FRONT 2" LONG TRAVEL BATTLE

Yep, you sure can by removing the coil from the CO and reinstalling on the vehicle and then cycling until you run out of travel and something starts binding. Most people will never do that.

 

Which is also why it's so frustrating and difficult to decide which kit to go with and is never really addressed when a thread is started attempting to compare kit "A" to kit "B"

 

Travel isn't the defining characteristic of what makes a good kit. How well you can get alignment figures and bump steer are just as important as travel figures. TC gives you more clearance, an improved lower uniball design, and lighter weight (not as big of a deal imo). It's the rear end that's going to limit what you can hit at speed. You could have a stock front end with decent coilovers and a good rear setup and out perform a truck with these kits that didn't have major modifications out back.

 

For me, the rear is fine with the shackle flip I'll install. I don't hit anything at speed, so clearance and wheel travel are important factors. If I have to give up .5" of wheel travel but gain 1" of clearance, that's a fair compromise in my opinion. Alignment is also important like you stated.

 

Unlike most guys on this thread I've owned and ran a kit in the poll. I'm not here to discuss it because I don't think what I experienced is helpful to this thread overall. I don't think it sucked or anything negative, but I bought a first gen and I sold the kit to fund my new lt build. If someone wants to know more about it they can PM me and read about it in my build thread. That said, TC's 3.5 race kit would be my choice if I were to spend the money again.

 

I'm just here for more pictures of Bruno's lunch

 

Thank god people came in here with common sense and actual knowledge of this shit. Was getting knee deep with rookie regurgitated knowledge in here.

People can dislike whatever kit they want, but when they try to explain and sound like a complete moron. It’s not the kit bro, it’s you.

 

Not to be a downer but what is the obsession with everyone wanting a +2" kit? The cost differences IMO are minimal with the +3.5" kits. Is it that no one wants to deal with fiberglass? Or the 3" difference in overall track width between a +2" or +3.5" kit? I had this dilemma when I bought my +3.5" kit over 5 years ago but I didn't want to limit myself if I was spending all this money.

Just because you buy a +3.5" kit doesn't mean you have to Launch your truck. I mainly go wheeling and go to some remote places here in Utah. I find that I get stuck less often since my wheels are always touching the ground.

 

i believe its because the 4"(+2) overall width is wide enough for the tight trails and the 7" (+3.5)overall width would be too wide.

My choice to go +2 was because i got a good deal so i jumped on it.

 

We both know I was one of those dudes for a minute until you set me straight. I know for me at one time I was afraid to get a real LT rear which I think many shoot for 2+ with the hopes that they can stay mid travel with a bolt on SUA or SOA. I do agree though after talking with you, I couldnt see the reason to invest in a 2+ anymore. I really think its the budget of glass and an expensive rear that many dont want to consider. I love the look of glass, so I already had it before I even went LT. Also, we all know everyone is itching to get LT on as fast as possible with as little components needed as possible so 2+ does make sense for the guy who just wants more capability, but not have the high speed aspect to their stuff.

With having glass, my only fear on skinny trails is if my glass will get crunched up...the LT will articulate enough to either get me through or I really shouldnt be there to begin with as it is probably an abandoned ATV trail or something.

 

I've never understood this.

Jeepers run full width axles all day, if I remember right a D60 puts you at = 80"

2nd gen taco = ~73"s + 7" = 80"s

Yes wheel and tire choice will increase your width on top of that, but that is the same for a jeeper...

I cant remember ever seeing a truck stuck and have to turn around due to width... I don't pay too much attention to jeepers though, so maybe i'm missing something.


Personal feeling, +2 is a lot of money for not a lot of gain. But then again I believe you should also purchase a kit with a fabricated spindle as well

 

You can fit a +2 without looking excessively illegal w/o fiberglass
Don't want to deal with fiberglass install
Don't trust fiber glass to hold up on the overgrown trails that I frequent
Don't want to deal with the potential issues with my intents and wants with the bed and dealing with fiber glass bedsides
While they are rare, some trails it would be too wide.

20ft behind the truck is a section of canyon where i had full contact of the tire against the walls, a 3.5 straight up wouldn't fit
Frequently drive on large rock strewn fucked up washes, it's easier for me to gauge distances to a large rock and avoid clipping it if my tires don't stick out that much

To each their own, but to my eyes a +2 kit seems better for general purpose, a +3.5 treads into specializing in the open-track go fast-stuff

 

Goals

 

I'm definitely biased toward go fast stuff.

What trail is that pic from? Your truck looks killer. Like an alien space craft with its landing lights on.

Edit: Forgot to mention. I can definitely understand why someone would not want to go through the hassle of fiberglass. Its "three" extra items to do. purchase, fitment and paint.... Strength wise I've seen plenty of race trucks go through bushes with "race" glass, which is much thinner than what we would use (ive also seen them break it). But I have seen enough incidents where I dont personally sweat the strength of fiberglass.... Having said that my future fiberglass is surely going to crack in many many places.

 

I have only been on one trail where the +3.5 was too wide. Its Kane Creek down in moab. I don't have a front locker so I couldn't make it up a 3' ledge on the Left side. For the most part the extra width helps in a lot of situations. My front track width (outside tire to tire) is right at 84" with running 4.5" back spacing wheels and 255/85/16 tires.

If your concerned about Glass and Paint, just get color matched Line-x. Its been holding up great. I have my front fenders, quarter panels, and bedsides covered in it.

 

So what happened? Winch time?

 

No, we turned around ( 30 point turn later LOL). It was just my wife and I on a thursday. Its a pretty remote trail. I didn't want to risk getting stuck at the end of the trail. Ill return one day and complete it!

 

This was my reasoning for going with the +3.5. My dad's jeep has 37"s on it and each tire is like 13" wide. His track width is basically right at the 84" that I have running a +3.5 kit. If the 3" difference between the +2 and the +3.5 is keeping me from running a trail, then I probably shouldn't be on that trail...

 

Because 3.5 looks like shit if you don't match the rear track width and 3.5" wheels spacers aren't really an option. Also, if you have 4x4 and don't really ever want to 3 or 4 link the rear the +2 kit is probably all you need...
And yeah, no glass needed...

 

You really only need 1.5" wheel spacers and a DMZ SUA kit is sufficient depending upon how you intend to use the vehicle. How much fender cutting is required for the +2? I am sure you have to cut those fenders if you run anything larger than a 33. I used to be from SoCal and anything sticking out 1" from the fender required mud flaps..