TowRig.com - Diesel Discussion and Tow Tech

That title aught to get some attention! ;)

Anyway, I was just reading the latest Peterson's 4WD magazine that arrived today. Basically saying the same thing I've been saying about IFS all along. The only thing I didn't see in the article was strong admonitions not to take it outside it's design parameters (like most IFS lifts do). Though they do talk about proper "quality" lift kits and race units that lower the CV joints near stock angles.

So, according to Peterson's (as if any magazine were a definitive authority) IFS is better! It's just people screwing them up with improper mods and lack of good aftermarket support that gives them the bad rep. The design is superior both on AND off road.

:poke:

Edit: corrected "shock" for "joint", brain stumbled...

This should be a good one. :popcorn:

I saw that article too, it made some very good points and truly showed what the best of IFS is, and what it can offer.

Umm, Russ, hate to tell ya, but I've got 2 broken CV's and a cracked third that beg to differ ;)

I broke all of those items with stock tires while doing a littel 4 wheelin. GM's current IFS cannot handle larger tires than 35" or so off road unless your just a poser mud junky.

For a stock tow rig, it works fine. But for a truck that is to perform in rocks or harder trails it doesn't have it's place. But in other places, a tow rig, a street queen, a desert race truck, etc it does have it's place.

Oh, I know the issues well enough, just trying to stir the pot and prove a point (yet again).

That point being that the IFS does have very significant benefits should not be ignored because of perceptions that it is "too weak". Too many people just automatically discount it all together due to incorrect information or grandiose visions of a "hard core trail rig" at sometime in the future, something that is far less likely than they would like to imagine. I know, I've had those same thoughts, but fought my way back to reality (at least from my rather limited viewpoint).

As the article states, the benefits are enormous. The problem is that the stock designs were not spec'd to handle large tires, clearance, or travel. They cut it down to the 99.99% point of their target market usage and saved a bundle to keep the price from going even higher without loosing those benefits for the 99.99% who bought that 4WD HD pickup for towing and to handle the occasional washed out fire road, camp site, and snow/ice.

You Jason, are in market percentage somewhere right of 20 decimal place precision and so you're experiences are not relevant in this case. :D But for you, the article suggests that the after market could/should have long travel super HD IFS setups that will let you keep most of the travel of SFA without sacrificing the ground clearance (which like a Mog, can be achieved comparably with smaller tires), or loosing the ability of to run larger tires in a more demanding environment. We've seen it in Superiors and CTMs for SFAs, with more and more IFS trucks out there, how long before the after market steps up there too? But of course, that's irrelevant to a tow rig forum.

Back to the point. IFS has significant benefits and, within reason, the benefits far outweigh the (somewhat questionable) loss of durability and cost of repair. And those two (debatable) "losses" should not be too onerous in the time spans most of us realistically own our trucks assuming, we don't let Jason drive it. I've seen 200k on IFS front with little durability or maintenance cost at all as long as standard PM is provided, other than idlers which wear out around 100k (sometimes less with larger than spec tires) and TREs which die in drag racing with stalled 4WD launches the drop under 13 seconds or so.

Yeah, stalled 4WD launches with 33" tires in 7500 lb trucks that break nothing but tie rods in week after week of sub-13-second quarter miles and "pulling". What a weak piece of trash. Yeah, better pull mine out this week end to put in a D60 before I break that thing trying to get pull my truggy on a trailer down a muddy fire road…

:stir:

:rolleyes: These IFS arguments are getting old in my book.

Anyone that knows anything about current tow rigs should know that the stock IFS system is strong enough for any stock tow rig and DOES have it's benifets on the roads.

However, I doubt I will ever see it's strength pass that of a comparable D60 that is under the Fords and Dodges. IFS can't take big tires like the live axles can and GM owners can keep their fat repair bill when the system is in need of an overhaul.

IFS may provide a few slim advantages on the road during a long cruise but I'll take the sheer strength and simplicity of a nice, big D60 anyday. Plus strait axles look cooler and beefier. rotfl

Dont you remember petersons pushing IFS as the "wave of the future" for all motorsports just a few years ago? I sure do, infact i still have all the issues. And i have a pretty good theory on why they are doing it again, but id like to see if anyone else thinks its for the same reason i do.

IFS definately has its place, no doubt. It has its benefits, and it has its drawbacks. It comes down to personal preference, just like everything else. If somebody doesnt like it, dont buy it.

That point being that the IFS does have very significant benefits should not be ignored because of perceptions that it is "too weak". Too many people just automatically discount it all together due to incorrect information or grandiose visions of a "hard core trail rig" at sometime in the future, something that is far less likely than they would like to imagine. I know, I've had those same thoughts, but fought my way back to reality (at least from my rather limited viewpoint).

I completely agree. Stock GM/Ford/Dodge IFS is great in a stock truck with stock tires maybe up to a 33". It holds up fine and works well. Thats why I mentioned that very thing in my reply.

As the article states, the benefits are enormous. The problem is that the stock designs were not spec'd to handle large tires, clearance, or travel. They cut it down to the 99.99% point of their target market usage and saved a bundle to keep the price from going even higher without loosing those benefits for the 99.99% who bought that 4WD HD pickup for towing and to handle the occasional washed out fire road, camp site, and snow/ice.

As I said in the first reply, I agree 100%, it was designed to handle the stock tires and the highway and it works rather well at that while giving a better ride than a solid axle.

You Jason, are in market percentage somewhere right of 20 decimal place precision and so you're experiences are not relevant in this case. :D But for you, the article suggests that the after market could/should have long travel super HD IFS setups that will let you keep most of the travel of SFA without sacrificing the ground clearance (which like a Mog, can be achieved comparably with smaller tires), or loosing the ability of to run larger tires in a more demanding environment. We've seen it in Superiors and CTMs for SFAs, with more and more IFS trucks out there, how long before the after market steps up there too? But of course, that's irrelevant to a tow rig forum.

There are plenty of aftermarket places for IFS and IRS. A few trophy trucks have been running IRS for a while now but they have over $30k into them alone. It runs 37's with 30" of travel and 800hp with no problems so clearly it can work well but talk about money!

Back to the point. IFS has significant benefits and, within reason, the benefits far outweigh the (somewhat questionable) loss of durability and cost of repair. And those two (debatable) "losses" should not be too onerous in the time spans most of us realistically own our trucks assuming, we don't let Jason drive it. I've seen 200k on IFS front with little durability or maintenance cost at all as long as standard PM is provided, other than idlers which wear out around 100k (sometimes less with larger than spec tires) and TREs which die in drag racing with stalled 4WD launches the drop under 13 seconds or so.

