Crap now I'm really gonna lose! :cry:


tc, I'd never heard that about the rear suspension. It still seems like something had to be wrong w/the factory tires. I've driven back from wheeling (going to air back up) for distances up to 30 miles, with my tires at ~14 psi, and mine never blew up. Interesting, though... Thanks for the input!

 

Sorry randomness - I just reread my message and I wasn't clear. Indeed the tires were faulty, and shouldn't have blown from being underinflated. I'm quite certain that you drove carefully knowing your tires were low. The point is, how many people are killed each year when their tires blow out? Not many. The truck ABSOLUTELY shouldn't have been so unstable after having a blowout! Tires blow out - it shouldn't kill someone when it does - that was the point.

 

Everyone here has good points..... let's nto start fights.

But, isn't a stock IFS runner taller than a stock solid axle runner. I thought that was one of the advantages of yota switching to IFS.

Napoleon you are right, ride and flex are characteristics of soft springs, but independant control of rough terrain is just as important in high speed off road.

I'm not saying SFA can't be good at speeds.... but generally it is not setup for it.

I think it is pretty slear that Solid excels in rocks and IFS in speed.

 

Ok, that makes more sense. Agreed, a blowout shouldn't necessarily cause a rollover. Thanks for clarifying

 

.... are ya guys done yet?


Both are viable suspensions. Both have ups and downs. Strength, reliability and articulation are the upsides on a SAS rig... Ride quality and extreme travel are what the LT kit has going for it.... Either way you don't NEED either.. both are bling unless you really wheel the crap outta your rig... if you wheel that hard you should already know exactly what you need and shouldn't have ever started this thread. The SFA versus IFS threads are lame and just gets people into a pissing contest. If you like IFS, great... if you like SFA, great. I personally have had both and I'd say both have ups and downs. 2nd trip wheelin I broke a stock birfield in my 85, but then again it's cause I have a built 350 and 36's on stock shafts. I went through 3 CV axles and tore off one of my link brackets in the rear on my 93 4Runner on 33's with an IFS lift before I decided that I needed to do something with a SFA and have another truck as a DD. It is all about how you use your junk, not about how someone thinks you should build it. Sounds like you need to do some more wheelin' before you decide what exactly you want to do(if anything) to your truck. It may be tempting if you have the cash(or are just dreaming) and seeing all these sweet-ass rides on here but just keep researching and wheelin... you'll figure it out for yourself.

Sorrry if I hurt someone's feelings.
-Rob

 

Good call Muchado, I have an 86 4Runner with the IFS. I refuse to buy an IFS lift because it does nothing to improve anything, similar to a body lift. I have been looking at both of these options, and I have landed on SAS. My main reasoning for this is the sheer fact that I live in Massachusetts, and there arn't too many dunes around here. I agree with most of what was said here, both have thier ups and downs. Keep it sane and do what you feel, and just remember one thing: at least it isnt a Jeep.

Sam

 

i never claimed omniscience, you must be attempting to flatter me. no, you may not have my phone number.

i never said that exploders had problems due to IFS or a lack thereof, i was simply stating that they had a bad reputation for safety. whatever the cause, everyone started taking a closer look at SUV safety.

i never said IFS had to mean lower either. its eaiser to make a vehicle lower with IFS than with a SA: there are fewer clearance issues to deal with.

since you are comparing vehicle heights, why not compare the liberty to the cherokee it replaced, the liberty sits lower. compare the modern GC to the SA ones they replaced, the IFS ones sit lower.

im not doubting your ability to determine which suspension is softer, im just saying there are more reasons than you are stating causing the differences.

first you say i know everything, now you say im wrong. sounds rather contradictory.

 

great input.

 

Dude, give it up.

 

 

and what? let you spout off incorrect information?

one of the purposes of this board is education. many n00bs come to this site to learn about toyotas or vehicles in general. when people like you come here and say stuff like "my ifs rides better than a coil sprung solid axle because ive owned both" then those who are here to learn start to think that it must be true. by continually spreading this false info, you are hindering the progress of the human race as a whole.

it seems to me that you completely failed to pick up on the 'scientific method' of testing a hypothesis. this might be the reason you dont see the error in your comparison.

