Doing LT in stages?

I agree with this. Especially if you want to throw glass on. The guys that I have seen run 2+ many times don't like the fiberglass look and want to trim as little as possible. If overlanding with articulation is your game, then stick with the 2+, but if want the high speed element, then do it right. When I was getting my kit I originally wanted a 2+ as I wasn't sure to what level I wanted to go to. I think I would of regretted had I not went 3.5. The travel and cost to go bigger are only a few hundred difference.

 

Go with the +3.5. I don't understand peoples obsession with the +2 kits these days. I feel like it is a waste of money and the cost is nearly the same. You see it a lot in the 5th gen 4Runner community. If you are doing a full SUA in the rear it doesn't make sense to limit yourself in the front.

Put it this way. It comes down to 3" of overall track width between the +2 or +3.5 kits. If you are that concerned about it and fitting on a trail, then you probably shouldn't be on that trail in the first place.

 

BTW OP, this guy alone saved me from going 2+. If you want to be a dez dude, go 3.5...overlanders stay with the 2.

 

A big consideration is what's going on with the rear - if you're building a bed cage or at least going with the DMZ kit and hoops then you're running glass most likely and a 3.5 kit is the way to go.

If someone is staying soa or doesn't want to add the expense and added details of installing fiberglass, painting it, building mounts for it in the rear, adjusting the fuel filler neck, etc. then a +2 kit is probably the way to go. Ultimately it comes down what they want to do with their truck. You can bomb fire roads with a built mt setup so a +2 kit and the TC sua kit would be perfect for that and the added expense of fiberglass could be saved and put towards armor, a winch, recovery gear, etc. so if that's all you want to do, then maybe the +2 kit would be a consideration.

OP is from the PNW where there's no desert for a few hundred miles and never stated his intended use for the truck so I wouldn't sway him either way based on my limited knowledge, but either way
I have noticed that people seem to forget that there are guys that don't want to run fiberglass or fab stuff out back that might be interested in a front kit that wouldn't necessarily benefit from the added travel and requirements that come with it. I was one of those guys when I was building my 2nd gen, but now that I'm going with my first gen I'm going full on lt. To each his own...

 

The added travel doesn't do anything if you only have 13" or so in the rear with soa (and uptravel is key here) or stock length springs sua. Usually you want your rear to outperform your front by 4"+ of travel. You'll be bucking all over the place hitting whoops, so from the standpoint that you want to have a smooth traveling rig in big stuff and may continue to build and go full lt, yeah for sure go 3.5". I was balls deep in plans for my truck including a fully gusseted front kit that I had to cut out and ended up buying a 4x4 so I can understand that plans change.

 

Tough to say what people consider lt and mt. Compared to a trophy truck with 28" of travel in front everything on here is mt. So nomenclature aside let's stick to numbers - not that the travel length is the key factor in how well your truck is going to perform, but it's more objective.

A lot of guys on here will call their truck a lt build with only a front kit and a shock relocation and maybe some longer springs soa in the rear. But if their uptravel isn't changed drastically from stock, the extra two-three inches of travel from a +3.5 kit (13-15") over a +2 kit (11-12") isn't going to do much for what they run their truck on.

Same with the TC sua (formerly defined) that keeps the stock length springs and gives you 14-15" travel. There's no reason to go full lt in the front because as soon as you hit something that uses up all the front travel you're going to buck like crazy in the rear.

Now if you want to go jump your truck even though you don't have whoops where you live, I'd build full lt and even then it won't land like a trophy truck. Other than that I don't see how someone would fully cycle their suspension while driving.

Don't get me wrong I think that building trucks and cars for that matter is fun and it doesn't matter if they get used to their full potential as long as their owners are enjoying them. I don't expect someone with a blown V8 to be launching off the line at every red light they come to just because they have 600hp - it's just fun to have it. There are guys that might not get any more enjoyment out of a truck with a +2 kit vs. a 3.5 kit and that's my point. I'm not saying the op would be one of them since he never stated what he wants to do with his truck. For people on a limited budget that want to tear around on fire and blm roads on camping trips and never see the desert then they might be more happy to put their money into a +2 kit and for the $1k+ they save on glass they can get stuff that they get more use out of than 2-3" more inches of travel that they'll never use.

There's a spectrum of uses people have for their truck and a spectrum of parts available out there for them. I imagine you wouldn't tell the guy that wants a reliable daily driver that he'd like to get some more power out of to put a turbo on his car when he probably won't get the use out of it that would warrant the time and money and maintenance when he could maybe get all the power he'd ever use with a tune and some different heads and cams. Especially if the power he'd start making would exceed his powertrain and then he'd have to start making mods that wouldn't ever get used to their potential and put him out of his budget and desired uses for the car. I'm not saying that this fits the op's situation, but trying to draw a comparison between performance mods and suspension mods.

I'm not trying to sway anyone one way or the other, but to increase knowledge of what's out there and objective info can help someone make the decision that best suits their wants / needs for their truck. Like I said when I was building my 2nd gen parts were more expensive and harder to come by so I had to be realistic about what I wanted for my truck. I didn't want to hit whoops or cut my bed since I slept in it when camping; instead I'd rather get out and explore so being able to cruise desert roads faster than a stock truck would be good for me with an extra few inches of up travel for when things did get a little rough.

@Mxpatriot's truck was pretty much my paradigm that I was following. What he uses his truck for is almost exactly what I wanted to use my truck for.

https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...ravel-4x4-tacoma-alaska-offroad-thread.66924/

Since he said he liked his setup with a +2 and defined sua then I set my sights on that. I know I would have been happy with it. Now that I have my first gen and I can pretty much do all of my own work on it comfortably and find used parts for it more easily I don't mind spending extra on suspension components that I may never use to their maximum potential. I'm trying to hold out for a +4.5 kit and fight the temptation to do a 3.5 lol.

 

Hell yea man I say 4.5! Im trying to convince my buddy to get the solo 4.5 kit for his runner over a 3.5 kit.