[All] Toyota v6 third members

[CliftonRover]

thanks,
I guess I must be confused.  Are you saying the toy 8" is different than a mini truck axle?  I have a few friends running the toy 8" with 37's, they were at my rally.  they also have dual cases and turbo'd motors.  but they do have the long field burfields and cromo shafts.

I am going to build my own 3 link front with dual y arms, and rancho coilovers so the coil vs. leaf differences are not a big deal.

[Daniel]

The 8" is the mini truck axle. Stock it is complete trash. Even beefing them up, you're lucky to be safe with 35-37" tires. On a Yota' or a Jeep, no real problems, but when you get in the weight range of a Rover, you're lucky to get away with a 35". The FJ60 and 80 axles were designed to be used on 3 ton trucks, so they're already beefed up. You can do nothing but add chromoly shafts, and run a 37" on a Rover without worries.

[CliftonRover]

do the 60's have removable third's? thanks for the info by the way.

[junkyddog11]

the FJ80 front diff is an 8" high pinion, only the rear is the 9 1/2"

The 80 axles will set you back $12-1500 for a good set with e-lockers. The high steer is not easy unless you just buy it which is not cheap.

WTF is dual Y-arms?

[Greatdivide1]

y arms are like what jeep cherokees run.....where the upper link mounts to the lower link   kind of looks like a y

[junkyddog11]

oh, right. So why would you want to run a 3 link and use that kind of arm? Kind of self defeating.

[Greatdivide1]

they call a three link becouse of the two arms and one panhard rod=three links.... not the three link that you are thinking about with the two arms one center arm then a panhard arm..

[junkyddog11]

ah yes, that. I'd always called my set up a 4-link but that seemed to confuse people as most don't seem to count the panhard.

So is the advantage of the "Y" arms that they allow adjustment of the pinion angle?

I was looking at some on another site and it would seem to me that as most of them use ball type ends they would actually be more restrictive in allowing the axle to twist than the stock Rover radius arms which at least allow a fair degree of movement in the rubber bushings.

[Daniel]

Yeah,. Both the 60 and 80 have removable thirds. Matt is right on price with e-lockers. I totally forgot that you could get those on the 80's, because my 60's didn't have them. I ended up selling my 60 axles to a guy with an FJ40, and went to the 109" SIII axles now on my project, as I wanted to stay Rover only, like a UK ARC spec truck.

[CliftonRover]

my buddy bought a lift for his grand cherokee form iron rock off road, this front long arms from it gave me the idea.  I will have a large jonny joint where the arm connects to the frame and then bushings on the axle end.  the upper part of the y can pivot on a big rod end mounted with tabs to the middle of the lower link

There is a guy on pirate4x4 who built these for his DII running 80 series axles front and rear.  

anyway it seems like the 80's with e lockers already installed is the way to go.  
thanks for all the advise.

[junkyddog11]

 the upper part of the y can pivot on a big rod end mounted with tabs to the middle of the lower link.

I still wonder at the engineering of theses as a jonny joint has no radial flex and being used in that spot is really not that effective. To really open up the flexibility of a beam axle you need to remove the binding effect that the "Y" has on the axle as it twists torsionally (or tries to). Those Y arms are to my way of thinking , just bad engineering. Just having the torsional forces of the axle transferred to the middle of a suspension arm seems odd.

[CliftonRover]

I also thought that having the y mount in the middle was poor engineering, perhaps he did it that way for clearance.  

I spoke today with a local toyota junkie and he said that the fzj80 axles with the e lockers are 63 in. wide and then I would have to find a wheel with minimal back spacing to make the tires not stick out the sides.  he also said that the fj60 axles were about 58 in. wide, which is narrower than the rover, but the wheels I would be using would have more back spacing so in the end the width would be about right.  

apparently fj60 axles are stronger than a dana 44, so that would be about right for me, they are also cheaper which is very important, and have a passenger side drop (as opposed to a dana 60 or someing).  so now that I know i want the fj60's I just have to find them.

[junkyddog11]

The 60's are good, with great aftermarket support. They are tight on a coiler as being narrower than the rover axles the spring perches interfere with the steering (the reason coiler axles are wider than the leaf sprung versions....both with Toyota and Rover.) Can be done though. Personally I'd go for the wider track, better turning radius, better brakes, e-lockers, and run flares.

[rwollschlager]

Forrest,
this guy did something similar to what you are planning on. Flatbed rover, defender/series nose, rover V8, Lt95, fj60 axles. He kept the leaf springs did some trimming and clears 37's. :   http://www.slunnie.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=32&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Daniel]

Agree completely with Matt. When you try to weld up the coil mounts for the coils on the FJ60 axles, you're going to run into major clearance issues. Yo're also right on strength; most experts call a 60 axle between a D44 and D60 in strength. You'll be better off running the FJ80's and just putting on a set of DII flares, trimmed down to fit the DI wheel arches, and running a slightly different wheel. One good thing is how cheap wheels are in Toyota lug nut patterns.