Any merit to running radius arms up front?

[Cebby]

Any merit to running radius arms up front?

I remember talk about this eons ago (mainly with Cheese), but don't recall why (or if) this idea was dismissed as lunacy.

I would think that this would permit a fairly low COG due to the potential compactness of the setup with the benefit of keeping wheels on the ground through the tough stuff and the strength of a built axle.

Thought would be FJ60/62 front since a mini axle would be narrow to mount such a setup.

Any thoughts on this? I'm considering alternatives to leafs since I would get some considerable axle wrap with V8 power on tap.

[sschaefer3]

FJ60/62 leafs won't wrap as long as they are sprung under.

http://www.sonoransteel.com/GoldenCrack_003.jpg

This is NOT the Golden Crack everyone does. This is the upper crack that NO One does.

You'll have alot of horse power, but the FJ60/62's motor is all torque.

Mark Mason back in 2001 built that radius arm 4Runner/Buggy and Jay K did an article on it in 4WD & Sport Utility Magazine. Mark told me not to bother, it was not any better than leafs, they copied an early Bronco.

If you want coils, build the standard links. Christo Slee also told me the 80 front end was not very good and I should just use leaf springs. I listened to him and did.

Built it once and it is still the same as it was when I got done in early 2005, not going to change either.

[Cebby]

I'd guess that the 1UZ and 2F (?) are similar in the TQ department. The 1UZ is rated 250 hp and 250 ft lbs of torque. Mine is likely slightly higher since it's a JDM motor.

The radius arms are alot of extra fab work that I'd rather avoid if possible. Spring under will keep things nice and low. The plan is for 35's with trimmed fenders and tubbed firewall. Do you think it would be possible to spring under the rear as well with the stock 4Runner rear (w/Chromos)? I'd probably move the tank to the rear stock spare location at this point also.

Steve - since you have intimate knowledge of the FJ60/62 axle, do you think the stock SR5 alloy wheels off of your beast rockin' the 28's would clear the steering/brakes on the FJ60/62 axle? I'd hate to give up my beadlocks - I really wanted to go for a pseudo-ish stock appearance.

[sschaefer3]

Wheels will work on the 62 axle, 91 and 92 FJ-80's ran them.

I can locate Mark Mason and get you a phone number if you want. He's in Wyoming these days.

Use FJ-62 leafs that is a 3F by the way.

Sure, I sprung under mine and Joshes. You can still get all those brackets from the 60/62 from Toyota, all factory brackets and then get the Old Man Emu pins and shackles, but that is where I would end it with them.

Bilstein 5150's are great with Alcan leafs. You tell me how high you want to go and I'll tell you what leaf to order and it will be dead on.

With a 60/62 front axle with a 9" diff, why not get a Dimaond with a rear Cruiser 9" as well. Remember that all old FJ axles are offset. A Ford 9" would make a real nice centered rear.

[Cebby]

That's good news on the wheels!

I remembered the offset in the FJ rear axles from our prior convos. I had typed then deleted a few other thoughts on the rear:

Was wondering about a narrowed Tundra axle, or maybe a diamond with a Ford 9 or Tundra chunk. If going diamond, I'd see no reasons to skimp in the chunk at that point. Hell, might make more sense to do Ford 9's front and rear in Diamonds.

The big question - are the Diamonds or Tundra rears full floaters?

Oh, excuse my ignorance - who's Mark Mason?

[Cebby]

Thought about things for a few minutes and realized that anything of this magnitude will likely be done in baby steps.

1st Phase would be to hang a SUA front axle - likely an FJ with an ARB. Convert my existing rear with ARB into a full floaters with the FROR chromos and either drive flanges or chromo hub gears.

2nd Phase would be to SUA the existing rear axle and move the tank

3rd Phase (as stuff starts breaking) would be to replace the rear axle with something that will accept a beefier 3rd.

Seems sort of logical to me...

[neliconcept]

I read from the newest issue of toyorta 4wd owners that the donahoe racing FJ cruiser was using the ford 9 inch rear for its racing. I think that would probablly be the right width, but of course I dont know to an extent, just web wheeling the article.

[Cebby]

I read from the newest issue of toyorta 4wd owners that the donahoe racing FJ cruiser was using the ford 9 inch rear for its racing. I think that would probablly be the right width, but of course I dont know to an extent, just web wheeling the article.

My guess is that it's some special narrowed Currie housing. Those guys are a staple in racing circles.

[neliconcept]

I read from the newest issue of toyorta 4wd owners that the donahoe racing FJ cruiser was using the ford 9 inch rear for its racing. I think that would probablly be the right width, but of course I dont know to an extent, just web wheeling the article.

My guess is that it's some special narrowed Currie housing. Those guys are a staple in racing circles.

yup i think so, they did end up going TC LT front end so it may be on line with that which is basically I think 7 inchs in width difference overall. I guess you are running the front 85 axle in yours?

[Cheese]

First, on axles, there is Diamond and everything else. After you go through cost and hassle to get a stocker cleaned, prepped and redone, versus a fabbed housing, you will get onboard. I haev bought 3 so far.

Christo just built a 100 with 80 series arms. It depends on the situation.

Reason not to? Mostly a flex thing, it is impressive which is why people do it, put on a panhard, be a ramp champ and call it good.

A real 3 link with panhard will street and flex better.

I have not yet wheeled my junk hard, but the light stuff I can feel the front leaves wrap and hop, you are making even more power with the same gearing...