj will have anything on you then.

If it were me, I'd save a bit more and go total chaos.... you can't go wrong with it


i would love that option but getting $2500 at 16 years old isnt exactly easy and not worth it.
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top