Once again, you are correct sir. But, I browse a forum that is dedicated to street queens that runs 10+ inches of lift and 39's all day on there daily drivers. I'd say 70% of the members with 35"+ tires go through bearing hubs, ball joints, cv's, and idler arms and tie rods about every 3 months. The stock setup is just not built to handle the weight and stresses put out by the larger tires as I said above.

IFS may provide a few slim advantages on the road during a long cruise but I'll take the sheer strength and simplicity of a nice, big D60 anyday. Plus strait axles look cooler and beefier. rotfl

I think IFS is just as good as a solid axle in a street truck with 33's or smaller and tow rigs... It rides better than a solid axle and gives better tire wear.

But, sfa is stronger when it comes to larger tires and such but this is when comparing a stock dana 60 to a stock 9.25" IFS front. Of course you can build IFS stronger than a dana 60 but for alot more money.

Anyway, IFS is good, and solid axles are good, everyone with IFS will say it's better, everyone with sfa will say it's better, I don't really care what has what other than what my personal experiences are. I broke my Chevy IFS alot but I was off roading, never broke it when towing a trailer so I wouldn't hesitate to buy a tow rig or daily driver with IFS. But if I wanted a wheeler I'd get a solid axle.

Oh yeah and:

IFS rules!

As far as towrig.com, yes it does. But if you come in and post that on Ck5 gen 4x4 I'll smack you down boy rotfl

Yes, it is getting old, about as old as all the groundless (IMO) SFA is better than IFS comments that abound in the truck community (online and otherwise). Or like the Cummins is the only "real" truck engine in an LD truck, and on and on…

And yes, I brought it up again. Perhaps with the "noise" reduction that everyone has been so happy over, maybe we can have a decent discussion of the topic for a change?
Anyone that knows anything about current tow rigs should know that the stock IFS system is strong enough for any stock tow rig and DOES have it's benifets on the roads.
Not quite correct. In fact, it is strong enough for a stock tow rig, or a bombed one, or moderate increases in tires size like you would see on a tow rig.

And other than rare cases, perhaps no more common than catastrophic failure in D60s, HD IFS needs VERY little repair as long as you don't have large tires, lifts, cranked bars, etc. The 1/2 ton stuff I'll give you that point without argument, but I don't think it's true of the HD stuff. Do you have facts to the contrary? I'm not denying it's true, just saying that in my experience, you don't see failures or major repairs at under 200k unless large tires/lift AND hard off-road use (i.e. abuse) is involved. And for anyone other than someone like Jason, well known for wheeling the wee out of a late model crew cab, that just is not an issue for most.

So, it seems that what you (and others) are basically saying is that, on the chance you may want to make it a serious off-road truck with big tires and lift, you are willing to sacrifice known and quantifiable benefits *now* and for the life of the vehicle as a tow rig, in return for strength that you admit is not required for primary use as a tow vehicle, and so not of any current benefit?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying GM makes the better truck here. I'm attempting to make one point that is utterly contrary to the majority of opinions (note the word opinion, as I have seen no facts to support it) expressed by so many 4WD truck owners. That opinion of course being that SFA is "superior" in a tow rig simply because it can stand larger tires and lift? This make no sense to me.

And it's not a brand loyalty thing either. I did not choose a GM because of the IFS, thought it was one factor in the pro column. And I really do like you're Cummins a lot, SFA, "questionable" automatic and all. And I absolutely LOVE Shaggy's new Ford (though please don't let him know that), SFA, "questionable" 6.0 and all.

You see, all these trucks have pro's and con's that have to be accurately evaluated. That article just got me thinking on this again and gave me the push to start another (hopefully rational) debate on the subject. If the D60 (or new AMG) SFA axles are better for use *in a tow rig*, I genuinely want to see it come out here, right now in this thread. It won't make me love my GM any less. But, if it can't be shown that a SFA is has no more than a "over kill that I don't really need for a tow rig" advantage in return for the lost rode manners and handling, then I want that to come out clearly.

Unfortunately, it will probably be yet another "we will just have to agree to disagree" result, and that's ok too… as long as it provides clear representation on both sides with no foot stomping and empty statements of unsubstantiated opinion as was so rampant in the other threads.

This is the "war" forum for hotly debated topics. If someone does not care to take part, they can certainly avoid doing so… Please, anyone with an opinion based on anything other than "that's what everyone else things so it must be right", please join in. I do not take offense easily, prove me wrong in no uncertain terms and I (along with many others, particularly Bobby ;) ) will thank you… waytogo

If poeple want Caddilac ride go buy one. But honestly I hear soo many poeple gripe about tire wear on their trucks that dont have a single mod with IFS.

Unitized bearings. Where is the cost comparison there versus standard floating hub bearing.
While it maybe cheaper for manufactures to build IFS it also reassures them you will be coming back for parts. Suckers.

Yeah but you get unit bearing hubs with the new solid axle trucks too, Dodges and Fords. My Dodge ones are almost $300 to replace one side :rolleyes: . BUT! I just learned on tdr that if you pull a wire harness out of the hub assembly you can shoot grease in the hub with a cyringe which can keep the unit bearings living longer. I'm gonna try that soon...

Trying to watch TV is causing me to fall behind here, please bear with me… That last post was started right after Bobby replied.

Joez: Yes I do. This is no different, and the facts have not changed, we just don't have the implementation yet, but it is getting there. Maybe it's time has come, maybe not. I have no idea what your theory may be, and look forward to finding out.

Jason: Perfect, we are in 100% agreement on all points. I'll just restate one thing that I said and I think you will agree with (though you can obviously prove me wrong). I really like to make the point that it's not about "ride" which most people, even the hardest IFS haters, will readily conceded to IFS. But rather I feel it is more about suspension "performance". And when I talk about "performance" in suspension, I'm talking about things like tracking easily, requiring less active steering input just to keep in your lane with dips, or avoid darting when "crowning, or change characteristics just because you took on a load that dropped the back a few inches (or accidentally loaded the trailer nose heavy this time), or steering affected by heavy braking, etc. In these areas the IFS excels to greater or lesser degrees above SFA (depending on the SFA system you compare it to) and THEY are the reason I feel that it's important to give 4x4 SFA it's due in a tow rig. It gets such a bad wrap with no real justification, that too many people avoid GM just because they grow to accept the endless "SFA is crap" chant, when in reality, the GM is the best fit for their needs.

And I have no doubt you would "smack me down" on CK5. The purpose of those trucks on that site is the absolute opposite of what the IFS is good for. But strangely, I have made this point on CK5 regarding tow rigs. And pretty much every other voice represented would hear nothing of it. No supporting arguments at all for the most part, just the holy mantra of "IFS is bad, SFA is good" and no room for discussion. That's the attitude I would like to see changed. Barring that, at least I can represent a strong case anywhere someone who needs information to help make a wise choice might look.

