0101

What are the pros and cons of both?

Thanks!

Toyvana

Pick up the newest issue of 4WDTO magazine if you want some good reading on the topic. www.4wdtoyotaowner.com

tc

Generally, in Toyota trucks stock-to-stock, they are FAR more equivalent than web wheelers would have you believe.

IFS typically has a better ride, especially at high speeds than SFA due to the much lower unsprung weight. The downside of IFS offroad is that as the suspension compresses, you lose ground clearance. It's not really a difference in the suspensions, but if we're talking stock, the IFS trucks are typically nicer, with better motors and more comfortable interiors.

SFA can be built to be stronger than IFS and get more articulation, however, in stock form, these differences are minimal, if any. Ground clearance under the diff on a solid axle is constant - it's the radius of the tire. Since the rear axle on our trucks is a solid axle, the suspension is typically better balanced front-rear with a SFA. If you want a modern motor with a SFA, you're looking at considerable money to either do a motor swap or a SAS.

89silverpu

Or find an 85 with the 22re and sfa...

On another note...ifs is way more capable than people give it credit for, if you are going to dd you ride then ifs is a good idea but if you are looking to lift your ride alot and make it a trail only rig go with a sfa rig, much easier to lift and get better suspension performance!

tc

First gen 4Runners are AMAZINGLY spartan. You need at least a 2nd gen to have a nice interior, and as good as the 22RE is, it doesn't hold a candle to the 2RZ/3RZ or the 5VZFE in either mileage or power.

Your comment about lift is well made though. There are almost no mechanical downsides to lifting a solid axle, and it's pretty cheap. Lift IFS much and you're asking for trouble.

904_runner

So far i enjoy my ifs, i did put a lift on it despite everybody on here saying not to and to be honest i like it. But i got it for ($300, so i figured why not). I feel sas is too much for what kind of wheeling i do at the moment. If the time ever comes where ifs cannot do the trails i want then i might consider an sas.

89silverpu

To get any of those engines you would have to go to a 3rd generation or higher second gens 90-95 came with either the 3.0 v6 or the 2.4 liter 22re but you proabably know that


And adding to what tc said on lifting ifs...Lifting ifs brings in problems with the cv angle, the higher you lift (unless with a bracket lift) the more severe the cv angle is and that will kill you cv's. With a bracket lift you raise your center of gravity and you do not have the suspension articulation needed to make up for that if you get what I'm saying....basically you will roll way easier than a similarly lifted sfa rig.

It all comes down to what you are wanting to do with you rig...if you want to make a serious rock crawler go sfa no questions asked...if you want to make a dd weekend trail rig go ifs....like I said, ifs is not given nearly enough credit! Ifs rigs have gone over the Rubicon in the sierra's no problem and I have seen videos here on YT of tc and axleike and there other buddies with ifs tackle some hardcore stuff some people may think you need a sfa for...

gilby4runner

Seriously?.....

89silverpu

lol that is true huh?

BLKNBLU

iTrader: (1)

Can't speak for TC but I think the point is that the 22re is no longer a particularly modern motor.

duel

When you look at the front of a 85' & a 88'
Ifs = reminds me of beautiful, delicate, butterfly wings.
Ifs = like wishbone off a chicken = delicate

Sfa = like a drumstik of a chicken = TOUGH
Sfa = reminds me of GET THE HELL out of my way obstacles

wierd enough analogy?

Rallyroo

I sense the same thing when I'm driving behind a Honda CRV, Ford Escape, etc and looking at their rear suspension.

tc

Basically. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're looking at STOCK Toyota trucks, the advancements of going to a "Tacoma-era" truck with either a RZ-series 4Cylinder, 5VZFE, or newer motor, and all the other stuff that comes with them (interior, elockers, etc) result in an overall FAR better vehicle for general use than one of the SFA-era rigs.

89silverpu

Very true!! Maybe the op should specify what year or years he would like info on, or search lol

algranger

really it depends on what your looking for 99% people who know what theyre talking about will tell you sfa
IFS-
GOOD-better on road ride...
BAD-less flex, very fragile, expensive to get a decent lift (a arms, t-bars, etc.) lots of maitnence (constant cv replacement, ball joint replacement) diff gets closer to ground when susp. is under stress, imo when lifted with drop brackets looks really dumb, very vulnerable and flexless when stock, complicated and hard to work on, theres lots that can go wrong with ifs but not sfa (broken a arm, cracked tbar, bad ball joints, bad cv's, bad cv boots, bent a arms or crossmember i know theres more but dont know what off the top of my head) and most of all IT JUST PLAIN SUCKS

SFA
GOOD-very strong, easy to lift, diff never gets closer to ground, lots of flex stock and modded, looks good, easier to work on, simple but sturdy design, much much better stock, i cant stress the strength thing enough i have both and the ifs has had problems right and left (literally) the sfa hasnt had one single issue to this day, can take abuse, theres not much that can go wrong, if you really beat on it maybe shattered leafs. sfa rigs are a very good start for a toy and my dd is sfa i love it
BAD-not a fancé comfortable on road ride

tc

Chalk up another web-wheeler opinion .... but everyone has their experiences

My experience has been that my SFA rig is MORE work than the IFS. Not only that, but it takes longer on the SFA rig too.

Deathwobble is pretty much impossible on an IFS rig ... pretty common on SFA rigs.

BLKNBLU

iTrader: (1)

Yeah in 240k miles broken a arm, zero. bad ball joints, zero. bad cv's, zero. torn cv boots, 4 or 5. bent a arms or crossmembers, zero. I did replace the BJ's when I put in spacers about a year or two ago, but only because I was already in there.

SpecialScottie

The debate will never end

stormin94

I think it's interesting how many people prefer the LOOK of the SFA (solid front axle) over the IFS, or that say that it(IFS) sucks without giving any good or valid reason, and most have never even owned/driven an IFS rig.

I'm probably going to be biased toward my IFS, since that's what I got, until all the IFS hatersband together, and buy me a solid front axle. What we're forgetting here, is that everyone has a solid rear axle, and a Toyota symbol somewhere on their truck.

Now if IFS isn't a strong system, then why are there sooo many rigs with zero problems, other than routine maintenance(blown CV boots, adding grease, etc). Blown CV's isn't nearly the catastrophe some people make it out to be. Since most of your truck's life is spent on the road, you will notice it vibrating, so you spend the $40 and get it fixed. Overall, If you really look at the components of an IFS system, it is designed to be strong, and durable. But if you disturb it from the factory settings, or abuse it, part of it may fail, as anything will probably fail with enough abuse.

Solid front axles are also strong, and durable, and mechanically simpler. However, they are prone to rollovers more than an IFS. SFA's are simpler, and easier to lift, and offer better aftermarket support.

But when it comes down to it, the average person, who drives to the trail, and also drives to work in the same rig, is gonna probably be more attracted to the IFS, since a good portion of us drive more miles on the pavement than the trails.

Both systems are strong, but both also have their faults.

yoder519

if you want sfa... buy and 85 or earlier p/u or runner. want ifs? get a later model. and if you decide you want SAS.. then do it but its pricey. if IFS is ty like everyone that has SFA says.... i dont think the little men in japan would have made it. if you put a good driver in a IFS rig.. he oculd probably go alot of places you wouldnt think. beleive me ive been watchin ALOT of vids lately