I've seen that happen on a few IFS systems - it's not limited to Toyota by any means. I think there are two very important factors that allow that to happen:

1. Lifting the front to the point that the tie-rods are beyond factory angles. This will happen with Rancho lifts, Balljoint spacers and other mods that don't adjust the stock steering. Any time you increase the angle of the tierods, you increase the leverage of the tires in a non-liniar fashion which forces the Tierod to pivot on the draglink. Additionally, and this is a design issue admittedly, the lack of a second supporting idler allows the draglink to pivot on the pitman/idler, further allowing the TieRod's to move inward and upward. Yes, I said design flaw.

The second biggest reason you will ALWAYS see this behavior on the earlier vehicles and not the 3rd gens is because of the location of the steering components. The 3rd gens have the steering components behind the axle. This helps prevent the toe-in behavior because steering in tension can only move so far. If the rack were moved to the front, like the new Taco, I promise you will see more of the toe-in activity: Tierods in compression will find a way to move other components - Tierods in tension can only go so far.

Doe this make 3rd gen IFS better than 2nd gen? I don't think so, personally, but I suppose that it should be taken into consideration. I'm a much bigger fan of the double-a-arm model on 2nd gens than I am of the Short/Long arm model on 3rds. The S/L arm model first came out in GM cars... I believe the uber-long knuckle is a detriment to 4wheeling and allows a lot of flex... Also, the lack of available locking hubs is another consideration in choosing the gen2 model. I realize that this can be remedied via ORS or luck scrounging a yard, but we're not talking about "mods" to make it better - we're talking about stock. There have been a great number of complaints about the Rack bushings going bad in short order... Rack has bushing problems, Recirculating Ball has idler problems. Also, the gen2 model allows a person to replace things one at a time as they wear out - a bad rack isn't cheap, and I know of no "upgrades" for racks (do they even need them?).

Just my opinions. I've owned many of both and I still prefer Toyota's first IFS design.

 

Looks like there was room for a better line.

Definitely looks crazy!!!

 

Cheese, I would nominate you as the poster child for steering woes!

 

is it the inner or outer tie rod that usually breaks on the trail?

 

He and Steve were actually taking the stupid lines so Cheese could test out his new bumper wings. I took the "easier" line

 

nitro- I take it that he was trying to turn the tires in the direction of that rock...so as to get the tire up on it. When steve tried this, I assume he didn't have this issue. I'm starting to see where the dilemma arises.I think rockota had a good point about the angles of the steering components when you lift it.

Thanks -Seth

 

anyone got the answer?

 

I believe it is the outer.

 

Double A-Arm? you talking about the suspension arms? the 3rd gen is a much better design.

What do you mean by short/long arm? both my steering arms are the exact same length?

Locking hubs have nothing to do with the steering linkage, besides the Taco's had them as an option.

 

Keep in mind the original question was about IFS as a whole, not just steering setup. And yes, Taco's WERE available with manual hubs, but only up to 2000 I believe, and only in reg-cab, 4-cyl models. Converting the rest to manual is difficult and spendy.

I will have to disagree with you on the design of the suspension arms on the coil based vs. torsion based IFS. I prefer the un-equal leng a-arm setup of the torsion based over the SLA setup of the coil based. The SLA - Short arm/Long arm - is the common way of referring to the setup used on the 3rd gen 4Runners. It's a "long" lower arm joined to a "short" upper arm with a very long knuckle. I believe this was first offered to the world on the F-body GM cars (Camaro), but I could be wrong... I remember reading an article about it when it first came out - apparently it was a big deal. Anyway a lot of manufacturers have adopted this design in their trucks, including Toyota, Dodge and Ford. But it originated in cars (as did rack and pinion).

I believe the previous generation IS stronger. Toyota continues to use this suspension model in all markets except the US. Why do they still use it in those markets? I believe because it's stronger. I base that on the fact that these same foreign markets get "real" truck engines, fully-boxed frames in the Hilux, etc. Everything about the Hilux screams "beef", while the US offered Taco's have seen their "beef" slowly decreased over the last 10 years. Yes, the 4Runners still have fully boxed frames.

