What's new
By:
Filters

The 4xFordYota Franken-Fine Axles!

mobil1syn said:
with a little modification i bet that could be cut out of tube in a laser, so it folds and self fixtures. easy money
Click to expand...
I despise fabricating, but I am cheap so that forces me to build stuff myself. I did a simple frame chop, but I probably would have bought a kit like this if it were available. Especially if the steering box mount was incorporated, I still have PTSD from building mine.
 
That width is retarded, plain and simple :lmao:

Guessing he will be searching out deep backspace wheels after a few trips of hanging up on every rock and tree on the trail.

But remember, he's not here for our suggestions :flipoff2:
 
For the cost of that axle couldn't you just put won tons on it? Looks like the same width if not wider. Also TLDR the other 11 pages
 
willis_racing said:
Everyone who's ever put wontons in a Toyota is a retard, interesting take :flipoff2:
Click to expand...

You serious? That's like a foot wider than my 4runner was with 60s. I had 38x14.50s and could still fit between car trailer fenders at 83" but I used 4.75" bs wheels.

This thing is going to need wide load signs and permits to be hauled :flipoff2:
 
YotaAtieToo said:
You serious? That's like a foot wider than my 4runner was with 60s. I had 38x14.50s and could still fit between car trailer fenders at 83" but I used 4.75" bs wheels.
Click to expand...
The only time he appears to directly mention front WMS in the thread was edited in on post 1, which he said was 71.875" so I was running under the assumption that he didn't deviate from that. Other than his "15" wider" comment, which if I translate that to my IFS width truck's dimensions puts him at what, a 77" WMS? In that case I openly admit to being big retard. (as if my window licking status isn't already obvious to most members)

YotaAtieToo said:
This thing is going to need wide load signs and permits to be hauled :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
How does CHP feel about car haulers with no rub rails or fenders driving around hauling trucks with Birthin' Hips™? :lmao:
 
willis_racing said:
The only time he appears to directly mention front WMS in the thread was edited in on post 1, which he said was 71.875" so I was running under the assumption that he didn't deviate from that. Other than his "15" wider" comment, which if I translate that to my IFS width truck's dimensions puts him at what, a 77" WMS? In that case I openly admit to being big retard. (as if my window licking status isn't already obvious to most members)


How does CHP feel about car haulers with no rub rails or fenders driving around hauling trucks with Birthin' Hips™? :lmao:
Click to expand...

As long as he's under 102" outside tire to outside tire, he's cool as far as the DOT is concerned. IMO Outside tire width should be 1.9-2.1X tire diameter.
 
willis_racing said:
The only time he appears to directly mention front WMS in the thread was edited in on post 1, which he said was 71.875" so I was running under the assumption that he didn't deviate from that. Other than his "15" wider" comment, which if I translate that to my IFS width truck's dimensions puts him at what, a 77" WMS? In that case I openly admit to being big retard. (as if my window licking status isn't already obvious to most members)


How does CHP feel about car haulers with no rub rails or fenders driving around hauling trucks with Birthin' Hips™? :lmao:
Click to expand...

I'm guessing 15" wider means track width.

Either way, it's too much for most trails imo. I just spent the 2 weeks running rubicon, Fordyce and other similar trails at roughly 80" outside front and 76" rear. There were lots of lines that were semi tight. I can't imagine another foot or so without massive tires. Even then, I've seen guys on 44s struggle to get a good line because of being so wide and having to drive over huge rocks everyone else fits between.
 
Why the custom frame only to have oil pan/panhard interference stop you? Clearance the pan, 3/4 or flat pitman and gain more uptravel.

I feel like someone tossed a wallet at this and said I want this but didn't really think things through.
 
94toytruck said:
Why the custom frame only to have oil pan/panhard interference stop you? Clearance the pan, 3/4 or flat pitman and gain more uptravel.
Click to expand...

I guess you have to stop somewhere. My 4runner had custom frame, but left the oil pan alone.

i was wondering about the pitman arm also, but then it seemed like it may not be a limiting factor and would provide a better angle at ride hieght?

94toytruck said:
I feel like someone tossed a wallet at this and said I want this but didn't really think things through, posted his shit plan, then got butthurt when people made suggestions.
Click to expand...

Fify :flipoff2:
 
Slander said:
I despise fabricating, but I am cheap so that forces me to build stuff myself. I did a simple frame chop, but I probably would have bought a kit like this if it were available. Especially if the steering box mount was incorporated, I still have PTSD from building mine.
Click to expand...
now thats funny. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

and to me the building and fabbing part i like as much or more than actually using.
 
Bebop said:
That's awfully narrow.
Click to expand...

