Any 6" lifts with don't require cutting crossmember

they will help if u want to crank the coilovers up. if u do however do not go over 2" as then u are going to wreck your cv joints and rack and pinion. cranking them up a lot also gives u a much shittier ride.

 

Very much true

 

hey are you 4x4 or prerunner because if you are 2wd then you can get a coilover/3inch lift and spindles and you could go to 6 inches not having to cut anything, and on the back you can do aal or blocks (aal reccomonded)

 

OK I'm going to jump in here and a) pose some questions, and b) see if I can't start a debate on the merits of 6" vs 3" from a slightly different angle.

I was almost set to get the 3" varieties not long ago, swayed a lot by people here saying "you gain more ground clearance with a 3", drop bracket lowers your clearance, 6" is just for looks…" but I'm not convinced anymore that it's really true. To you 3" lift owners, I posit it this way:

Can you crawl over a log that's ¾ or more the height of your tire? can you even APPROACH a log that size? I read someone's rationale for the 6" being "better" off-road and it made a lot of sense to me, and now I'm almost back at square one trying to figure out which is "actually" better for off-road purposes.

Because let's be honest, you don't crawl over a log long-ways, right? so does it MATTER how much ground clearance you have BETWEEN the front tires? Because they *SHOULD* be hitting the obstacle at more or less the same time, which means any ground clearance gains between the front tires is moot anyway, since it's all above the obstacle at more-or-less the same time. No, what's more important is the ground clearance between the front and rear tires, and entry/exit angles, which a 6" lift gives you much better of all of those.

And let's throw another wrench in the 3" gears here: Let's assume that either lift you're going to maintain a maximum 33" tire size. 3" lift people say "you gain more ground clearance!" without mentioning it's *only* between the front tires, possibly the least-important place to have it, and neglect to realize that the differential in the rear — that will be following the track of the front wherever it goes — is still the same exact distance off the ground, 3" or 6", right? So using that lift/ground clearance logic, you don't gain ANY ground clearance over a 6" lift it would seem in actuality then, right? I mean, you're gaining this clearance on only HALF the truck, but you can't off-road only that half, so any obstacles you encounter with the front you're going to have to lift the solid axle over too, which means, you'll have to take them in a line in such that the 3" between the front tires becomes useless, the only true USEFUL ground clearance gains are, again, entry/exit angles, & additional clearance from front to rear axle.

What I mean is, if you're going to flaunt this magical increased ground clearance (BETWEEN the front tires) as being superior, in what circumstance? I mean, what, are you going to clear the log long-ways? nope. Because your axle didn't magically gain any ground clearance at all, so you're STILL not going anywhere a 6" lift wouldn't, because even with an additional 3" of clearance between the front tires, you're having to follow it in line with the same, straight, flat, solid axle in the rear that is the same height off the ground.

It may look like I'm "flaming," but I promise I'm not. I'm just posing questions, and explaining my rationale for this line of thought & why I'm back at square one. I'm shopping right now too, I'm not sold either way quite yet for various reasons, so if you have knowledge that trumps me, please share — kindly!

 

Even in rocky terrain though (I see all kinds of terrain up here), I'm still trying to figure out WHEN a 3" lift would be better. I can understand that anything low-hanging does have the chance of hanging up on rocks/logs/underwater logs/terrain, etc, but your solid axle is still the lowe-hanging fruit if you're trying to crawl things long-ways. What I don't understand is, since you're still the same height off of the ground in the rear, and the rear goes everywhere the front goes, how does 3" of additional clearance ONLY in the front really end up being a better lift? So your front doesn't hang on the rocks, your rear still does, so you're still stuck on the same obstacle, you just made it an additional 6 feet before it happened. Right now with what I "know" or think I "know" and understand, it sounds like the 3" lift crowd is advocating taking bad lines on obstacles & then just shrugging off any damage to their rear diff, since that's the only way 3" of clearance between just the front tires would be useful as I currently understand the problem.

I said log because it's high & long and helps visualize my point, but you can sub any obstacle that's tall for it, it would seem that the result is the same: with 3", you can't even approach it, you can't clear it between the 'axles' so you'd 'highside' it, and you can't exit without leaving the rear of your truck behind on it. Be it a rock, log, pile of dead bodies, whatever.

6" of lift, front skid (All Pro, etc), weld up the exhaust cross-over out of the way, a few well-placed skids underneath… seems like that would be the "I can go anywhere you can go better" ticket, logically. And hell, you should be equipping the 3" with most the same stuff anyhow.

If YOU have the 4.5" DB lift right now, it seems that you're perfectly placed to have the best of both worlds: add a coilover to it and lift it 2", you've got additional clearance between the front tires if it makes you feel better, AND all the ground clearance throughout & entry/exit angles of the big boys.

 

This is where the money is, for me: you're absolutely right of course, but I'm not sure it makes the case for 3" being better still: a 3" lift still has the same low-hanging rear diff, so essentially the same "ground clearance" if you're going to measure from the lowest point. BUT, you give up an additional 3" of clearance for the body/frame and lose a lot in the way of entry/exit angles as well. You also lose downward flex out of your front susp.