Check out the Hilux page on Brian's foreign Toyota site for more information on the non-US Toys. http://www.brian894x4.com/Hiluxgeneration4.html

bkg

 

The torsion bar design sucks for offroading, coilovers are far superior.The coupler between the a-arm and torsion bars have a tendency to break as well, besides they don't flex well either. To convert to manual with used factory parts, cost is around $400 for everything and is a simple swap.

Both the 2nd gen and 3rd gen use a shorter upper A-arm compared to the longer lower A-arm, so you got me confused on this SLA talk

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the off-road capabilities or flex - I do not agree that the Torsion design sucks at all. I have never seen, personally, a coupler break, but have heard rumors of this on prerunners. I agree that coil-overs are better over all, and easier to service.

I'm assuming that's if you are lucky enough to find a donor? Or is it easier? I'm very curious about this...

Technically, you are correct in the sense that the upper is not as long as the lower on the torsion IFS... But the ratio of lengths is much closer than on an SLA setup... Also, an unequal length setup is almost always contained w/in the diameter of the wheel, while an SLA configuration doesn't fit w/in the diameter of the wheel. I'll see if I can do some digging for pics, etc.

 

It's quite easy to get the parts, they go from $300 to $500 on the forums all the time. To do the swap is a simple matter of popping out the upper ball joints, 4 bolts on the lowers, swapping out the axles unbolting the calipers. Now there's a few more steps if you have 16" disc, but it isn't difficult at all, you don't even have to take the axles out of the spindle assembly.

I've wheeled with stock 2nd and 3rd gen 4Runners and the 3rds front suspension always does better. why? simple the 3rds have more wheel travel. As for the strength of the spindle assemblies, I haven't heard of anyone having problems with them distorting. If your making the assumption that the length of the spindle is a problem, it's not. Now if your saying that keeping the pivot points on the spindle, contained within the diameter of the rim is better, I think not, the more vertical separation you have, the less stress all the joints take, for offroading this is an advantage. Having different length A-arms only affects the camber change during suspension travel, having equal length arms is actually a disadvantage. It's hard to say how much difference is better, but I'm sure the technicians at Toyota determined what works the best for a given vehicle.

 

Thanks for the info...

As for the rest, you and I will have to agree to disagree. It's not worth a pissing match for me to attempt to prove that you're wrong or for you to prove that I'm wrong. I believe I have plenty of evidence for my position and you for yours. Let's just leave it at that.

 

I am not talking about a pissing match. I am saying that I have a lot, more than most, experience putting my truck on the trail with 3rd Gen stuff at the exact same place at the exact same time and my junk breaks. This is with a nominally stock suspension system and negligible lift.

The kicker is I have a 3.4 with an auto crawler.

It used to be I would kill only idlers. With the brace on I killed everything else. This is doing hard trails in Moab, Colorado and Arizona.

The funny thing about the pic Casey posted is that nothing is broke. That is just what my truck does. It drove home fine and had no apparent issues. It was the trip to Terminator the next day that killed it. I squeaked through turns like I was still locked and the tires were whacked.

I have wheeled with a guy who now has the idler from Total Chaos. He never wedged and got stock on the trail because he was going too fast. He killed idlers, but that was only apparent on the way home.

Jumping is hard on stuff, but pushing things into rocks gradually with a lot of power is harder, IMHO.

 

Did the TC idler cure the problems for this guy or did it just push the problem to other components?

 

I wonder how a heim steering kit in conjunction with the idler would fair in your conditions. It seems to work in the desert. Someone should try it. Or is hydraulic steering the only solution for this problem on 1st gens?

 

Hydraulic wouldn't really fix anything, IMHO, as it's the design of the draglink that is part of the problem.

Solutions? I believe there are two.
1. A second idler arm mounted in the middle of the draglink to help prevent it from rotating on the pitman/idler arm.
2. Keep the tie-rod angles as close to parallel as possible to keep all compression on a linear plan...

easy-cheesy...

 

The guy has not wheeled the new idler yet.

I fear swapping to the new idler and tie rods. Seems like that will kill the center link. Bracing the idler killed the pitman and the tie rods. Seems like it was better to just kill idlers.

Marlin, All Pro and Front Range all make parts to fix this.

 

86-95 is stronger. It designed for use all over the world in higher gvw toyotas. The taco front was designed for the North American market to ride like a car.
If anyone with the 3rd gen front wants to doubt this I will wheel with them and we will see who breaks first. I am in SW PA.

DMG