Long Travel BS Thread

I haven't wheeled in the SE, but I think my comments are still valid. If a 3" width difference between a +2 and a +3.5 are keeping you from fitting on a trail, you probably shouldn't be on the trail in the first place.

Like others have said, wheelbase is more of an issue.

If I wanted a dedicated trail/ wheeling rig and had to do it all over again, I would get a standard cab tacoma 4x4, and still do a +3.5 up front with SUA in the rear. The shorter wheelbase would really help.

 

trees dont count

 

My question to you is why shouldn't you be on that trail. There are plenty of easy to moderate trails around here that full width axles have a hard time squeezing between them and you can forget about it with something like Rockwells. I do agree that WB is a big factor but I've gotten pretty good at navigating my TL down tight turns and narrow trails. Heck in the PNW there are some trails that have limits on width and WB because of how tight they are.

I agree with you on maximizing the performance and getting as much flex as possible without going extremely wide with the truck like the 4.5 kits. Flex is the game we are after out here and not really the high speed desert running stuff. So with that our spring and shock set up is going to be different.

Personally I won't run fiberglass with any kit I end up with it'll just be trashed by the trees. Just trim to fit. You mentioned something about illegal not to cover the tires that varies state to state. Where I live it doesn't matter. Since I live in a state that it doesn't matter ticketing isn't a problem in those states that do require it since we are abiding by our states laws of they do ticket it'll be thrown out and those states cannot keep one from traveling through or visiting their state per federal laws. Same kinda thing goes for additional lights and stuff too. NC is pretty friendly when it comes to vehicle modifications and stuff.

So true and it takes some careful line picking and maneuvering to deal with it.

 

For me, if my tires are "off trail", or if I am concerned about the passenger side or driver side falling off the ledge, I am too wide. Our areas in the west are under attack. If tire tracks are seen outside the normal trail edges, that is potential grounds for trail closure. Environmental groups get all amped up about that stuff. Most forest maps in the west specify which trails are for vehicles that are 50" or less in width or Greater than 50".

Fiberglass holds up well if you coat it with Line-x or Raptor Liner. It doesn't have to be too textured. It is all in the application. It can be color matched as well. Some people like the look of chopped fenders, I personally don't. I like the look of glass since it gives it a factory look.

I was just trying to give my $0.02.

 

Oh i know the deal with closures. Teleco out here was subject to environmental groups along with other political and government issues. A lot of our "class 5" roads are being handed over completely to private roads so most of what we have are private parks. I get that width can be a factor in all areas.

Even with Line-X or something like that it'll probably end up broken out here eventually. I don't mind the hacked fender look also kinda like having the wheels the widest point t to help keep the body off of ditch walls or trees in off camber situations.

 

@ovrlndkull what are you really planning on doing with your truck? The Marlin kit sounds best for your application. TC’s race kit has the best ground clearance of any current 3.5 kit so you should keep that in mind. Other than that if durability is your concern as well as making it back from trails where breakage is likely going with a hub that can free wheel is going to help if you end up making the diff the weak point or are on a super technical trail where cutting a cv out and freewheeling is the only option to keep moving.

For some reason a narrower vehicle and / or sas seems the more useful route to go for your needs.

I mean this guy's truck is probably not much wider than a 2nd gen with 35's or at most a +2 kit:



https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/feeler-01-solid-axle-swapped-crawler.594444/

There's very few trails that that truck couldn't fit on or accomplish. I have a 4.5 kit with 15" of real-world 4x4 travel w/ hubs that can freewheel and I'm about the same width as a 2nd gen with a +2 kit and glass can be removed if needed for running little pinch spots.

 

I haven't found a trail that z plus 3.5 kit couldn't fit compared to a stock width. 7 inches isn't shit.. pull out a tape and tell me that's going to stop you.

 

lol

 

When people are talking about narrow trails it just makes me think of this:

https://youtu.be/TtGjdYqpWzw?t=550

I mean that's when you get one wheel up and go

 

This is the very obstacle that comes to mind when you guys start talking about “tight” trails. 7” May not seem like a lot on paper but I can tell you from first hand experience that the difference between a 1st and 2nd gen on this obstacle is drastically different.

Can someone confirm the stock track width between the two?

 

1st gen 60" wms to wms 2nd gen 66" wms to wms

 

So 6” difference between the two is the difference between this obstacle being seat puckering or not. Add another 7” to the 66” track width and let me know when someone tries because I want to be there to record it.

This obviously excludes modifications between rigs, such as wheel offset, and the numbers are rough. I’m just trying to paint a real world picture.

How do I know? Ask my rear passenger door.

 

Interested, definitely do it

 

Is there a bypass?

 

If turn around and go back is considered a bypass... yes.

Edit: this is where I make the disclaimer that you have to build your truck per your application. Most who go 3.5” LT are more interested in open desert “go fast” style driving and not tight, technical trails. The 2” LT kit is catered to the ones who want to do everything but nothing great. The “Overlanders” shall we say. Each truck should be built to the owner’s desired use, etc. It’s not a “one size fits all” formula. Not trying to start an argument on the matter. If your opinion differs then great. This is just my perspective.

 

Gnarly - how much backtracking?

 

Not much actually. You get off the S2 and head SE for a couple miles. It’s actually a very fun stretch of high desert to bomb until you reach this obstacle. It’s worth the drive out just to visualize “the squeeze.” Even if you’re not planning on attempting. If you’re lucky, maybe another group will be coming through and giving it a shot.

You could also come from the south side of the obstacle which is entered via the wash network to the south. This is a much longer stretch and still rather challenging before having to turn around and go back.

 

That's elephant hill. If a 2nd gen tundra can fit your 2nd gen lt truck can fit. You're just rubbing the tires. Not a big deal.

 

Someone go to the SAS threads and ask what the best SAS setup is to bomb desert roads 100+ mph. I smell some fishy bait looking to get eaten up

 

You are spot on with your assessment of MC kit being more of what I will need no high speed stuff here. The only thing I see holding back from the MC kit is the availability. Breakage isn't much of a problem around here. Parks are mostly what I wheel so if I break head to the parts store or keep spares back at camp go get them make a trail repair and it isn't that concerning to me. To add to that maintenance and what not is just part of the deal I completely get that. Thought about SAS for a bit but I kinda want to push the IFS and see what can actually be accomplished with it. If I am going SAS I'll just have a buggy/truggy.

Thanks for the input on the TC Race kit being the highest GC on the market that is the type of information I was looking for.