Ahh, I see that now. I realize you could add wheel speed sensors, but it would a massive undergoing to design ones that would work correctly with the LR3/LR4
Atlantic British
- Thread starter pinkytoe69
- Start date
Toyota axles have sensors, just adapt the signal. Shouldn't be difficult. Now getting full range of motion, proper geometry, steering, brakes, etc out of solid axles on an LR3/4 frame, good luck.
That makes sense.
Regarding the other posts on this topic, under what circumstances would Terrain Response be preferable to a locked, or LSD solid axle? It seems Terrain Reaponse is simply an attempt to mimic a locked, solid axle on a majority street-driven truck.
I was pretty surprised how well my LR3 did off road. 2" lift rods and 265/65/18"s. The difference is that the traction control supplies power to the wheel that is spinning where as a locker just supplies power to all wheels. That being said I went back to a D2 after the LR3 blew a tire chain and took out an abs line in 2 feet of snow in PA. Bumpstops and 2' of snow = a long night. Solid axles, a double 3 link and 35's with traction control work very nicely.
What happens when the spinning wheel is in the air?
Edit: Mind you, I'm not disputing that the LR3 is a capable vehicle. I'm just surprised anyone would, given a choice, opt for Terrain Response over a locked axle when building a truck for off road use.
Uhhh it supplies power to the wheel that isn't spinning.... thus creating traction control. In ideal conditions of course.
It applies brake to that wheel, sending power through the differential to wheels with traction. It's ideal as long as the system works fast enough and with sufficient strength, which is one area where LR's Terrain response system has surpassed other traction control systems.
Lockers can complement traction control systems, just as some LR3/4s come with rear lockers. The computer calculates the best moments to fully lock the axle in this scenario.
Well look, I'm a Land Rover guy, obviously. I'm not knocking on traction control or Terrain Response. In the context of a conversation about building up a Rover from stock to a trail truck, however, I'm just surprised anyone would argue the efficacy of either ABS-controlled system vs a locked axle. Anyone who has ever been wheeling with a traction control only Rover can attest to the limitations: when it works and when it doesn't, what its limitations are. In the context of taking, for example, an LR3 and building it into a more dedicated off-roader, I just didn't see any merit to the defense of retaining the stock suspension system just to keep Terrain Response. For example, my son's truck is CDL/traction control (for the time being). Open diff. When he and I wheel with my friend's trucks that are locked, the weaknesses of the system on a trail truck are abundantly clear. Sure, it's a great system for a truck that's also a daily driver, I would never dispute that. Again... I'm a Land Rover enthusiast, or I wouldn't be here. But there's no comparison between ETC/Terrain Response and a locked differentials. If one hasn't seen side by side comparisons on the trail, YouTube can disabuse one of any misconceptions as to what ETC can and cannot do, under what set of off-road circumstances, and why.
That said, if the LR3 on 35's that Erik was referring to is that white one I saw in Uwharrie last fall, it certainly performed well on those moderate trails. I just thought it would be a cool idea to put solid axles on an LR3 and see what it could do. That said, ERover82's point is a good one- I forgot that LR3s are unibody. But then, so are Cherokees. And you see plenty of built Cherokees performing fantastically on rough trails. Sure, they may pull themselves apart at some point down the road. But it's a pretty long road. So I'm back to my same question: why no LR3 solid axle builds? Or is it just too early and they're coming?
In short, ETC/Terrain Response is a great system for truck that is mainly driven on-road. And LRs system puts their products well above the competition in my opinion and experience. Hell, I love stock Land Rovers. In fact I was grateful for this system just the other day when I had to drive around a downed tree in my L322 and momentarily lost traction a few feet from a ditch. I am seriously considering a stock DII or LR3 for a moderate build for when I just want to ride forest roads. But in the context of taking one of these trucks and building a true trail rig, there's simply no comparison between ETC and locked (or better, selectable locking) differentials on a more flexible and expandable solid axle platform.
No pun intended, right?
Pun intended of course. Im merely saying that I have seen D2's go places with a cdl and traction control that D2's with lockers could not. Without several tries anyway. You also have to take into account that it is almost always the line you pick. I have seen guys in nearly stock trucks run a red with no problems when a guy with a locked truck with 35's will struggle. There is definitely an argument whether finesse " traction control " or brute force "lockers" are better. I've done both and went back to a D2. In my book less electronic's = less problem's.
My 1.5 build circa 2003-4 was very flexy suspension, open diff. And I was very critical of rigs with minimal lift, relatively stiff suspension, and lockers because they just bashed and dragged themselves over obstacles. But in an apples to apples comparison, two trucks with the same suspension, same tires, etc, I'm not sure how one could argue that open diff ETC would be preferable to locked axles.
.
Our experiences in this regard have been divergent.
Agreed.
I had a 96 Disco with an ARB rear locker. It was, of course, an incredible traction advantage off road. Then I bought my 04 Disco with the traction control. I assumed that I'd put an ARB in the rear so I put an ARB compressor in the back for airing up the tires and in preparation for installing a rear locker. I continued, and continue, to be amazed by the capabilities of the traction control in the D2 and I've never bothered with a locker.
LR3s are not only unibody but also have a traditional ladder frame chassis. Very strong combination. They layout is not conducive to solid axle range of motion or fixing points though.
The LR3's traction control system is even better than a D2's. If an LR3 was given solid axles somehow I'd like to see E-lockers tied into the Terrain Response system. Best of both worlds. If possible, it'd be unstoppable.
The LR3's traction control system is even better than a D2's. If an LR3 was given solid axles somehow I'd like to see E-lockers tied into the Terrain Response system. Best of both worlds. If possible, it'd be unstoppable.
I'm currently running an LR3 with a 3" coil lift (prototype stage still) and I have full use of the TR system. So, no, it does lose the TR system. That being said, I have yet to find any serious drawbacks either. We make the SYA kit for people like Brett. When his chain killed his truck and he lost air, if he had our SYA kit, he would've been able to drive out of the woods with no issues. With my coils, I don't have that concern, but its just another option as some people despise air altogether.
Why don't you offer a 1inch kit yet? I don't want the over-extension issues of the 2.5" kit and don't need it for 32" tires anyways.
You are the first person to ever ask for one.
Buy an IID tool and calibrate your truck to run the extra 1"