Do you know what springs you went with? I too will be doing the MT64 in the near future but am I'm torn between the 0lbs and the next step up. I don't have any additional weight but have sag anxiety and want the full 3" of lift.
OME MT64 Lift
- Thread starter WeGo250
- Start date
Thanks and that was exactly what I was hoping for. Such an awesome truck without any mods, but I think the sized up tires on the stock wheels with the taller stance is how it should have come from the factory. Appreciate the feedback and looking forward to the next 200k miles!
I went with the 0s as my shop contacted ARB and asked which ones to go with, as I’m planning to add the FK auxiliary fuel tank (12Gal) in the near future. ARB said absolutely go with the standard springs unless you have a bunch of weight going in the back, or you’re regularly towing.
Stick with the standard springs as they’re already beefier than stock. I think the HD springs would be too stiff and make the ride suffer.
where did yo have these installed? Burien toyota?
Yes, very happy with Nomad Overlanding (Burien Toyota’s in house partner). Definitely tell them I referred you if you go with them and see if they’ll offer you any type of referral discount - I do know they will credit you a free alignment or one hour of shop labor with a review if you’re happy with them.
Quick update -
Still love the lift, but lost about an an inch of rake after loading down the back, leaving the front about half an inch nose high - where I was previously half an inch rear high. This was after installing drawers and a couple hundred pounds of gear.
I decided to put Airlift airbags in the rear springs, which worked perfectly to restore the rake and I’m now sitting 3/4 of an inch higher in the back with a decent rake and 20 psi in the bags. I tested it with the OME zero load spring and it was easily able to raise the back 1.5” with 30 psi (this was way too high with too much rake - considering the 3 inch lift already).
All in all, fantastic and inexpensive fix to restore your rake and reduce any sag due to weight or towing. Still drives great and loving the lift. No noticeable reduction in travel with the airbags.
A few flex pics:
The correct Airlift kit for the OME MT64 is PN 60926. Specifically for the 0 load OME springs (not the stock springs).
Still love the lift, but lost about an an inch of rake after loading down the back, leaving the front about half an inch nose high - where I was previously half an inch rear high. This was after installing drawers and a couple hundred pounds of gear.
I decided to put Airlift airbags in the rear springs, which worked perfectly to restore the rake and I’m now sitting 3/4 of an inch higher in the back with a decent rake and 20 psi in the bags. I tested it with the OME zero load spring and it was easily able to raise the back 1.5” with 30 psi (this was way too high with too much rake - considering the 3 inch lift already).
All in all, fantastic and inexpensive fix to restore your rake and reduce any sag due to weight or towing. Still drives great and loving the lift. No noticeable reduction in travel with the airbags.
A few flex pics:
The correct Airlift kit for the OME MT64 is PN 60926. Specifically for the 0 load OME springs (not the stock springs).
hi, thks for all these informations. I am planning also to mount MT64 on my J250. I have european version (based in Morocco) : it's like the narrow body 1958 in the US with diesel engine. So the OME springs ref are different (managing different engine and body weight) but the MT64 are the same. Anyway, my question : how do your CV angles look with the front set at the highest clip (3 inches) ? Have you noticed any premature wear on the CV boots or experienced any CV binding at full droop ? I am bit scared about damaging CVs with these highest clip. thks
Hi! I’m planning to install the MT64 as well on my LC250. When you say you had 1.75" in front at #0 lowest setting you mean that you put the circlip at the bottom notch? I’ve seen many people on Facebook having 1.5" to 2" on the 3rd notch (middle one)! And for the rear springs, is 0# means you took the lightest load reference (3338)? How much lift did it give you in the rear? Thanks for all of you can help !
Welcome to the asylum.
Welcome to the asylum.
Haha I used to have the MT64 on my 3rd Gen Tacoma and it was already a struggle to get the right settings. As I have the diesel version it seems that parts numbers are different as the diesel engine is heavier than the petrol one. So I guess the settings are different too.
Yes for diesel model, rear spring ref is 3342 (and 3338 for petrol hybrid model, designed for more weight because of the battery). Anyone to comment about CVs angle with these OME lift ?
On the OME application the 3338 is also for diesel model it’s just light/medium rate. 3342 may be for heavier rate. (See picture)
Attachments
No issues so far and trusting ARB knows what they’re doing with the LC
- just ran into their team today here in WA at a coffee meet up and they had the BP51 on their branded LC, looked good!hi Neil, actually the 3338/3342 rear spring ref is more confusing than it looks like. In the latest OME catalog, you're right it is mentioned 3338. But in previous catalog it is 3342 (for medium also) see attached. Also, some other informations makes the 3342 more believable : 1/in "equip'raid" website, well known in france, they sell 3342 for diesel version 2/in all websites and IA reasearch they mention 3338 specifically fo petrol 3/you could think this is wiered that latest OME catalog do not mention "petrol" version but only diesel. It looks like they made a mistake in the latest catalog mixing petol and diesiel information. I was completly confused and asked Equip'raid to confirm with ARB Europe. They came up with conclusion that 3342 is the right ref for diesel (see attached). This spring is shorter than 3338 and bit more "strong" but this sound logical as the 3338 is a bit higher and softer to absorb static battery weight. As far as i have understood the 3342 is shorter (no battery) and a bit stronger only to compensate dynamic (when you break, as the front is much heavier, it will help rear keeps stable). Well, if you have any other information in this very confusing ref from ARB please let me know ! Did you already monted your 3338 ? does it look and feel ok ? any pic ? thks
Attachments
Wow ok thanks for the info! Are you French by the way? ‘Cause I am! I mean, I leave very far away from France (New-Caledonia) but we have the French nationality. Anyway! I didn’t order the MT64s yet, I wanted to check with our local ARB supplier first so thanks for the info. I just want to lift the front 1.5" and the rear 0.5 to 0.75" to have a level stance. More over, any higher in the front and rear wouldn’t fit in my garage. So I guess I will have to put the circlip on the 3rd notch in the front and go for the 3342 springs in the rear!
hi neil, oui français, i'll send you private message to continue this topic
I'll be installing my MT64s in the next week or two, went with the same 0lbs springs as you did. How's the overall daily usage compared to stock? I'm running E-load tires so I know it'll be different either way, but curious what your take is on them now on road.
It honestly feels better than stock, and I’m on 285 E loads as well. The suspension eats up speed bumps and potholes on pavement but it doesn’t feel too soft. The biggest adjustment was getting used to a taller stance and a tighter feel in the steering, given the heavier tires and taller geometry. Still getting 18mpg on the highway as long as I keep it under 70-75, maybe a little better at slower speeds.
Also really like the Air Lift airbags I put inside the rear OME springs, as I lost a little height after I loaded it down, the bags returned it to a perfect .5” rake.
Definitely think the MT64 is the right lift for the LC250 unless you’re planning to crawl/baja and want the fully adjustable BP51.
TLDR - very happy with it
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- #80
Hey there, unfortunately I don't remember as this was last summer and I've had BP51's on since October?
Similar threads