Oh, and just thought of another point. People talk about "IFS/GM is for posers" and "real 4x4 trucks need SFA" when it really is more likely to be the opposite. If you are going for "the look" with big tires and lift, and not planning to tow, why in the WORLD would anyone go with GM? The lift will cost you 3 or more times as much, you won't get that "big front axle" look, and you get the hassles of a lifted IFS with all the much deserved "bad rap". Seems to me that the "poser" will want that "beefy look" and "easy to lift without creating a PIA" that is afforded by the Dodge and Ford? Just another thought…

So, in the interest of the purpose and spirit of this forum, I'll leave you with this thought.

If the primary purpose of a truck is NOT off-road capabilities, then SFA is for posers! Real trucks for any other purpose will of course run the best suspension for that purpose, IFS! :p :stir:

Jeez, can't keep up tonight! rotfl

IFS wear issues? My tires have worn completely flat and I've had one alignment in 50k miles, including a fair bit on bad roads, fire roads, and the like. Twin beam maybe, but not IFS. Hmmm, unless they didn't grease as regular PM and/or have a worn idler, that will sure do it...

And as I said, it's not about the ride. You can do just about as well with the ride using coils if you really want to. Honestly, looking at the Ford SD stricktly on *ride*, the GM is not much better really. It's about handling characteristics, not ride.

Yeah, unit bearings suck if you service your truck. And thank you, it does go a way toward discrediting the whole "IFS is FAR more expensive" myth. I'm told they went to those because, like non-grease u-joints, if you don't service, which most people don't, they last longer. <shrug>

I absolutely LOVE Shaggy's new Ford (though please don't let him know that), SFA, "questionable" 6.0 and all.


Too late!

I love it too!:D

I was ready to deal with the IFS in a GMC, I hemmed and hawed for literally weeks befor making my decision on what truck to buy, between a GMC and a Ford. In the end the front suspension didn't even play a role in my decision, raw towing prowess was my primary deciding factor.

IFS is fine for a towrig, especially one that is used as it was intended, without a lift in a tow rig. That said, show me a truck with a rating over 1 ton that has IFS in it... IFS in a 1 ton 4wd truck is at the ragged edge of what it can be economically strong enough to handle. I'd rather be a bit further away from that ragged edge...

Yeah for some reason there have been alot of posts on TDR about front axle joints in the Dodges... When I crawled under mine they are normal Spicer life series joints which are nice strong joints but they are sealed. But most people are having problems within the first 20k miles. Mine are still fine at 90k so I can only assume that maybe there was an installation error for a few months of production. But the unit bearings suck. But oh well, can't live with them, can't get a truck without them...

Once again, agreed on the handling issue 100%. Although I must say that my 2003 sfa truck does drive quite well compared to an older 90's or 80's sfa truck. There have been so good advances in design and I don't have the wandering problems that the older solid axles have.

Jason: No doubt, advances are being made across the board.

And yeah, I know what you mean about those joint failures with less that 20k and expensive non-serviceable unit bearings. That's why I don't own an SFA, too fragile, undependable and expensive to repair to be in a "real truck". I just don't know why a truck manufacturer would put those things in a real truck, save those for the posers... rotfl

Yes, I know, IFS has some of the same issues, but that statement is as factually and logically solid as the converse that people are so happy to jump on the band wagon with. I just couldn’t resist turning it around. :D

Shaggy: LOL! Talking about IFS in above 1 tons, you should read the Peterson's article. They have examples of several, including a 5 ton Oshkosh, and there are many more than what Peterson's listed. In fact, I seem to recall seeing that the super heavy bazillion ton "pit trucks" at mines run IFS and IRS! Remembering the Discovery coverage of them, and I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that…

Hrm... I went on a tour through the plant that makes some of those massive mining dump trucks. The ones they made had no suspension, axle housings were physically part of the frame, all welded/bolted together as one... All I know is it took the guy like an hour to put all the nuts that hold the rim halves together on! :eek:

Anyway, I'll let ya in on a secret Russ, but don't let it give you a big head... My next tow rig will be a chevy! :eek:

Well it will be a 96-97 K3500 crew cab dually with a 12 valve cummins. I'll be building an entire new frame with a air bagged 4 link rear suspension holding either an 11.5" or dana 80 with an NV5600 pushing it. I'm still debating on the front. It will be a 4wd but not sure if I'll leave the IFS or swap in a coil sprung front from a Dodge. The IFS has a weight rating of 4200 pounds while the dodge is 5200 pounds. With the weight of the cummins and the new frame I'm not sure which to choose but may stay with the IFS. Figure it out when I'm there I guess. This will be in 5+ years of course but hey at least I'm in the planning stages finally... I love my dodge but I'm not going to love the new smog laws and such that it's going to have to start going through. And the 88-98 chevy's are my favorite body style and interior style trucks out there.

Ok so your IFS has a lovely ride and handles perfectly ect, ect, ect.

Thats great if your satisfied with a stock truck. Personaly I dont care to have people ask if its two or four wheel drive. As you can tell I like the lifted look and I also don't want to be driving what the rest of the heard has.
In my neighborhood you'd get lost in a sea of stock trucks at the grocery store. I don't mind some negative handling that comes along with the personalizeation( is that even a word:D ) of a truck. I like the way it looks, sounds and pulls my trailer thru the sand and desert.
Without a lifted offroadable and I not talking about some washboard dirt road life to me would be boaring.
Youve got to look at it this way. A truck is a tool always has been. Not meant to be comfy with velvet ride thats just what people want now. It's almost wanting a sheep skin cover on a shovel so your hands dont hurt.

I think IFS is just as good as a solid axle in a street truck with 33's or smaller and tow rigs... It rides better than a solid axle and gives better tire wear.



I'm not about to read all that crap because I have very little interest but in first few posts I caught this. I will argue this to the end. EVERY IFS truck I have seen, regardless if it's modded or stock, wears tires like CRAP! My dad's '98 1/2 burb that is BONE stock wears tires not terribly, but not near as good as my Dodge or strait axle K5 does. He has to rotate tires twice as much as I do. I've seen many IFS rigs do that.

BadDog,

I know you like IFS but I think you are going overboard with this thread. IFS has it's place but it is not nearly as great in every way that you say, it is minimally better than a live axle and thats only in a strict tow rig. You mentioned something in there about the Cummins arguement that it isn't really any better than the Dmax or 6.0.....I'm going to turn that around and agree with the idea behind that, IFS isn't really that much better, if any, over a live axle with all conditions factored in. If IFS was so superior Dodge and FOrd would be using a similar system under their HD trucks instead of a live axle, that a lot of people still prefer.

