another tire thread...ugh

FJBen

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
892
Apparently Toyo M/T's are on perpetual backorder...AT LEAST June...possibly later... :mad: makes me bitter...

Here's my other options...what do you think...I drive prolly around ~5K a year with this rig.

Goodyear MT/R 315/75R16
Trxus M/T 315/75R16
IROK radial 36X13.50X16
Nitto Mud Grappler 35X12.50X16 (strength of these tires?)


I'm lifting this weekend and would like to have some tires within a week or so lol...
thoughts?
 

wesintl

RS Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
8,565
Location
in da house
with only 5k... irok or truxus

swampers rule :)
 

Uncle Ben

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
14,144
Location
Northside
wesintl said:
with only 5k... irok or truxus

swampers rule :)

I agree totally! One question.....how much are you lifting it? Intercos are true size which means they will be 1.5"ish taller than 315's! The Trxus are also quiet and the Irocs are not but the Irocs do have better bite in the rocks.

Note: Trxus are 35x12.5x16 by the way, not 315/75R16
 

FJBen

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
892
I'm going to run 4" Slee front springs, and J rears for now...much akin to TYLERS setup.

I'm thinking the Iroks or the Trxxus...not sure which tho...I know the MT/R is a decent tire, justing looking at some other options.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
292
I wouldn't run bias Iroks on an 80. I ran them on my 40 and on the highway you could watch the rubber disappear. A local guy had them on his Blazer. He only got 13,000 miles out of them daily driving. I don't think they will fit on a stock 80 wheel with the lift you describe. I tried putting them on my 80 once. I run Js with a 1" spacer in the front. They completely filled the wheel well. No room for even a speedbump. They are fairly wide.

Joe Sommerville runs the 35" TRXus on his 80 and loves them. He's had them for quite awhile.

Another tire that is sort of neat is the Mickey Thompson MTZ Radial. It is new. My brother just bought some for his LX in a 315. I'm not sure how true to size they are. They were like $840 with shipping from National Wheel and Tire.

Did you try 4wheelparts for Toyos? Everyone else was out but they had them when I ordered mine about 2 months ago.
 

nakman

Club Secretary
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
14,576
Location
north side
I was looking at those Micky Thompson's last night, off a link on this same post on mud. They do look pretty good.. I forgot to see how heavy they were though, anyone know? The Toyos are about 90 pounds per tire right? Heavier than TRXus, IIRC... unless you're on 4.88's I think adding more tire weight would be an issue, oh yeah and with stopping too. :eek:
 

FJBen

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
892
I'll try 4whparts...as much as i hate to lol...see if they have them

Apparently TYLER on the board is running the radial IROK's on this setup, 4" coils up front, non-j's on the rear and clears them decently.

I noticed the toyo's were definitely heavier but that sounds like a good thing to me. I'll be gearing next year....not to mention my last rig was definitely on the slow side...I don't think this could compare....28:1 crawl ratio??? :D

Maybe I'll just drive around in circles lifted with 285's to look goofy til some tires come in ! :thumb:
 

Nay

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
900
FJBen said:
I'll try 4whparts...as much as i hate to lol...see if they have them

Apparently TYLER on the board is running the radial IROK's on this setup, 4" coils up front, non-j's on the rear and clears them decently.

I noticed the toyo's were definitely heavier but that sounds like a good thing to me. I'll be gearing next year....not to mention my last rig was definitely on the slow side...I don't think this could compare....28:1 crawl ratio??? :D

Maybe I'll just drive around in circles lifted with 285's to look goofy til some tires come in ! :thumb:

Tyler does have the 36" IROKs on his rig...he is actually just running OME heavy in the rear, I believe, and he has 1.25" wheel spacers, which I think you'll need. I think they took off 3" of up travel (lowered bumpstops) to keep the tires from rubbing, so he probably doesn't have more than 3" up...which is on the low side (I think 4" - 4.5" is a min for a crawler). Just remember that Tyler doesn't wheel :D

I think that a 36x13.5 is going to get you thinking about some stuff that is out of the box on an 80. You'd end up wanting to increase down travel due to the up travel restrictions, and then you are dealing with dropping coils off the tower, so they'd need to at least be restrained on the axle end, and maybe you start thinking a lower base spring rate on a longer spring and then you are into custom springs and they always screw up custom springs...

