Darren

Edit: For current updates on these measurements, I have this information copied on my site. Additional measurements there as well. Here's the link:

http://mycolorado.org/ground_clearance.html

As I have stated a few times in the past, I have always felt that the pre-'01 models ground clearances have looked higher to me. Then late last year, a couple people here mentioned that 2000 models looked lower than a '99 in a side-by-side comparison. That was the first time I had heard others have the same thoughts as myself (scary, I know). I then changed my mind to the pre-2000's are higher.

Here is another recent thread from 4x4 Wire for a similar discussion.

Well, I finally got my act together today and was on a quest to put to rest this mystery--for me anyway. I went to 2 dealerships for a broader range and to make sure there weren't any special shipments. They were all 4WD with 265/70/16 tires. The measurements were taken from the lowest point on the front diff, the rocker panel and the rear diff. I probably measured around eight 1999 and 2000 models to get solid measurements. They were all consistent.

Here we go:

2001/2002 (based on mine when it was stock and only 1 available at either of the dealers)
front: 9.5"
rocker: 18"
rear: 9.5

2000
front: 9.5"
rocker: 18.5"
rear: 9.5"

* * 1999 * * :eek: :eek: :eek: For those that have one, I tip my hat.
front: 10.75"
rocker: 20"
rear: 9.5"

1998 (not available--I'm guessing these are the same as '96/'97's)

1997 (only 2 available, so I'm not sure how consistent this is)
front: 10"
rocker: 19.5"
rear: 9.5"

1996: (not available--I'm guessing these are the same as '97/'98's)

1995 (only 1 available, so I'm not sure on these 2nd genners)
front: 11"
rocker: didn't measure (oops). Had tube steps on anyway.
rear: 9.5"

1984/1985 None available. Dang! I would have let you all know if there were!

And the real kicker as we all guessed, are the
2003's
Front: 8"
Rocker: 17"
Rear: 9.25"

I tell you what, that 8" below the front diff plain and simply sucks! No other way to put it. There is ZERO room under there. I would hate to change oil on one--even with ramps! Based on this, I hearby declare the 3rd Generation 4Runner's the last of a dying breed--which most of us knew anyway. No offense to any of the '03 owners, but the 3rd gens are in a different class than the 4th gens, for off-road purposes anyway. They may have well put IRS in, because you aren't gettin' over any rocks with your front tires. Yes, 1.5" is a HUGE difference.

For good measure, I measured a few Xterras (2001-2003 models) as well since I had heard they have similar measurements. Plus, if I wasn't a 4Runner guy, I would choose these as my next favorite. Not bad, Nissan:

Xterra
Front: 10.5"
Rocker: 18"
Rear: 8.75"

Chapter 13:
Well, this should about confirm it. So there was a reason other than the hood scoop I started looking at the 1999's when looking to buy! I am shocked at the difference between between the '99 and '00 models. Not because there is a difference, but because it is so much of one. I am really surprised that the 97's that were available weren't at least on par with the '99 in the front. The other thing I am very much surprised about is that the rear diff remained unchanged as I for sure thought that I have seen many others riding around here that looked so much higher.

I only took the time to measure the rear diff on 1 Tacoma which was an '03 model. It measured 9.75."

I would enjoy and entertain any feedback any of you might have this subject. I measured quite a few 4Runners today and feel these numbers are going to be accurate with what you all have. I would also like to hear some more measurements from the 96-98's as well as the 2nd and 1st Generation models.

Happy trails,
Darren

DH6twinotter

Thanks for all that info! That's some interesting stuff. More reason why I want a 3rd gen (especially a '97 or '98).

I'll do some measurements on my 2nd gen when I get the chance. When I measure the rocker panel, is that the actuall rocker panel, or the lowest point in the center of the vehicle (ie transfer case)? That's probably a dumb question, but I just wanted to make sure.

It would be interesting to see the differences between my 2wd and other peoples 4x4s.

Well, have fun all.
DH6twinotter

tomus1000

Ok, now I have questions...

Right now there are three Tacomas in my driveway. Mine is an '02 TRD Double-Cab. My landlord drives a '01 (non-TRD) Double-Cab and his son drives a '02 (also non-TRD) 4 cylinder extended cab. I'll take a picture one day. It's kinda cool to see all three trucks in the same driveway. Sort of like a Tacoma schrine.

All three trucks have the same size tires on them (265-75 R16). Why does it appear the both of the other trucks have more clearance between the top of the tire and the fender flare, than my truck does? They both have about an inch more "lift" than my truck. I would figure that it would be just the opposite since mine has the TRD Off-Road package. It doesn't make much sense.

