alcarames

I have a 97 runner and want a bit of a lift. Nothing too crazy, I,m thinking about 1.5 to 2" max. I use it to transport my kids around so I don't want anything crazy besides I think it looks funny. Does OME make anything in that height range? I've been to two different online sites, toytec and wheeler's. They both have the same coils but different height information so which is correct. One says 3" with spacers, what is it without, the other says 1.75-2".

I also plan on running 265-75 tires so I don't want them to look too small if the lift is too much. Any suggestions, or input would be appreciated.

waskillywabbit

iTrader: (-1)

http://www.wabfab.org/96024Runner/96024Runner.htm

3" lift kit will look good with 265/75/16s but you can go bigger.

Gerdo

I have 3" of lift and Yokohama 265/75-16 AT-S and it doesn't look weird. There was quite a bit of room with my worn out 265/70-16 BFG AT.

The 906 should give you ~1.5"-2"

brian2sun

The 881s (without the spacers) combined with the 906s (like Gerdo said) will give you about 1.5-2" all the way around and sit pretty level.

SafariRNR

881 fronts 890 rears. I was looking for the same thing. About 1.5" to 2" all around, still easy to get my son in and out of his car seat.

brian2sun

890s will give 2.5-3" and will rake it unless you run spacers with the 881s.

SafariRNR

Huh, didn't give me that much lift and I have no extra weight in the back.

brian2sun

Hmm, I wonder why they are sold in the 3" OME kit? I have 891s so I can't say for sure, I'll take your word for it though.

SafariRNR

Perhaps the height rating is for 2002's. I have the 881's up front with ARB, winch, and skids and got the 890's out back hoping it would sit level after I did a drawer system/sleeping platform in the rear. As you can see in the photo above it barely has a rake.

Deceptiwave

I just put on my 890s and N86s with 10mm spacers on each side on my 2002 and it shot the butt up 3.25 inches easy. Very impressed so far by the Ausie engineering.
Tundra/billstein up front makes the truck level, but I wish I had a slight rake back to front.

brian2sun

Thanks Deceptiwave, that makes more sense. 3.25" minus 10mm is about 2.75" of lift with the 890s. Safari, I think your before lift measurements may not be accurate. I was told by toytec and also read a few times that the 891s (which I have) sit at the same height as the 890s, the 891s are just stiffer and don't sag as much when you start adding wieght. I know for sure my 891s lifted me almost about 2.75".

SafariRNR

If you notice, his was a 2002, mine being a 98' already sat a great deal higher. That's what I was eluding to as far as the measurements being based off of 01'-02's for the ads. As you said minus spacers he got about 2.75" a 98' sits about .75" to 1" higher than a 2002 stock, hence I got about 2" where he got just under 3". I think we're all in agreement, just basing it off different rigs. BTW I'm also running the same shocks in the rear as him so no difference there.

Edit: If it stops raining when I get home today, I have a stock 98' as well and I'll shoot some pics of the two together for comparison.

brian2sun

I was going off of the before and after measurements of my '97 and 891s (which also sits higher than the '02s). Just wondering, cuz it just seems like there's some contradicting info about these coils floating around the net and I've seen most of these different configurations of OME coils in person. I'm also talking less in terms of overall lift and more in terms of rake (front compared to back).

I have seen people's rigs that have 906s and 881s w/o spacers and they sat level with about 1.5-2" of lift (as compared to my truck with 2.75"). I'm positive that the 890s sit higher than the 906s. If what you're saying is true, all the people who buy the "Complete OME package" from toytec would be sitting about 1-1.5" higher in the front if they use the recommended spacers with the 881s and use 890s in the rear. But that doesn't seem to jive, I've seen rigs in person that have 881 w/ spacers and 890s and they sit level. Don't mean to argue, and I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong, just stating my personal observations.

SafariRNR

I don't feel like we're arguing here. Don't get me wrong, I have a rake but it's very slight IMO. Not nearly what I expected. As I understood when doing my research the 881's w/o spacers, and with 150# extra weight, and 906s were supposed to sit level. They did not have a 906 height rear coil for heavy weight, so I purchased 890's in the hopes that after I added my drawer system/sleeping platform I would sit level. When I first installed the springs this seemed dead on, however after driving around a bit to help them settle I sit pretty level as is. I feel I may have to move up to 891's after the rear weight increase. Also just to confirm I'm running an ARB (appx. 78#), Winch w/ synthetic line (appx. 75#), and a budbuilt skid (appx. 50#), I'm actually over the 150# mark so we're not talking unweighted fronts here.

brian2sun

Good, me neither. I think the coils settling is the difference here. And because of that, your recommendations for the 890s over the 906s might very well be the better option for the OP. It's good to learn from these kind of discussions! For your truck, you could throw some cheap 10mm trim packers in there to offset the sag and see how that works before you shell out more $$ for 891s.

tacollie

My 890s gave me an 1.25" of rack over the 881's in the front. I ended up putting 882's to match the 890s height.

SafariRNR

I like these kind of discussions as well. As long as everyone stays mature and doesn't get bent out of shape, as in this case, I think we can all learn a lot more from real world experience.

That said the coils settled to where there are after only about a week, they've only been on about two. For now I'm happy with them, when I add the extra weight in the back we'll see what happens.

As far as my recommendation to the OP, we seemed to be looking for the same thing. I really have no need or desire to go beyond 32's (right now I'm still on 31's.) Most of the trails I run require a compact package more than towering height, and my choice to keep the goods on the roof and sleep in the car kinda limit how high I can go. I do a lot of off-roading, almost every day I'm hitting trails, and for me this setup fits the bill. Eh, I'm starting to ramble.....

02_Limited

Front: 881 w/ top plate spacer and OME Shocks
Rear: 906's and OME shocks.

Sits higher in the front than in the back, by about an inch. My set up without the top plate spacers in front would probably be ideal for the OP, for 2ish inches of lift all around. Somehow, with 881's and the top plate spacer I received about 3" of lift in the front, but that depends on what 'original' height you reference it to. Just ordered 3 10mm trim packers to level up the rear a bit. Good luck

SafariRNR

How did that happen? All these different heights achieved make me wonder if there are other factors involved or if the springs are just not consistent. I'm going to measure the difference over stock height, front and rear, when I get home and I will try to shoot some photos.

SafariRNR

Well, here's some measurements to further confuse things. 4runner #1 is my wife's 98' 4runner Limited 4x4. 4runner #2 is my 98' 4runner Limited 4x4 with 880's front and 890's in the rear. Measurements are from the center of the wheel to the top of the wheel well.

#1 front 21" (stock)
#2 front 22" (OME 881's)
equals 1" of lift with 200lbs extra weight

#1 rear 21.5" (stock)
#2 rear 23" (OME 890's)
equals 1.5" of lift dry