I haven't tested this personally, but it is my belief that the reason Slee uses the OME L shock on both his 4" and 6" kit is because with a higher spring rate coil you have a shorter coil at static height...and therefore it comes off the tower more quickly and you can't easily compensate for the lost up travel with extra down. So even with more lift, we only see additional up travel. The 80 just has relatively short coils to support that much weight, and that complicates suspension design substantially. In other words, these kits are road use biased.

I am hoping to see a more advanced coil solution on the market in the next few weeks to allow us to really push the tire sizes while properly balancing up and down travel...but on a straight Slee 4" with OME L's I think you'll be better off with a 35x12.5...

Nay
 

FJBen

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
892
:thumb: good post...

I agree that the 36's are prolly gonna be overpowering the 4" suspension setup. 90% sure I'm goin' Trxxus. I know that the front ends are really the "stumbling" block so to say with the flex in the 80's.

I've been reading the thread in mud til I can't see straight about improving the flex in 80's...and my main question is....How badly do they need it???

Seems you have a few options:

A: 3 Link the front, prolly most expensive but by far solves all flex issues...

B: Pulling a bolt/hitch pin on one of the front control arm mounts...helps flex a little more, but at the expense of what? any deterioation of driveability? wear?

C. Flipping the arms to the top....not sure what this gains exactly, more clearance, possibly less bind if you build different brackets that allow more side/side/twist of the bushings....or add johhny joints/similar?

I guess my real question is, at this point...how may of you feel limited on the trails you are doing by your front flex?
 

nakman

Club Secretary
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
14,576
Location
north side
I guess my real question is, at this point...how may of you feel limited on the trails you are doing by your front flex?

Not I.. just twist the dial, point & shoot.
 

Uncle Ben

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
14,144
Location
Northside
FJBen said:
:thumb: good post...

I agree that the 36's are prolly gonna be overpowering the 4" suspension setup. 90% sure I'm goin' Trxxus. I know that the front ends are really the "stumbling" block so to say with the flex in the 80's.

I've been reading the thread in mud til I can't see straight about improving the flex in 80's...and my main question is....How badly do they need it???

Seems you have a few options:

A: 3 Link the front, prolly most expensive but by far solves all flex issues...

B: Pulling a bolt/hitch pin on one of the front control arm mounts...helps flex a little more, but at the expense of what? any deterioation of driveability? wear?

C. Flipping the arms to the top....not sure what this gains exactly, more clearance, possibly less bind if you build different brackets that allow more side/side/twist of the bushings....or add johhny joints/similar?

I guess my real question is, at this point...how may of you feel limited on the trails you are doing by your front flex?

Your asking yourself the right questions! 80's are extremely capable and can do most anything you can throw at them. Mine will never see suspension alterations on a large scale as it's not what I need it to do. I need a dual purpose rig that looks good, I can drive the family ANYWHERE in comfort, and fortunately it is more capable than I need it to be! (and yes it plays the hard core game just fine!) I also have my very modified 40 for the trails that I WILL NOT take my 80 on! If your gonna build an 80 as a hard core rig sacraficing some of its highway comfort then start with a 93 or 94 as it's much cheaper, has the lowergeared 442 tranny, no airbags and you can even find one with the econo cloth seat package! Just my :twocents:
 

FJBen

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
892
I think you've nailed it. My 80 will go many more places than my 55 would go. I'm not one for beating up/bashing a rig so I really don't take into account that I could smash my 55 up.

I got some ramp pics of my modded 55 and my stock 80 and they close to the same. (obviously the trail is a whole nother story) I'm sure my 80 will take me more places than I want to go. So i just need to strap on some tires and enjoy!