How do you guys advocate getting over obstacles? do you do it sideways? because if so then YES, the suspension lift would be king, but ONLY if you change over the rear to IRS too and equip it the same. Otherwise, as you said, the diff's STILL the lowest hanging part and will still get just as hung on rocks & other obstacles.

OR, you could do this alternative: Equip the truck with a 6" lift, and approach your obstacles proper. This way, you make excellent use of the added entry/exit angles, and you have superior mid-truck ground clearance once you get your front tires over the obstacles — 100% more lift & clearance than a 3" — and then it doesn't even matter that the rear diff or front diff is the same height on either lift, because you're using the added clearance "correctly," in that the diff is always placed to go OVER the obstacle, with both tires at no more than a tire's length separated.

This is how I'm envisioning the argument. I'm not sold either way. I want you guys to convince me. Really. Convince me that I can have a BETTER lift for off-roading, at almost a ¼ the cost. I'd be very happy if that ended up being true. it's just that so far, I'm not sure it's so. I'm having trouble envisioning how having 3" less of clearance at the front, out back, and through the middle is a good thing.

 

This sounds best to me but not sure if it's possible

4.5 drop bracket lift with Icon coilovers set at 2 inchs of lift?

Gives you the geometry you need from the DB and added diff clearance from the coliovers. Only problem is $$$$. But if you have either one to begin with it wont be such a big hit.

 

Its metal. The cutting can be uncut. Its 2 straight cuts. 10 mins with a welder will put it back.

Remember that a 6 inch suspension system is an engineered system and takes into account the steering geometry that the engineers at toyota spend good expensive time getting right. Most, if not all, 3 inch systems are simply spacers or longer springs that give you height but you lose the OEM geometry, CV angles.

A engineered system is the only way to go.

RCD is making a 4.5 inch system but you also have to cut. Thats the only way to keep the geometry in check.

 

It depends is what I'm saying. it depends on where you're measuring. And if I got a 6" lift I'd actually stick with 33" so that I could stuff the tires no problems, so in that sense, a 6" with 33's has NO advantage over a 3" with 33's…

Except of course, for the better clearance at the nose, the tail, and all the added clearance between front/rear axles. Which *IS* important, because you're not off-roading on flat surfaces, you're encountering & scaling obstacles, obstacles which will often not be the length of your wheelbase and thus, will poke up as you pass over it with your front tires, until it reaches your back tires and they climb over it, lifting the rear solid axle over it, negating (mostly) "clearance issues" at the axles with either lift.

of course, the 6" lift has an additional 3" of mid-truck clearance to cover these obstacles (rocks, logs, cliffs/walls) without getting stuck on the frame halfway over them. It also provides much better entry/departure angles.

Right now on my currently-stock 09 TRD w/ 32" Coopers, I have 14" of clearance to the frame rails, 11" of clearance to the crossmember, and 10" of clearance to the exhaust crossover. That means that anything I get my front tires over, needs to not extend beyond that ~11" of room I have. It seems to me it hardly matters the ground clearance BETWEEN each tire on the same axle, once the tires hit it, it takes the axle/suspension up and over with it. I have to worry about everything AFTER that. a 3" lift gives me only ~14" at the lowest point after my tires clear an obstacle. a 6" lift gives me 17" at my lowest point (probably like 16" considering the sub-frames, but still a net gain of 2" with the same sized tire).

Chris in reading around these forums, you seem to be quite a reliable source of information regarding these topics & logic in general. In what circumstance is a 3" lift going to go somewhere that a 6" won't be able to follow, honestly?.

now, reverse that question.

I don't see a 3" lift as offering "more" useful clearance, it only offers "more" clearance between the front tires… but when is that going to really be useful off-road? You should be taking your front tires over the obstacles at more or less the same time, maybe a slight camber to ease into a tall lift, but not too much… So isn't that airspace mostly dead anyway? Isn't the "useful" portion of a 3" lift the space it gives you from the ground to the bumper (entry angle), the mid-truck ground clearance to go over the obstacles, and the added space after the rear tires (exit angle)?

And as such, wouldn't an additional 3" of lift just be gravy in true off-roading?

The way I see it, a 3" suspension lift is great for fast-paced duning. You prop up the suspension and give yourself better negative recoil space, but you don't sacrifice too much center-of-gravity. a 6" gives you better clearance where it counts to slowly scale about anything you come across.

I'm just trying to get all the facts straight; like I said, I have a currently-stock-supsension 09 TRD, I'm shopping still. I want to get what I think will be best for me, and I'm stuck because logic seems to dictate that a 6" lift would be better in actual off-roading situations, but I read a lot of people saying the opposite, but without useful proof.

 

Nice, that was the deal breaker for me... Thanks Chris!

BTW, any idea on the price range of the replacement crossmember? Very expensive or relatively cheap?