Manual locking hub

What's the benefit/attraction of the +2 inches?

 

For long travel lower control arms

 

subd

 

Thanks for the info. Make sense now

 

Any reasons why these wouldn't work on 1st Gen Tundras? It's my understanding that hubs and axles are much different between the 2nd Gen Tacoma and the 1st Gen Tundra.

 

You could convert the first gen tundras to manual locking hub just like the first gen tacomas. The tundra axles are longer in length. You would need to change the outer cv joints to manual locking hub style along with the hubs.

 

2lo is very useful. I use mine (4lo with manual hubs unlocked) because I'm still running factory 3.90 gears with 33s and certain obstacles out on the trail are too easy for 4WD, but I don't have the power to tackle in 2hi. 2lo gives me enough gear to get over them while still being enough of a challenge that it's not completely boring...and then I get the bragging rights that I did it in 2WD. Of course, when I finally save up enough to regear, I shouldn't need to use 2lo nearly as much, but it works for the time being.

Another scenario goes like this...you're dragging a 6000lb trailer (about the max for a Taco) and you need to back it up a steep driveway. You can either abuse your clutch/transmission by doing it in 2hi or you can drop it into 2lo and be much more gentle on the engine and transmission, while also allowing you to go slow enough that you can easily make corrections to keep the trailer going the right direction.

Why do ya think high end t-cases like the Atlas allow you to independently shift the front and rear axles? You can run front wheel drive, hi or low, or rear wheel drive, hi or low, or 4wd, hi or low. That versatility comes in handy.

 

It make sure sense in a race rig because it allows different levels of vehicle control. They can also engage fwd or rwd in any position, it's not really the same.

4cyl tacos are only rated for 3500 lbs towing. I get the concept, just seems strange for the average rig

 

That's pretty much what I said. With the exception of they usually have a lockout that will prevent you from having the rear axle in a different gear than the front axle. Either one has to be in neutral or they both have to be in the same gear.

I was going by a 2nd Gen 4.0/auto 4WD. I think, though I'm not sure since I've never really needed to know, my 1st Gen 3.4L/manual 4WD has a 5000lb towing capacity. But yeah, I guess it would seem strange if you've never had a need for it. It just adds another layer of functionality, which I'm sure is what they had in mind back in the day when the 2-speed, single-stick t-case and manual locking hubs originally came out. But it's one of those things that didn't really get used that often, except in specific circumstances, so it fell out of fashion with the engineers, especially when they could ignore it in favor of an overly-complex, far less reliable system like the ADD which they could foist off on us in the guise of convenience..."Wow, we don't have to get out to lock the hubs for 4WD anymore! Awesome!" Until the system fails and leaves you hiking while your truck is stuck somewhere.

 

Every new feature is added "to sell more trucks, of course". Not necessarily to make it better...

 

The v6 without the tow package is technically only rated to tow 3500 lbs as well.

 

You're right. It's always the engineers' fault. They clearly are the ones to decided to add this feature without any pressure or input from corporate business managers and marketeers and product managers pushing "features" they believe (either correctly or incorrectly) the mass market wants. Nope, it was all the engineers. /s

 

Haha, well, lets just say the absolute best case scenario with all the appropriate options, 6000lbs is the max for Tacoma.

Of course it is. You've got it exactly correct. Engineers are to blame. Managers might be responsible for defining the parameters of the end product (for example: we don't want to make our lazy customers have to get out in inclement weather to lock the hubs), but the engineers are the ones that design a ridiculously complex system to accomplish something that could be done with a simpler, cheaper, and more reliable system. Then the managers...who are probably also engineers...are dazzled by the bells and whistles of the overly complex design and quickly stamp their approval on it.

 

i would say opposite. most engineers want simple easy to use, easy to build parts. nobody likes making overly complicated crap. The engineer wanted a simple stick Tcase, and management was like, nooooo, i want to just turn a knob and it does it all for you. lol

 

What is so complex about two DC motors driven by a green board actuated by a switch? That's about as simple of an electrical system as there is, unless you just want to turn on a light bulb. Also, there's more to designing a product then that. Are there other ways that it can be done? Sure. But you don't know the cost constraints or any of the design requirements that the engineers were working with. Furthermore, the best most ingenious way of doing could be patented and they might not have been able to do it that way. Designing a product is hard. There are lots of factors that go into choosing the "best" design. Many times is schedule and cost based. The cheapest solution that can get the job done on time quite often wins. Many times, the idea you want to carry out is blocked because of compliance and regulatory issues. Frequently it's because some other engineer at another competitor patented the idea. Don't even get me started on tooling and sourcing issues. There are a 1000 things that go into picking the final design, most of which the engineers have no control over. We don't even get to control what the feature is. Honestly, being an engineer kinda blows. Often we are stuck carrying out the wishes of a bunch of a-holes that set unrealistic schedules and cost targets for features that are just stupid.

Also, we don't even know what makes the ADD system suck. Many people have no problems with it. For the ones that do, it seems to be a variety of issues. Many get water in the front diff actuator. Can't really blame that on an engineer. It's likely that "ability to survive driving in 3' of water" wasn't a requirement. It's also possible that the front actuator was selected purely because it was cheaper than waterproof units and the decision wasn't the engineers'. It's also likely that many of the other issues are related to the green board and the control logic. Maybe the logic is flawed which would be the control engineers' fault. Or maybe they didn't get to test it enough because of schedule constraints set by managers. Maybe the logic is fine and a cheap ass board manufacturer was selected by the sourcing team.

I could sit here for an hour and go on and on. But in the end, we are talking about the design of a product that was have no true knowledge of. Only someone on the product team can really discuss how they arrived at the design that was delivered.

 

Okay, okay, haha, while I tend to disagree about engineers wanting to go with the simplest system they can...at least in terms of electronics, I'll concede it's a group effort to complicate things way beyond what's necessary to get the job done.

I do think complex electronic systems have their place. The engine is one such place. With all the complex electronic controls engines today are making more power and burning less fuel than the simple systems offered 40 years ago. They are harder and more expensive to troubleshoot and work on, but most of the time, it's worth it. The engineers definitely get a nod there, although, as a technician, I'll still cuss their sorry arses a blue streak for designing stuff that is a PITA to take apart...stuff you just know that if an engineer ever had to actually work on it, that item would show up with a design change on the next evolution...

 

I'm still trying to figure out why oil filters aren't all on top of the engine like the 4.0 is. Damn engineers.

 

Now that, I have to admit, was a good idea. Sure, it added complexity by adding more plumbing with a greater chance of leaks, by yeah, that was convenient. Probably pushed through by an engineer or manager who changed his own oil.

 

Still have to get under the car to drain the oil, unless you have an oil vac.

 

True, but that's not that big a deal on a lifted truck...or if you have a vehicle lift. Reaching through the wheel well to remove the oil filter mounted at an upward angle is a PITA and messy. Chevy had a decent setup with their older engines. Oil filter was pointed straight down on the back of the block. Wasn't hard to get to and you usually didn't spill oil everywhere removing it.