That little dial sure is fun...
 

Nay

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
900
Don't read that Mud thread on travel. There is no useful information at all other than theory on what makes a suspension travel more, and about 8 pages of information on arm travel arc, all of which you would accomodate with adjustable arms. ;)

I don't think it is worth messing with the front end on an 80, and that is not because it couldn't use more travel, and more importantly, a cure for the "unloading" that occurs on steep climbs with radius arms. I think the unloading gets worse on taller lifts...Robbie had posted that he was unable to get up the left line on the "waterfall" in his 6" lifted 80, and it wasn't because of clearance, but the unloading (felt as a "dropping out") of the front suspension putting all the traction requirement to the rear.

For me, it comes down to the suitability of the 80 on the kind of trails that need both dual lockers and that kind of flex. You run those trails, and you are gonna mangle the body over time. First you do the 3-link, and then you do an exo cage, and then you end up cutting off the top behind the 2nd row, taking 2 feet off the total length, and you've used an 80 platform as a buggy base and spent a fortune doing it.

The big advantage the 80 has is the ability to slap on big tires on a small lift. I'll be running 35's on a 2.5" lift...that's nothing but springs, shocks, shock eye adapters, and bumpstops for a dual locked rig on 35's, and about 4" up travel and 6" down (the front won't use all of that down travel). If you notice the bigger lift kits on the market...they really don't give you anything else but more lift (same shocks mounted in the same place means all the lift does is shift travel from down to up).

Nothing strictly wrong with this, but it points out to me that the 80 is a beast out of the box, but a difficult platform to grow substantially in terms of raw performance. In many ways, the 80 is what it is, and if you want to alter that, you are probably getting outside of the reasonable usage expectations (this is fundamentally true of most "SUV's" no matter how much $$$ we throw at them), which is why we have the most fun keeping it relatively simple and just wheeling.

Because of all of this, I am going to focus on gaining approach/depature angle clearance with bumpers built for this purpose, and trimming where I need it, rather than more lift or attempting to engineer significantly more travel. Once you take the plastic off on an 80 you realize that even on 2.5" of lift it has huge approach/depature clearance potential if you are willing to trim up the frame a bit...the body clearance is actually quite excellent. Breakover angle will just have to be driver competence and those bigger tires :D

That was a lot more than you were asking :thumb:

Nay
 

Uncle Ben

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
14,144
Location
Northside
FJBen said:
:thumb: good post...

I agree that the 36's are prolly gonna be overpowering the 4" suspension setup. 90% sure I'm goin' Trxxus. I know that the front ends are really the "stumbling" block so to say with the flex in the 80's.

I've been reading the thread in mud til I can't see straight about improving the flex in 80's...and my main question is....How badly do they need it???

Seems you have a few options:

A: 3 Link the front, prolly most expensive but by far solves all flex issues...

B: Pulling a bolt/hitch pin on one of the front control arm mounts...helps flex a little more, but at the expense of what? any deterioation of driveability? wear?

C. Flipping the arms to the top....not sure what this gains exactly, more clearance, possibly less bind if you build different brackets that allow more side/side/twist of the bushings....or add johhny joints/similar?

I guess my real question is, at this point...how may of you feel limited on the trails you are doing by your front flex?

Your asking yourself the right questions! 80's are extremely capable and can do most anything you can throw at them. Mine will never see suspension alterations on a large scale as it's not what I need it to do. I need a dual purpose rig that looks good, I can drive the family ANYWHERE in comfort, and fortunately it is more capable than I need it to be! (and yes it plays the hard core game just fine!) I also have my very modified 40 for the trails that I WILL NOT take my 80 on! If your gonna build an 80 as a hard core rig sacraficing some of its highway comfort then start with a 93 or 94 as it's much cheaper, has the lowergeared 442 tranny, no airbags and you can even find one with the econo cloth seat package! Just my :twocents:
 
Top