True, depends on the use case. That range is based on my observations for what works well for technical rock crawling with the narrow side of that range being more cone dodging oriented and the higher end being more trail car oriented. Obviously SRRS and Ultra4 guys are more like 2.1-2.4X tire size.
 
There is a super narrow range that you can apply this formula to.

Doesn't work for yotas on 35s, doesn't work for U4 buggies, doesn't work for one ton rigs etc.

It's really for cone dodgers.

But that's an interresting thought. I've never thought about tire size vs width.
 
Bebop said:
There is a super narrow range that you can apply this formula to.

Doesn't work for yotas on 35s, doesn't work for U4 buggies, doesn't work for one ton rigs etc.

It's really for cone dodgers.

But that's an interresting thought. I've never thought about tire size vs width.
Click to expand...

Measure a yota on 35's lately? I'd bet you'd be surprised. My TJ is on 35s and is 72 inches wide, just at the top of that range. My buggy on 39's at 82" is also within that range.

It's almost comical how nimble the TJ feels at 96" wheelbase and 72" wide.
 
I think most of my rigs fall into that as well, almost perfectly 2x

Sami on 32s on 64" wide

1ton 4runner on 42s was about 84" wide

Toyota on 38s is 80" wide front 76" rear
 
crazybluerider said:
Measure a yota on 35's lately? I'd bet you'd be surprised. My TJ is on 35s and is 72 inches wide, just at the top of that range. My buggy on 39's at 82" is also within that range.

It's almost comical how nimble the TJ feels at 96" wheelbase and 72" wide.
Click to expand...
Back when I rode quads all the time a buddy of mine had a 400ex, lowered with 3" wheel spacers. It looked almost square. He could sidehill and rainbow a hill, stopping perpendicular to the grade no matter how steep. Didn't seem to matter what dumb thing he did you could not flip it sideways or roll it, plus it always seemed to find traction.

Thick tree stands would stop him pretty easily though:laughing:
 
YotaAtieToo said:
I think most of my rigs fall into that as well, almost perfectly 2x

Sami on 32s on 64" wide

1ton 4runner on 42s was about 84" wide

Toyota on 38s is 80" wide front 76" rear
Click to expand...
How do you get a 1 ton rig on 42s to be 84" wide ?
5" BS wheels ?

My shit is 72" WMS and 91/92" wide.
 
Bebop said:
How do you get a 1 ton rig on 42s to be 84" wide ?
5" BS wheels ?

My shit is 72" WMS and 91/92" wide.
Click to expand...

I am going to be running an '07 Superduty 60 in the front of my buggy (72" WMS as you know) with 15" wide 42" tires on -20mm offset wheels, so on paper, it should be 88.575" wide which is a 2.11 ratio; just outside the range I posted. I would have preferred to be closer to 85-86" wide, but I went with cheap wheels which had less backspacing. With 5" backspacing and the same wheel width, I would be just over 87" on paper. Obviously tire width plays a big part too. If I ran 42" K-specs, that would bring me down to just over 87" with my same wheels, or about 85.5" in the hypothetical 5" backspacing scenario.

Both of my Bronco IIs fell into the 1.9-2.1 range as well, one on 37" tires and 74.5" wide (2.01) and the other with 38.5" tires at 81" wide (2.1).

Bebop said:
But that's an interresting thought. I've never thought about tire size vs width.
Click to expand...

I've thought about posting a thread on the best proportions for a rig based on tire size (wheel base, outside tire width, belly height, tire width, and wheel size), but I haven't since my ranges are based on very technical rock crawling. However, I have noticed trends that seem to apply from RC crawlers, to full bodied rigs, all the way to the highest level rock buggies.
 
'84 Bronco II said:
I am going to be running an '07 Superduty 60 in the front of my buggy (72" WMS as you know) with 15" wide 42" tires on -20mm offset wheels, so on paper, it should be 88.575" wide which is a 2.11 ratio; just outside the range I posted. I would have preferred to be closer to 85-86" wide, but I went with cheap wheels which had less backspacing. With 5" backspacing and the same wheel width, I would be just over 87" on paper. Obviously tire width plays a big part too. If I ran 42" K-specs, that would bring me down to just over 87" with my same wheels, or about 85.5" in the hypothetical 5" backspacing scenario.

Both of my Bronco IIs fell into the 1.9-2.1 range as well, one on 37" tires and 74.5" wide (2.01) and the other with 38.5" tires at 81" wide (2.1).



I've thought about posting a thread on the best proportions for a rig based on tire size (wheel base, outside tire width, belly height, tire width, and wheel size), but I haven't since my ranges are based on very technical rock crawling. However, I have noticed trends that seem to apply from RC crawlers, to full bodied rigs, all the way to the highest level rock buggies.
Click to expand...
Do it

Do it

Do it

:shocked:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh