deathrunner

I guess a solid axle is the answer to everything.

I can't wait till 2090 when we're wheeling space craft and you stoneage rednecks have a solid axle under it while the forward thinkers have magnetronic stabilitators and force fields.

muchado

Ultimate combo IMO is a link'd front with either coilovers or air-shocks... ever heard of rock-racing? they have solid front axles and jump, high speed.. all that stuff.. check out www.xrra.com and look at some of their pics! solid axle swap can be good for BOTH!

init6

What it really comes down too. If someone has to ask if they want IFS or SAS, they don't need either. They need to spend more time on the trails to figure out what would work for their style of wheeling.

Albuquerque Jim

"Stonegage Rednecks" huh?

And this comes from someone running a 16yr old rig...please


To answer the question posted in the thread: I wheel my 2000 IFS. It will go a lot of places. I like my IFS but I am finding it's limits. I wheel with folks who run 1st and 2nd gen IFS. It's limits are found sooner than a 3rd gen, mainly in the steering.

When I can afford a SAS I'll cut it off. If you are into rocks A SA will take you places that IFS cannot go, bottom line.

If you are into sand and high speed stuff, by all means, hook it up with the LT. Plus you can bolt it on.

Good Luck

muchado

there is no cure-all solution....

... figure out rocks or sand and then get back with us

elripster

I'm pulling another all night here at school an that made me laugh!

Purely from an engineering/physics standpoint, less unsprung weight moves up and down faster hence the reason IFS is better for high speed dynamic situations. Solid axles, however, can take advantage of leverage characteristics not present in an IFS design making them more suitable for crawling slow speed situations.

Frank

deathrunner

Glad someone can find the humor in my post.

AxleIke

absolutely...i agree completely...seems the second someone gets behind the wheel of a 4wheel drive, they think that it has to have lift, and this and that before wheeling it...it doesn't, you can go wheeling without it...build your rig from there....

At least the guy who started this thread has been wheeling his rig a bunch...however, he needs to see what the beast with a mild lift and some larger tires will do in combination with a locked front and rear, and then decide if he still needs more....

if you decide you'd rather do all out hard core dune running right off the bat, then build it with long travel, as far as i can see, there is nothing better for it than LT...if you plan on doing trails, and some dune running, you need neither at this point, keep the stock front set up...instead, invest in lockers, gears, a second t case, a lift and then bigger tires....after all that, i believe that your front suspension will begin to be a liimiting factor in your wheeling experience......


As for on road experience....the toyota torsion bar set up is the absolute worst ride i have ever experienced, and i've ridden in probably 8 to 10 trucks that have it, as well as both linked and leaf solid set ups...the most comfort is, i think, a coilover on IFS, very cush...with a first or second gen, you can only go up from there...so other than that particluar susupension, if you build a truck for the rocks, you're going to sacrifice some on road comfort...lets face it, large, aggressive tread tires are loud, engine mods are usually louder, the suspension is stiffer, body roll is more pronounced, etc...you can't have the best of both worlds, it'll do just fine as a daily driver, but its not going to ride like a caddy...

deathrunner

I will agree that torsion bars are probably the worst spring design for ride comfort or flex. Manufacturers only use that design because it is cheap, tweakable, and compact. At least toyota was nice enough to put it above the frame.

As far as locking, gearing it now and finding out later.... You will have to replace a lot of expensive parts if you go that route. I think it is smarter to try to think down the road to what you will need.

I thought about both for a long time. I turned down a SAS. Not because of money. Not because I think LT IFS is stronger or better, but because I felt LT IFS better suited my needs. I won't be doing hardcore rock crawling with this rig....I know that.

I think he just needs to ride in a couple of trucks and the decision won't be so difficult.

Everyone says that is you ask if you need a SAS, you probably don't. I actually think it's the other way around. If you're asking fi you need and LT setup, you probably don't.

Napoleon047

what was said vehicle? a jeep? what kind of lift? wheelbase has a lot to do with ride comfort, in case you didnt know.

i think im closer to base here. im comparing the EXACT same vehicle with the EXACT same wheelbase, but two different suspension setups.

you, on the other hand are comparing two DIFFERENT vehicles, with two DIFFERENT wheelbases.

deathrunner

Randomness is actually comparing rigs that are fairly similar:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compar...=t5470&v=t8907

The jeep has a 2.6" longer wheelbase. Not that much, I think you were probably thinking of a wrangler. Shouldn't a longer wheelbase attribute to a softer ride?