 

does any one else find it funny that j**ps are a playing large part of this debate?
Coming from pirates, this is quite interesting cause the seccond you brought in a grand cherokee into the argument you would have been flamed so bad that you would have lost all confidence in your ablity to wheel, think or preform personal hygene.
I guess that is the main reason why i am over here....

 

So true, birfbuster

But it is a pertinent rig to comapre. IFS is comparably newer technology. So comparing early IFS with a pretty modern solid axle setup gives the SA a bit of an advantage. Even then Randomness claims his IFS was a nicer ride.

From my memory I might have to disagree. Although IFS suited my needs well, it took alot of work to get it to a point where I am happy with the ride quality. I felt the stock setup was a bit firm and the Jeep GC's that I've ridden in have been a bit softer. Makes sense Coils and newer technology better ride nicer.

But it is nice that we can mention the J word here and not get flamed. But don't push your luck. If you talk about swapping a 4.0 into a runner here, you'll probably get flamed.

 

Dang, guess that setles it. No '05 tacoma 4.0L for my 4runner.

 

Well, the lexus 4.0 is more than acceptable. You know what I meant.

 

I don't understand. Nobody ever says incorrect or stupid stuff:

I've had a couple of each, so have others. Still not a meaningful comparison no matter how many times you say it is. I've driven an 85 Runner and an 86 Runner, I would call that a meaningful comparison between IFS and SFA. They both pretty much suck compared to a well built rig, they were both better than my old Wrangler.


Or a couple. And yet the folks here keep trying....

Now that's helpful to the thread.

Relatively stock? Locked front and rear, dual crawler, engine transplant........

These are the threads that I just wish would stop after about three posts. Everybody that posted here, go back and reread your posts, and if you used the word "need", just delete it cause your wrong, whatever you said.

My advice, don't do either. Use your money for gas to go out and wheel the crap out of what you have.

 

Yeah, his suspension (which is what this thread is about) is relatively stock. I don't consider BJ sapcers and shoicks a major mod to IFS. Therefore, it is considerable stock. Yes, his rig has some awesome mods (lockers, crawler, 3.4), but none of which attribute to teh way the truck rides or how the suspension alone handles terrain.

 

[Positive, true and optimistic]
I still maintain what I said, these are two different things.

My trashed IFS rode, steered and generally behaved like an unreliable, decroded piece of crap.

I anticipate my new stuff will ride better. Two feet of wheel travel ought to do that.

It will not corner well though.

Calling Peter an off road park is really not needed.

Good luck in this and all pursuits. Whatever route is chosen will be great. I hope there are a lot of pictures of it.

No more lying.

[/Positive, true and optimistic]

 

Yeah, cause all this thread has been about is suspension.

The spacers and shocks do attribute to the way the truck rides and handles terrain, quite a bit in fact.

The quote I took from you was about how capable someone's IFS rig was. I would say the lockers, crawler, and engine had a lot more to do with that than the front suspension.

I am not against long travel IFS, I think it's pretty cool bling. For desert racing and high speed dirt road travel I would think it would be great. The debate here has wandered back and forth, originally comparing two mods to a stock truck and then talking about the mods and stock setups, but bluring the specifics. I see four different setups being discussed. Stock IFS, stock SFA, LT IFS, and SAS. My long-winded point here is that if you are going to mod a stock truck, LT IFS speaking specifically of the TC kit, is very expensive. There is enough experimenting going on (SteveO, SteveS, Adrian) that I think for the same amount of money you could do a SAS that would give you comparable road handling and better rock crawling. The only two places I see LT IFS excelling is in desert racing and ease of installation. Can't beat a bolt-on kit for someone with limited tools, shop time, or mechanical ability.

 

What about on-road? or mallcrawlin?