Reader: Let me start by saying thanks for the coverage of the best 4x4 around, the Toyota Land Cruiser.
A couple of comments about your "Against the Grain" article (you knew that was coming) in the same issue: First, your cover blurb and subhead in the article call the truck an FJ-60 when in fact it's an FJ-62 (as you say in the article). It's a very different truck than the 60 with auto tranny, FI 3F engine, dual square headlights, and a few other design details.
Second: the anti-inversion shackles (shown on page 93) are installed backwards! The stop pin is supposed to be on the inboard side so that the spring doesn't invert in full droop situation ... but you knew that too.
Mark Woytovich
Gotham City Land Cruisers
New York, NY
P.S. The Land Cruiser is the Four Wheeler of the Year! Whoooo hoooo!
Editor: The suspension kit we discussed in the article will fit any 60-series Land Cruiser, so we don't have any qualms about calling out the more widely known model for purposes of identification.
About the shackle photo ... well, it is a shackle reversal, right? OK, seriously, we only installed the shackle backwards for photographic purposes-the exhaust system partially obscures a clear view of the part when it's installed the other (right) way. We neglected to mention this in the story; our apologies for any confusion, and good catch.
Reader: I am thinking of making a road trip from New Jersey to Arizona. I want to head south through the Carolinas and then head west through Texas. What I need from you is a list of OHV parks or trail systems that I can hit along the way. I am not looking to kill my truck ('84 Blazer or '86 CJ-haven't decided yet), but I would like to get a taste for the different terrains. If you can get me the names or Web sites of some places, I would be grateful-I may even let you pay me to tell you about it.
Tom (Blazers are better)
via fourwheeler.com
Editor: Ask no longer. We'll have an expanded "Where to Wheel" listing of more than 200 public and private ORV areas across the U.S. in next month's issue.
Reader: Jimmy Nylund's "Built-In Bead Breakers" (Feb. '06) was an interesting article for sure. Two technical points that may have an effect on the phenomenon he discusses are the flange heights of the wheels and the use of safety humps on the wheel bead-seat flanges. Since we in the tire and rim industry are always changing things, the rim guys have several "approved" rim contours and flange heights that they can choose from when making a wheel. I believe most rim manufacturers today producing rims for light truck fitment (15- to 18-inch diameters), are making those wheels with what is called a J-ISO contour, which specifies a rim flange height of 17.5 mm. Now if a tire guy designs his tire "rim protector pocket" to accommodate a 17.5mm flange height, and the tire is then mounted on a wheel with an approved K or L contour, with flange heights of 19.6 mm and 21.6 mm, respectively, you can see there will be an "interference" fit ... which may aggravate this situation.
Also, with the J-ISO wheel, manufacturers have four "approved" options of the types of safety humps they use, and two of these options also allow the inboard wheel flange to not have a safety hump at all. The purpose of this hump is to trap the bead toe of the tire at very low/zero inflation pressure and to keep the tire from unseating and coming off the wheel. To complicate this issue, when tire manufacturers build these "beefy" off-road constructions and have all sorts of materials and reinforcements wrapped around the bead bundle, the tire bead ledge is often much wider than the space allotted between the rim flange and the safety hump. This allows the toe of the tire to ride up on the safety hump, which completely negates any trapping function at very low pressure.
Just some thoughts for you to process. Glad to see that you're still bustin' trails and writing awesome articles.
Ed Cercek
Kumho Tire
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Reader: I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in the February '06 issue. The cover is always the first thing I see, and the cover trucks are always awesome, but why is it that they only get two pages? It was like this last month, with that beautiful blue Jeep and yet only two pages. I realize there are only so many things you can list about a truck, but would it kill anyone to throw in a few more pictures to drool over? Larger, more detailed photos, if not more in general, would really help those of us who like to see every intricate part that goes into a great four wheeler. I'm not asking for a novel or photo album, just a little more content having to do with the truck that you thought was good enough o be on the cover.
Dan
via fourwheeler.com
Editor: We share your concerns, and your frustration. We'd also like to be able to allot more pages to our cover trucks each month, and to other feature trucks we see throughout the year. Unfortunately, the number of pages we can devote to features-and anything else-depends entirely upon the number of pages of advertising we bring in each month. As you surely know, 2005 was not a banner year for much of the automotive industry, and the economic impact of that eventually trickles down to enthusiast mags such as this one. Hopefully, as the automotive marketplace rebounds in the coming months, we'll be able to provide you with more pages of feature trucks-and tech, and tests, and trail rides, and everything else.