I know you like IFS but I think you are going overboard with this thread.

Mr. Dodge/Cummins, you might want to be careful with a statement like that. This is a forum dedicated to brand wars, for inteligent debate over one topic or another.

I personally love my IFS for all of the reasons Russ has presented.

I'm not about to read all that crap because I have very little interest but in first few posts I caught this. I will argue this to the end. EVERY IFS truck I have seen, regardless if it's modded or stock, wears tires like CRAP! My dad's '98 1/2 burb that is BONE stock wears tires not terribly, but not near as good as my Dodge or strait axle K5 does. He has to rotate tires twice as much as I do. I've seen many IFS rigs do that.


My 98 Z71 extended cab wears tires great, I have put over 80K miles on my BF All terrains on this truck, I think they have been rotated twice in that time. Only now are the fronts starting to get some funny wear, but the idler arm is also pretty worn out and needs to be replaced, so that is causing the tire wear. I never really rotated the tires because they were wearing very even up until lately. Also, the truck has only had one alignment done ever, although I will be getting an alignment done after I replace the idler arm. This is all with 118K miles total on the truck. So my experience is the IFS wears tires great, not like crap. Also just wanted to let you know, I had very similar experiences with my 90 chevy 1/2 ton sportside, the only time it wore tires bad was when the idler arm, and tire rod ends got worn.

Mr. Dodge/Cummins, you might want to be careful with a statement like that. This is a forum dedicated to brand wars, for inteligent debate over one topic or another.

I personally love my IFS for all of the reasons Russ has presented. I relize what forum this is. :rolleyes: Like I said..
I know you like IFS but I think you are going overboard with this thread.

I think the HD system is more of what we are refering to, something that is in the same market as the D60's under the Ford and Dodges, not the LD Z71 front end.

I'm happy that you got a bunch of miles out of a set of tires, yippie for you. waytogo I have personally seen them wear bad vs. a solid axle.

Don't come off as an ass, I gave a counter argument to your example of your dad's 1/2 ton burb wearing tires like crap. I have not researched it, like you I just have my own personal experience with trucks I have owned, not just seen around or heard about, and have had no excessive wear issues.


I realize this is more of a discussion of the HD IFS, however it has been noted that the 1/2 ton IFS is more problematic, and prone to failure. I have had very little problems with mine, and yes I do tow with my puny 1/2 ton Z71, no gooseneck or other big load, but I do tow my one ton jeep with it and it does great. Since this is a discussion of IFS in towing applications, my situation would seem to apply at least to some degree.

Bobby, my point is that you do a good job telling us all that if we don't drive a Dodge Cummins, then we are missing out, and it seems whatever we have chosen for a tow rig just isn't worthy. So, I think it is a little out of place for you to say Russ is going "overboard" on this pro-IFS thread. As far as the comparison with 1/2 ton IFS and 3/4 and 1 ton IFS, it is a similar design, and the input offered had a lot to do with the thread. Your comment reminds me of of someone no longer here.

Your comment reminds me of of someone no longer here.

This thought also crossed my mind.

Chalk up another VERY smooth tire-wearing 1/2 ton IFS front end here. The old man's 97 F150 never had a single alignment, or part replaced in the front end, in 140k miles, and the tires wore smooth as a damn mill pond. Hey RJF, did you ever think that something might be screwed up in the front end of your old man's Burban? I mean, its not a Dodge/Cummins so its at a disadvantage right off the bat :rolleyes: , but if its stock, and not wearing tires in a smooth and acceptable manor, something is wrong, period.

Ah, you guys are going way overboard.

Bobby, my point is that you do a good job telling us all that if we don't drive a Dodge Cummins, then we are missing out, and it seems whatever we have chosen for a tow rig just isn't worthy.
Oh come on, I never said or implied anything that extreme. Yes, I personally think the Dodges have the best drivetrain out of the three but I also think the new Ford has the best frame and brakes, with GM having the nicest interior.

I've seen numerous IFS trucks wear bad on the front end. And no, I'm nothing like Tim and never, ever will be.

I just see IFS as minimally better in SOME circumstances than a live axle, thats what my experience has led my to believe and no one is going to convince me of anything else over the internet. It's nothing personal to you guys, thats just been my experience.

I decided to stay out of this for a bit and see where you guys went. Looks like most of you have fairly open minds and provided some good discussion.

Jason:
Sounds like a cool project. I guess I might be wrong, but I'm remembering GIGANTIC arms and HUGE COILS on something. <shrug> Maybe it was a dream.

DWitcher:
Please read more carfully before jumping in. As stated, it's not about the ride and coiled SFA can achieve almost as good a ride on *most* surfaces, but not all. But if you like lifted, this IFS makes no use for you. Like I said many times, if you're going to use it for serious off road you would be CRAZY to choose IFS in it's current form. It's too expensive and won't take the big tires. Nobody is debating that, and it will remain that way until there is enough push to create a strong IFS upgrade in the aftermarket (or OEM, but that will never happen, wrong economics on many levels), so lets give it a rest.

Bobby:
I'll say it again, and repeat what others keep trying to tell you, IFS is *known* to provide the best wear on proper sized tires. 1/2 ton does start having some troubles with anything larger than stock(ish) tires due to a known weak idler. With a good idler, or better yet an upgrade aftermarket, it should be fine. And my HD IFS is doing fine with 33s. No cupping, no sluffing, they wear like they were turned on a lathe, and I don't rotate near like I should.

And you can't really say I "like IFS". I hate it for off road trucks which is why my truggy and my K5 have Dana 60s in the front. However, as you say, IFS does have it's place, and that is on the road or very mild off-road where it works considerably better than SFA. At least you admit it is "minimally" better. But, you suggested in another post that you haven't towed with IFS, so how can you state so definitively that it is only "minimally" better?

And I don't believe I ever said "Cummins isn't really any better than the Dmax or 6.0". We've had this discussion before, and like I said then, in some categories it is better. It's just not "better across the board".

The real problem is that you keep making connections where there are NONE. For instance, you have made the statement on several occasions that the 6BT Cummins is used in MD trucks, and therefore it is a superior engine in LD trucks. You simply can't make that connection because there are a completely different set of criteria for evaluating and using engines in MD and LD trucks.