They both have solid axles with coils in teh rear. The Jeep should be softer with coils on the solid front axle. Randomness stil says his torsion bar IFS front was softer. I think if anything, the Jeep should ride softer, but Randomness would know best, he had both.

My point is it's actually a pretty close comparison.

Napoleon047

i was thinking a wrangler, thanks for clarification.

my point still stands, they are two different bases for comparison. the GJC is a unibody, whereas the 4r is a body on frame, the body on frame has that extra "cushion" in the body mounts whereas the unibody doesnt.

there are also numerous other factors between two different vehicles, you are comparing apples to oranges

Randomness

Like he said it was a Grand Cherokee, with a 105.9" wheelbase, the 4Runners is only 103". It had a 5.5" Rubicon Express lift. The curb weight of both vehicles is within 100 pounds of each other. Definitely NOT apples to oranges.

It rode decently well, but still not as well as IFS. I'd agree that T-bar setup isn't the best riding, but in general, it's probably still better than a lot of SAS rigs. There's a lot of variables, but the fact is that IFS is present in trucks/suv's for the express purpose of ride comfort. Why do you think Jeep put IFS in the new WK and the KJ when it was introduced? No other Jeep had ever had it, even the newer Grand Cherokees (WJ's) which still rode very well with SFA.

Bottom line is they both have their own sets of advantages. SFA doesn't HAVE to ride like crap, but a lot of them do.

deathrunner

I think the thing to consider is the purpose of either front end.

Someone doing a SAS is probably going to set it up for flex and the ride will propbably suffer.

Someone setting up an LT truck will probably set it up for speed and flex will nto be as good as a SAS obviously.

With that said, a solid axle can be set up for speed (Jeepspeed) and Long travel can be geared more towards a flexy suspension.

For instance. I put 450# coils with my LT to allow for easier articulation. The end result? It does flex better. The street ride is WAAAAY better than torsions. Quick sections offroad are smoother. The Downside? Body roll, but it's growing on me. And I probably can't go as fast as comfortably as a similar truck with stiffer coils. But my goal is in between the two schools of offroading.

My trail buddy has an XJ that he just lifted with better coils and leafs. His ride and flex both improved. He is able to keep up with me for the most part but because my front end is independant, my ride is more comfortable.

Napoleon047

how do you figure? flex and soft ride are both characteristics of soft springs. handling will suffer, but not ride quality.

Napoleon047

and yet you still ignore the fact that there is much more to it than that. they are still different vehicles and not a fair basis for comparison.

they put it there for a number of reasons, ride quality is one, but also handling (they dont want a ford exploder rep), and so they can lower the vehicles making them 'safer'

thats what i have been saying all along.

dont worry, it only hurts the first time you agree with me

Randomness

Oh Paragon of Wisdom, please teach us more. If you knew all there was to know about everything, you shoulda just said so at the start.

Exploders got that reputation not because of the suspension, but because of the Firestone tires exploding and causing rollovers. Hence the moniker. Who's comparing apples and oranges?

And IFS doesn't mean "lower". 4Runners sit much higher than any Grand Cherokee or Cherokee, stock to stock. It doesn't have a single thing to do with ride height.

The fact is that I've done both, and I know which of my suspensions rode better. You had a crapped-out suspension on your 1st gen, how do you expect it to ride?

Don't worry, it only hurts the first time your realize you're wrong.

One More Time

Dance Battle!!!!!









(Sorry for the hijack)

tc

While I find myself generally taking Randomness' side, I have to disagree about the Explorer incident. The rear suspension was TOTALLY AT FAULT. Ever drive or ride in an explorer on a dirt road? F'n SCARY!!! Ford hung Firestone out to dry. Period. Owners had underinflated tires that couldn't handle it, and the suspension was too unstable to account for the ensuing situation.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I feel much better now.

Jared Ajlouny

i used to have a for explorer and i loved it...if it wasnt for their damn transmissions i would still have it!!! BTW..mine had 32s and a 5 inch lift!