Bob_98SR5

Darren,

Some very interesting research! Having had a 99 2WD and now a 98 4WD, I can say that based on looks and "feel", the 98 however feels a bit higher than the 99. But then again, it was a 99 2WD.

In anycase, people must've thought you were kinda loony on the dealership lot w/ a tape measurer, but all here I'm sure appreciate your work.

Bob

Hermes

While I do agree that there was a change in the height during the latter years of the 3rd gens, we can’t hold these numbers as gospel. Just because each tire was a 265/70/16 does not mean they were the same exact size as different manufacturers produce slightly different sizes. Additionally, the data could be skewed by how much wear has been put on the tires.

So if you could go back with a new set of tires and rims and put them on each truck and measure again. </jk>

It’s good info Darren – thanks for posting.

Darren

That is exactly the reason why I did this on a Sunday!

Hermes, yes the tires could conceivably have a little impact. The mileage on the suspension could as well, but when I measured about eight 99's and eight 2000's and they all measure the same, I feel pretty comfortable with my numbers. I find this all very interesting myself to say the least. Time for a trade-in! Just kidding!

Darren

Measure from right under the door jamb on the outermost part of the body. That is what is so nice about the 4Runners, is that there is very little body under the doors. You've all seen Explorers and Trailblazers out there and there's like 3" or more under the doors. :rolleyes:

The 2003's are different from previous models in that right under the door there isn't much there, but it angles down and in for awhile. The initial clearance on those is 18", but because it doesn't cut straight across, it taxes 1 more inch.

Oh, and the other thing I re-learned today which should not go unsaid is that unlifted 4Runners are SHORT! :eek: It is amazing how much difference a half inch, inch, etc. makes in overall height as well as ground clearance. It's scary to think mine was that short not too long ago. Now, for those who haven't put a lift on yet, get out there and do it!

91Runner

Damn Darren good work It's really interesting seeing the differences and similarities between the years You're pretty much right on the 2nd Gens height, and you're dead on with my measurements of my Xterra (I measured them when I first got my Xterra to see how they compared)

I'm with ya on Xterras being a second choice I would of absolutely loved to get a new 4Runner (I would of gotten a 2002, because I'm still not really decided on the 2003's) but price was an issue for me, and I couldn't really wait much longer to get a new truck. So I went with an Xterra, and I haven't regreted it Although I still have my 4Runner as kind of a trail rig

-Braden

Darren

Yep. If it weren't for YOU, I wouldn't have even checked up on the Xterras! I really was surprised that they were as high as they are when you brought that up originally. The rear diff could stand to be a little higher, but it makes up for it in the other areas I guess. Is that right that mine were matching what you posted?! That's good. That shows that I know what I'm doing. Either that, or we're both wrong!

Oh, and to be honest, I would have thought the 2nd gens would've been a little higher in the front. Like I've said in the past, I have seen some that look really up in the air. Tough to know when your eyes are playing tricks on you though. Although, when I got down to measure that one today (which was the first time I've been underneath of a 2nd gen) that 11" was a very comfortable work area! Lots of room!

Is this what your '91 measures, the 11"?

Corey

iTrader: (1)

Darren, good post here.
Hats off too you for doing the research on this.

And I would tend to beleive the "real world" info you got compared to what is in the brochures.

I will try and get measurments on my rig too.
The body sits up higher due to the T bars and new coils, but I can still get the differental measurments.

Mattimus

I'll get those measurements for you on the 1st gen. Where do I measure up to? And where is the "rocker" that you are talking of?

Darren

Taken from a few posts up,

"Measure from right under the door jamb on the outermost part of the body."

Or, I know some of us like pictures better:



Notice the perfectly drawn ovular shape.

Mattimus

Oh, sorry about that. I'm too tired to read through all that right now.

carpemanana

Let's hear it for the '95's!!!

Darren

Yes, but only if the rear sits even, which yours seems to be. If they don't sit level, it just throws the whole look of them off!

The other thing that I think I remember on that '95 was that 11" mark was basically a ridge, meaning it was just at the one section being the lowpoint. So, where the diagonal skid plate comes to an end is 11" Then if I recall it went right back up to like 12" or something. In contrast, the 3rd genners have like a foot or more of area on the front skid that is the low point. That probably makes no sense and I'm just rambling on!

Whatever it's worth.

91Runner

hehehe sorry about that Darren But yeah the Xterras are very nice

Yeah I'm almost positive that they're the same I got when I measured mine.

My '91 measures about 13" but I have the Downey Rear Coils and Cranked SAW Torsion Bars to even out. I think I got about 2" from the coils, so your 11" is right on I think. And yes It is VERY comfortable working under there But it's even more comfortable with the 13" that I have no

Once again great job on it

-Braden