And the same problem exists with saying that if IFS was better, Ford and Dodge would use it too. GM trucks are more expensive and part of that is due to things like the IFS front suspension. It may have been nothing more than economics that caused Ford and Dodge choose SFA, since it allows them to sell an equivalently rated truck that costs less. There is also the "mob mentality" at work here too. You said it yourself that "a lot of people still prefer" the SFA. Since there are so many out there who, like you, automatically assume that SFA is superior to IFS, they win on 2 fronts. SFA is cheaper, simpler, and many people automatically *assume* (and that word is the problem that I'm trying to shed light on) it's better too.

So, Cummins beats the others in some categories, and SFA beats IFS in some categories. But that does not mean that prospective buyers don't need to think about the choices. IMO there are FAR too many people like you out there who want to make definitive statements that amount to, "What I chose is the best across the board for me and for everyone else too". When prospective buyers are researching and read that enough on boards like this and others, many will eventually start to believe it, and so the myth is propagated yet again. :D

JusinF:
Thanks for the backup on the IFS 1/2 ton stuff. That's great to know since, like Dodge automatics (that Bobby like to defend) the 1/2 ton IFS is considered by many to be a major problem. And like Bobbies Dodge auto still going strong behind his Cummins, hearing that not all 1/2 ton IFS fronts wear out tires coming and going is a GOOD thing. :D

FordCummins:
I agree, there is something wrong if that front is wearing as he claims. Something bent, worn, or whatever. IFS 4x4 should wear just as well as 2WD, something that I have NEVER heard anyone before claim for an SFA… :dunno:

Russ,

Your own words a while back was " all three engines have their advantages and drawbacks, non really better than the other." I still believe IFS to be the same way, I don't see it being all that much better, minimally better on rough roads but beyond that I don't see it's advantages. While I haven't been behind the wheel in my dad's burb while in tow, I have ridden plenty in the right hand seat and can feel it sway in the lane quite frequently as does he, with him holding on the wheel with both hands. With my Dodge I can set my wrist on the wheel, lay back, and forget I even have a trailer back there. BUT, I would imagine it's the 1/2 rating vs. my 3/4 rating that makes the difference 10 fold over what front end is under either truck.

Funny thing to me is I came into this thread hardly caring and finding the infamous "live vs. IFS" to be completely played out and beat to death..... I should have just read a different thread because like most of the time with this topic, it leads to nowhere. The live axle guys prefer their live axles, and the IFS guys like what they have.

Oh come on, I never said or implied anything that extreme. Yes, I personally think the Dodges have the best drivetrain out of the three but I also think the new Ford has the best frame and brakes, with GM having the nicest interior.

Maybe not that extreme, but sometimes you do come off that way.
I've seen numerous IFS trucks wear bad on the front end.

Are they oversized tires, cranked or leveled, or having trouble with the infamous worn idler? And if you think IFS can't have decent tire wear, are you actually saying that an SFA 4WD wears better than a 2WD? That's what it sounds like since the heavier components, knuckle and half-shaft are about all that separates 4x4 and 2WD IFS. And it would (should) be easy to see that heavier a-arms and joints should provide BETTER wear than 2WD as long as you don't start getting bigger tires and "lift" screwing things up.
And no, I'm nothing like Tim and never, ever will be.

In the most I agree, you are very different. However, much like Tim (IMO), you often come off different than I suspect you intended. It's very easy in written communication to come of as arrogant, hard headed, stubborn and all the things associated with Tim. And I'm sure I do too, but I try very hard to clearly label opinions and avoid overly broad statements that I can't back up. Of course Tim had plenty of stuff that was clearly BS attitude coming through, which does not apply to you, and is why I agree and say you are nothing like Tim, even though some of your posts do seem a bit that way. No offense intended, just trying to explain why I think the statement was be made.
I just see IFS as minimally better in SOME circumstances than a live axle, thats what my experience has led my to believe and no one is going to convince me of anything else over the internet. It's nothing personal to you guys, thats just been my experience.
Again, on what do you base "minimally"? I have driven and towed extensively (well all things are relative, there are those here with far more towing experience than I have) with both and "minimally" is not how I would describe the difference in loaded manners, and to a lesser extent, unloaded manners as well.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to have a discussion on the matter without all b.s. to bring out as much *FACT* on the matter as possible. If you have experiences with multiple properly set-up and maintained vehicles of both types, then your opinions are certainly relevant and of value to others. Even at that, we must be clear what criteria were used to form those opinions so that others can determine the relevance to their needs.

But, if your opinions are simply based on hear-say and what you think must be the case due to (potentially flawed) reasoning, then they are empty opinions and of practically no value to anyone else. When I see what I think are examples of these empty opinions, which are often the most stubbornly defended, I can't seem to avoid jumping in on them. Same category as "can't weld to the frame", "roll cages MUST be welded to the frame, and frame flex must be stopped that you've seen me chime in on time and again on CK5. As always I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.

While I haven't been behind the wheel in my dad's burb while in tow, I have ridden plenty in the right hand seat and can feel it sway in the lane quite frequently as does he, with him holding on the wheel with both hands. With my Dodge I can set my wrist on the wheel, lay back, and forget I even have a trailer back there. BUT, I would imagine it's the 1/2 rating vs. my 3/4 rating that makes the difference 10 fold over what front end is under either truck.



With that Dodge Cummins truck, why use a gas 1/2 ton Suburban to tow??:stir:

Russ,
Your own words a while back was " all three engines have their advantages and drawbacks, non really better than the other." .
Actually, you left out the rest of the context which was "across the board". My point was that each one is clearly better in some areas, but none is a "hands down winner across the board". Therefore, nobody can reasonable say simply that "Cummins is best." And likewise, nobody can say "DMax is better." and so on…
Russ,
I still believe IFS to be the same way, I don't see it being all that much better, minimally better on rough roads but beyond that I don't see it's advantages. While I haven't been behind the wheel in my dad's burb while in tow, I have ridden plenty in the right hand seat and can feel it sway in the lane quite frequently as does he, with him holding on the wheel with both hands. With my Dodge I can set my wrist on the wheel, lay back, and forget I even have a trailer back there. BUT, I would imagine it's the 1/2 rating vs. my 3/4 rating that makes the difference 10 fold over what front end is under either truck. Could be the 1/2 ton, could be tongue heavy, could be the Burb's softer suspension, too little info to even guess. But I can tell you that loaded to 15k (my standard tow) I can lift my hand off the wheel and it will continue tracking straight with no input even with minor dips. It's a true joy to drive even loaded because it is so predictable and does not dart and "chase the road" *at all*. And you're partially right, IFS and SFA are the same as the CTD/DMax/PS comparison. IFS is better in the road and towing criteria, and SFA is better if you want to lift it and run bigger tires. I've never said otherwise other than cutting up (like the title of this thread). What we are really debating on here is the use of "minimally" and your assertion that SFA is a very close second to IFS in road/tow manners.
Russ,
Funny thing to me is I came into this thread hardly caring and finding the infamous "live vs. IFS" to be completely played out and beat to death..... I should have just read a different thread because like most of the time with this topic, it leads to nowhere. The live axle guys prefer their live axles, and the IFS guys like what they have.
You're probably right on that too. But like I said, it's not about us changing our minds, it's about really pinning down the pros and cons that led us here for the benefit of others. And if one of us sees something that changes our mind and leads to a better decision on our next truck, then we win too. Heck, we win anyway because we get to have all this entertainment. :D

