Ahhhhhh, so the Cruiser had Limited Slip? Well that's not really a fair comparison then now is it?
A 235/85 is about 1.26" taller than a 245/75, so I would say it's a fair amount. I usually run down to about 12psi on my stock alloys.
Technically the CDL only has two positions, the other movements are Transfercase Hi/Lo.

 

No it did not have limited slip. Mine was a 91. It wasn't available with that. Your right that would not have been a fair comparison.

Furthermore the Toyota LSD was sorta lame. I researched upgrading to the factory locker axles giving me full floating rear and disc brakes.
It turns out that "limited slip" was all but useless off road. So even if it did have it I don't think it was a game changer.

 

yup. never once worried about popping the bead.

a working clutch LSD is still better than an open diff.

 

Yea with out a doubt.

I'm still no closer to figuring out the next step. Gears? Tires? Detroit Lockers? My budget will not allow ARB lockers..
I will try the tire pressure reduced next time I'm out. I can't got too low without bringing a way to air back up. I'd like to say I will go for the tire upgrade but after mounting and balancing tax etc that's like a grand. For that much it would have to be a big improvement.

 

I hate to say it but the biggest gains to tackling terrain is almost always bigger tires. There is a point where the modifications needed for larger tires start to make it not worth it, but you're far from that point to be honest. I know it stings, but adding bigger tires will bring results. 235/85 on a 2" lift is about as perfect as it gets.

The other option is to explore your shocks. Most often they will be what limits your wheel travel. Take a look at my Avatar pic. That's my D1 on 2" Heavy Duty RTE springs with 265/75 tires. Compare the suspension travel to yours in the video. Good suspension travel is key to getting through terrain without lockers or Traction Control(not available on D1's). You keep the tires in contact with the ground and you won't lose traction, its just that simple.
I was running Rancho 999028 shocks at all four corners. Those shocks offer 11.25" of travel, but are eye-to-eye shocks. For the rear I use the stock upper shock mounts, and standard eye-to-pin style shocks adapters(you can buy these of make these, http://www.summitracing.com/parts/exp-690001). I ran inverse dislocation cones from QT.
For the front I was using stock D2 shock towers with the mount drilled from 12mm to 1/2". Lower shocks mounts were DIY. I had upper dislocation cones from Scorpion racing(now TerraFirma offers them).
The shocks can be had pretty cheap from places like www.4wdhardware.com.
Of course with longer shocks you'll need longer flex brake lines. A good time to upgrade to SS braided lines. My +2" lines were maxed out so I had to get +4" lines from www.paragonperformance.com . Ended up about $91 shipped after a discount.

Something else to keep in mind is the Land Cruiser had a wheelbase of 112.2" while the Discovery is only 100". A shorter wheelbase will often result in the vehicle more easily being cross-axled and losing traction, however breakover angle and turning radius will be better on the shorter vehicle.

 

i'd argue that facebook-newsfeed-destroying wheel travel isn't all it is cracked up to be. without any traction devices (lockers, ELSDs, whatever) the side that is drooped to china is just gonna spin bc it doesnt have any weight on it. i'd rather limit to flex so it is useable. i'd rather the use the weight of the truck. a tire spinning in the air is just as useless as a tire spinning in the dirt with no weight on it, but if you use the unsprung weight to your advantage it can help pull the truck down, force more weight to the ground on the opposite axle and put some power down.

thats just been my experience. hell, even with lockers front and rear you don't need 2 ft of wheel travel.

 

Great info here guys. Thank you. Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I will look into all that. I do have a couple questions.

If I went with the 235/85 tire, doesn't that narrow my footprint? Aside from the added 1.26 of ground clearance, how does that help my loss of traction? Not doubting your knowledge just trying to learn.

I can see the logic in both arguments above. I would love to try both approaches. But budget won't allow it.

If you limit travel.. and you approach a sizable rut off to say the passenger side...If you had little to no flex, wouldn't that cause the truck to tip way over thus loosing traction on the drivers rear? It seems like if you had flex you'd be more stable and not loose the traction on the other 3 wheels.

I had always thought the more flex/travel the better.

 

to a point. obv if you have 3" up and down at all 4 corners you wont be doing too well. but i think stock shocks are something like 10" travel? i have the numbers written down at home.

 

Your footprint would be narrowed by 10mm(1cm). Not a big deal.
And actually you don't add 1.26" of ground clearance. 1.26" is the overall difference in the tire diameter, of which you only see .63" under the axle. So a larger tire on your same setup would basically give you .63" more downtravel. Not a ton, but its something. More than that, though, bigger tires go over stuff easier. That's the reason for the 29er craze in mountain biking, they roll over obstacles better than the standard 26" tire.

Tweaking your shocks to get the most from your suspension can pay dividends. It is a great way to can traction without dropping $2-4000 on lockers and axles. I started with 2" RTE springs and OME Nitro shocks. Took my sways off and the shocks were limiting me BIG time. Changed out the shocks to the 999028 Ranchos and cones and watched my traction improve greatly. You don't need a ton of weight on the drooping side of the axle, just enough to keep a little traction.

Here's a video of me on a rock. 265/75 DuraTracs, no lockers, 2" RTE springs, Rancho 999028 shocks, and cones. The truck climbs up and over the rock smoothly with no spinning.
SKIP TO 4:01 for the part I'm talking about. (My '95 Project Truck can be seen at 2:31 )

I'm not saying you MUST go with exactly what I had. Just trying to prove the merits of a suspension that stays in contact with the ground.

Also, don't discount the wheelbase thing I mentioned about why the Cruiser climbed this particular slope better.

 

Great video. I would like to find out out the travel on my current shocks. Just out of curiosity. I had thought I was buying longer shocks when I bought the kit...

Unrelated side note...do you have your spare tire carrier reinforced? Between the bigger tire, the high lift jack and the straps, that's a lot of weight. I really want to mount my jack there. Probably carry one of those bags for recovery gear too.