Jeeze Russ, you sure do type a lot. rotfl

I'm tired and don't even know where to begin to respond to you but take my experience as useable info or not. Like I said, I'm sure the fact that his burb is a 1/2 ton vs. my 3/4ton made a lot bigger difference than what front end they have. I am positive of that since we installed a set of Roadmaster spring helpers and did help remove some of the swaying, but still not as good as a 3/4ton rig. I can assure you everything was connected and loaded properly.

I've seen IFS in more trucks than I can count ruin swampers of all sizes in an amazing short amount time and have seen one other truck besides my dad's burb wear tires funky that was also completely stock with stock size tires. Maybe both need an alimnment or something, I really didn't/don't care since it's not my truck.

As for me thinking Dodge is superior, sometimes I do it just to try and offset you Dmax guys that think your trucks are the best things since sliced bread. :) Dodge sometimes still gets the "redhead" treatment, and have seen the BadDog/Shaggy/miniwally show bring up both. rotfl

But, if your opinions are simply based on hear-say and what you think must be the case due to (potentially flawed) reasoning, then they are empty opinions and of practically no value to anyone else. When I see what I think are examples of these empty opinions, which are often the most stubbornly defended, I can't seem to avoid jumping in on them.

Just say you think I'm full of it. :) Like I said, regardless if you think they are "empty" opinions, I haven't seen IFS to be more than minimally better than a live axle "across the board." ;) Regardless if it is SO much better cruising down the road, thats just a small slice of what a front end has to endure. For someone like you that just tows and DD's with it than it probably does have a larger advantage, but when factoring in EVERY circumstance that a front end could see from a number of users like lifting a truck, wheeling, pulling, racing, TOWING, and DD'ing, with every scenario factored in little is gained with an IFS when you start looking at the broad picture.

Remeber, that with you a live axle is useless, but for the guy down the street that doesn't tow much, if anything, and lifts his truck and is running some 38" swampers, the IFS is worthless.

AND, when factoring in the "DD'ing" that I brought up that can be debatable if IFS is superior since some people prefer the handling characteristics of a live axle, I know I do. I love that firm, solid ride that my coiled live axle truck gives.

With that Dodge Cummins truck, why use a gas 1/2 ton Suburban to tow??:stir: Because it's his trailer and he likes to drive most of the time. He likes his burb and besides the "fair" handling it does fairly well for being a 1/2 ton. It is a larger 27' trailer but it weighs less than 7K too. Also we have a four place trailer which means sometimes we have two guest spots and when we take friends/family the burb is roomier than my Dodge Quad Cab.

LOL, see what I mean, that came out wrong too. Some of your statements do come off as unsupported opinion, and I do call it when I see it, but I was really speaking more in general than that post appears. And that would have been clear if I had not removed several sentences about "eliminating frame flex" and "must tie the cage to frame". I eliminated them because it annoys you when I reference the stuff from CK5, and in the process, made my post sound like I was calling you "full of it"... rotfl Like I've said before, I really do like you (stuborn, empty opinions not withstanding ;) ) AND I like your truck. If my statements seem otherwise, it was truely not my intent...

And you also know that I like Dodge very well. I've said before that my Ram was one of the best trucks I've ever owned, far better than some of the GMs. I even like the late model Fords too. But, just as you said, I sometimes intentionally bias the way I represent my feelings on that to balance what I perceive to be equally biased statements the other direction. But that only happens in the "broad statements". I would never do that in detail discussions like this where I try to keep it to the facts along with "informed opinion" (clearly stated as such).


but when factoring in EVERY circumstance that a front end could see from a number of users like lifting a truck, wheeling, pulling, racing, TOWING, and DD'ing, with every scenario factored in little is gained with an IFS when you start looking at the broad picture.
Do you really think that many people, even a significant percentage, of the people buying these HUGELY expensive HD trucks are doing it to lift and wheel? Ever? I would guess that, even including the posers, it's less than something like 2%. I would even feel safe in guessing less than 1% will EVER be lifted or off-roaded beyond what I do with mine. And of all the things you listed, the IFS looses out to SFA ONLY in lifting and "serious" wheeling (i.e. wheeling requiring lift and large tires). For the average hunter, or farmer, or guy hauling his ORVs to remote areas, it can handle that "wheeling" just fine. So why is it you think that this "every scenario" should be factored in across the board to say SFA is better? If you, or anyone, have those plans for your truck, then clearly SFA is better. But unless you have some information I do not posses, that is a VERY small percentage of the people buying and driving these trucks. So when "looking at the broad picture" as you suggest, the IFS 4x4 LD truck makes MUCH more sense than an SFA. It's only for that very small percentage who will lift and put on large tires (poser or serious wheeler) where the SFA steps ahead.

Remeber, that with you a live axle is useless, but for the guy down the street that doesn't tow much, if anything, and lifts his truck and is running some 38" swampers, the IFS is worthless.

It's not useless at all. I use an SFA where it makes sense, and I use an IFS where it makes sense. If I were building a dual purpose truck, I would also have an SFA because it IS the best dual purpose front end. So I would have a Dodge, or a Ford, or an old R/V GM or something.
AND, when factoring in the "DD'ing" that I brought up that can be debatable if IFS is superior since some people prefer the handling characteristics of a live axle, I know I do. I love that firm, solid ride that my coiled live axle truck gives.
Why does everyone keep bringing ride into this. The GM "ride" is just a characteristic of spring rate and damping, and in most cases, has nothing to do with the ride. You can increase the spring rate and install stiffer shocks (which I did, Billsteins on all 4) to get as firm a ride as you want. However, there are some "ride" characteristics that are due to IFS. There is MUCH less unsprung mass, and each tire can respond to terrain as needed instead of being shackled to the other side, and that does have an effect on "ride" when on rough/bad roads. But how in the world anyone can THOSE characteristics in any way as "good" points of an SFA. That just makes no sense at all to me. Skittering and reduced control is "good"?

And then you also mention preferring the handling characteristics" of SFA in the same paragraph. Again, what specifically are the "handling characteristics" of an SFA that some people apparently find appealing. I'll readily and happily give you the easier/cheaper lift, I'll give you the superior ability to handle large tires, and I'll even give you the simplicity and cheaper repairs (although I don't agree that it is as big a difference as you claim). But if you expect me to agree (or even understand!) in any way to any point on SFA handling being better than IFS, it's going to take a lot more than a statement "of fact" without support. This is one of those statements that to me *does* sound like empty opinion stated as a fact. Can ANYONE explain ANY aspect of SFA handling that could in any way be better than IFS? Most of the arguments I can see some rational behind, but this one completely boggles my mind…

Damn, I came home and wanted to read this thread, but I need to get to bed sometime within the next few hours, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.rotfl

I bought my Dodge inspite of the SFA under it . What I mean is that I was not impressed with what Dodge put in the 1994~2002 H.D. 4x4 trucks.
Here is a short list of my reasons for not liking the Dodge front axle in my truck:

Ball-joint knuckles and "C's"
Central Axle Disconnect system
Small axle shaft diameter
Because of the C.A.D. system the passenger side tube is a three piece ordeal and is weak.
The R/P uses a crush sleeve for pinion pre-load
The ball-joints are pressed into the inner "C's"instead of the knuckles on the 2000 , or so , on up model years.
A track arm that was poorly designed
and those dagum unitized front wheel drive excuse for front wheel bearings!!!

My initial impression of the Dodge front axle was that it was gay ,gay ,gay and I did not count it as the pride of having a another truck with a Dana 60 front axle - BUT , after owning and driving the truck for 80,000 plus miles I have softened up and don't mind SOME of what was offered on it.
The convenience of the C.A.D. system is REAL handy at times ( or I might just be getting that much lazier ???:rolleyes: ) and everything on my truck is still tight and working as designed up to this point. I must point out that I do not beat on this truck and treat it with lots of TLC while driving it . I make sure to keep the truck moving when cranking the wheels back and forth in tight spots to avoid undo strain on the steering box and related parts and i have keptthe stock rims on the truck to help the unit bearings out .
As a whole I baby the truck to keep the condition as new as possible and I feel that if my truck had a front axle like the days of old I would be able to beat the snout out of it and still expect it to be reliable.....
Soooo , although I do like the ride of my truck ( the coil spring front end is a fantastic comprimise(sp) from a truly H.D. leaf spring set up like the 2004 on down Fords and the easy ride of the GM IFS set ups ) I do not think of it as any more H.D. than a IFS system......

All that being said I think IFS is great and is fantastic on a tow rig that is used as the manufacture intended it to be used and the SFA's that are being used today ARE NOT the durrable items of what GM offered from 1977 ~1991 and Ford offered from 1978/1979 and 1985~1998 ( I included the 1993~1998 B/J axles because they still offerd the opposing tappered wheel bearings ) and all the years that Dodge offered the king-pin style Dana 60 front axles.
I understand why each manufacture did what they did and that most of the trucks sold today do not get worked off road but I think it is a shame that our new trucks offer the best weight ratings and power figures that have ever been but the front ends are the least durrable that we have ever seen .

JMHO , Tom

And then you also mention preferring the handling characteristics" of SFA in the same paragraph. Again, what specifically are the "handling characteristics" of an SFA that some people apparently find appealing. I'll readily and happily give you the easier/cheaper lift, I'll give you the superior ability to handle large tires, and I'll even give you the simplicity and cheaper repairs (although I don't agree that it is as big a difference as you claim). But if you expect me to agree (or even understand!) in any way to any point on SFA handling being better than IFS, it's going to take a lot more than a statement "of fact" without support. This is one of those statements that to me *does* sound like empty opinion stated as a fact. Can ANYONE explain ANY aspect of SFA handling that could in any way be better than IFS? Most of the arguments I can see some rational behind, but this one completely boggles my mind…


Russ,

I said I PREFER the handling characteristics of my SFA, I didn't say a live axle handles better. :) I guess then I prefer the "drawbacks" of the solid axle. I've put hundreds of miles on my dad's cushy burb over the years including a few trips pulling our 17' tandem flatbed (not the larger snowmobile trailer I mentioned earlier) and I prefer my SFA's ride and handling characteristics over my dad's IFS burb. I didn't say either was superior, I said some, including myself prefer the handling characteristics of an SFA over IFS regardless if you think they wonder, rougher ride, sway, whatever you say IFS does better.


AND, when factoring in the "DD'ing" that I brought up that can be debatable if IFS is superior since some people prefer the handling characteristics of a live axle, I know I do. I love that firm, solid ride that my coiled live axle truck gives.

But *please* quantify that for me, I want to understand what it is that you "prefer".

And I stand by what I said since, as far as I can see, to "prefer" something implies that you feel it is "better" in some way for you. But what is it? I "prefer" IFS because I feel it is "better" for towing and road duty, and I have quantified exactly what I feel is superior in the IFS, which is primarily the handling characteristics. But I want to know what it is that you feel is "better" about the handling of SFA that makes you "prefer" it? Or does it even make sense to say that you "prefer" something *because* it is inferior in some way? Perhaps you prefer reduced control and traction due to skittering caused by much higher unsprung weight? Or contact patch reduction due to the live axle? Or is it the reduced ability to dynamically change suspension geometry in order to increase control and traction? I can see no benefits at all to live axles on rough roads. And in ideal situations on the most perfect of smooth roads, the best I can see is a match.

I do understand why you prefer SFA in general, the whole lift and large tires thing alone makes SFA the right choice for you. But on this handling thing, I am well and truly confused…

And I stand by what I said since, as far as I can see, to "prefer" something implies that you feel it is "better" in some way for you. But what is it? NO NO NO AND NO already. I prefer it because I prefer the handling characteristics of my SFA, REGARDLESS IF YOU FIND IT INFERIOR TO IFS! I am not saying SFA is better than IFS, just that I prefer it, IT'S WHAT I LIKE. My pickup feels much more stable and the steering is "heavier" than my dad's burb. His IFS does soak up the bumps better but I prefer the slightly firmer ride that my Dodge gives. I have no handling problems what so ever, it's probably the best handling pickup I have ever driven and I have no traction problems what so ever. Today I was in mountains following my dad, both of us had snowmobile trailers and it was snowing fairly hard. I had full control of my vehicle and never even spun a drive tire in 2wd, which I later found out he had problems slowing down and sliding in his burb.

I DON'T CARE if IFS rides, handles better, whatever. My SFA truck handles plenty fine for me and thats all that matters to me because that is what I own and prefer it over the handling characteristics of my dad's burb. I prefer the pros and cons of my strait axle truck over an IFS truck, pain and simple no if, ands, or buts about it. I'm tired of debating it. Just take it that I prefer the characteristics of my SFA and move on already. :popcorn:

Fine, but you still haven't answered exactly what it is that you so prefer. Or is your statement that you "prefer the handling characteristics of SFA" sort of like saying, "I prefer a red truck" where it's just something you happen to like with no rational "reason" for the preference? I have already said that I have no doubt that SFA is better for you/preferred by you; and it makes sense based on your stated desires. And I have no beef with you "preferring" SFA handling characteristics, but I'm still curious as to exactly what it is that you prefer? And as far as I can see, your descriptions based on your experience with your father's Sub is irrelevant since the stated issues are implementation specific (soft spring and damping rate GM chose for the Sub) rather than being artifacts of the IFS design. The reason I keep coming back to this and wanting specifics is that I have this developing impression that your "preference for SFA handling" is really a preference for the stiffer feel provided by the Dodge spring rate and damping, something that IFS is more than capable of providing at the same level. It is the way it is simply because that is how GM chose to set it from the factory.

But hey, I don't want it to seem like I'm harping on you; so fine, I'll let it go unless you decide you want to continue this discussion…

So on that note, does anyone else have anything to add? We kinda got off on the SFA vs IFS aspect of it and neglected the other aspects. Anyone got any opinions on the aftermarket support that may or may not materialize? What areas are most in need of addressing?

There are already vendors out there with better tie rods, and also with upgraded idler arms IIRC, what else is out there? Better CVs that support more angle?

What other areas are sources of frequent/recurring problems?

Here is a good question (I think). How does IFS complexity, fragility and cost REALLY compare to modern SFAs with their variety of problems such as track-bars, axle disconnects that don't reconnect dependably (or in a timely fashion), unit bearings, weaker ball joints, smaller shafts than used in the past, and what ever other problems I can't think of. Anyone got any real numbers to look at on relative costs and frequency of repair? What is there really to wear out on an IFS that would go sooner and cost more than comparable wear on a SFA? A few more ball joints and CVs being more expensive than knuckle joints is frankly about all I see. I just don't think IFS, particularly the 3/4-1 ton version, is that much more of an expense or problematic as long as you don't lift it and stick large tires on it. Am I missing some crucial point?

Somebody please step up and provide a solid debate on why SFA is supposedly superior without falling back on the lift and tire size issue. In other words, this is a tow rig forum, tell me why so many people feel justified (and even COMPELLED!) saying that SFA is better than IFS across the board, even on a tow rig… Anyone?

I'm seriously interested in this topic. :D

My pickup feels much more stable and the steering is "heavier" than my dad's burb. His IFS does soak up the bumps better but I prefer the slightly firmer ride that my Dodge gives.

Not trying to pick on you, but I would say a big difference in this is the fact that you are comparing the ride of a 3/4 ton pickup to a 1/2 ton burb.

My 98 Z71 extended cab has a much firmer ride than either my 98 Tahoe and my 2001 Tahoe. The ride in an IFS pickup, especially a 3/4 ton will be much firmer than the 1/2 ton burb.

I just don't think IFS, particularly the 3/4-1 ton version, is that much more of an expense or problematic as long as you don't lift it and stick large tires on it. Am I missing some crucial point?

My experience has only been with 1/2 tons, but I do agree, that there isn't alot more expense or problems. Other than the worn idler arms and such which are easily replaced, it's a good system. My last truck, only went through one idler arm in 180K miles, this truck was used as a plow truck during the winter for the first 75K miles.

The only time I personally have ever had problems with IFS was on an 87 Toyota I had. This was lifted with 35" swampers, that i did wheel pretty hard, only really had trouble after the V8 was installed, then I had a bearing go bad and broke two of the differential mounts, and pulled a CV joint apart.

So like has been said, in my experience IFS is only problematic when lifted with large tires (and a larger engine:D ). For towing I like my 1/2 ton IFS, I would estimate my trailer and jeep to be in the 6-7K pound range, and like Russ, I don't have any problems with sway or wandering.

The reason you don't see any/ few IFS med or HD trucks is it isn't worth the cost in comercial operations. And with so many of the HD trucks having their cabs floating on air bags now they ride OK with the HD springs needed to handle the weight they must carry.

On the wear issues with 4wd IFS trucks, what about so many hard core peps going to forged axles, CTM's, and 35 spline outers in their D60s. Also what about the infamos DW issues so many have with D60s even some in stock fords and dodges. :stir: :pimp:

Here is a good question (I think). How does IFS complexity, fragility and cost REALLY compare to modern SFAs with their variety of problems such as track-bars, axle disconnects that don't reconnect dependably (or in a timely fashion), unit bearings, weaker ball joints, smaller shafts than used in the past, and what ever other problems I can't think of. Anyone got any real numbers to look at on relative costs and frequency of repair? What is there really to wear out on an IFS that would go sooner and cost more than comparable wear on a SFA? A few more ball joints and CVs being more expensive than knuckle joints is frankly about all I see. I just don't think IFS, particularly the 3/4-1 ton version, is that much more of an expense or problematic as long as you don't lift it and stick large tires on it. Am I missing some crucial point?


I was thinking the same thing about this yesterday working on my truck. How much more complex is a GM IFS compared to SFA in a Dodge or Ford? Steering systems have similar componets, they all have 2 ball joints per side, about the same number of pivot points if you count the trailing arms and track bar needed on the Dodge (and I assume Fords), and all of them use the POS unit bearing design for wheel bearings. I really think that IFS is a bit misunderstood, and so many people think it is "too complex" in the same way so many people were afraid of computers on cars in the 80's.

Fine, but you still haven't answered exactly what it is that you so prefer. Or is your statement that you "prefer the handling characteristics of SFA" sort of like saying, "I prefer a red truck" where it's just something you happen to like with no rational "reason" for the preference? I have already said that I have no doubt that SFA is better for you/preferred by you; and it makes sense based on your stated desires.

You keep nit picking at me for precise, direct little tiny details.. I just plain don't have them. As a whole I like the way my Dodge handles better than ANYTHING I have ever driven or ridden in when it comes to trucks. I don't get wandering, loss of traction, and don't care when I hit a bump that it slightly effects the opposite side also. I just plain prefer the handling characteristics of my Dodge over my dad's burb. Here are the details for you Russ, my Dodge feels heavier, tighter in turns, and the steering is much tighter than the IFS that I found very loose and almost "sloppy." My pickup, regardless of the IFS/SFA my pickup feels twice as stable as any IFS truck I have ridden in.

You use "red is my favorite color" as an example. I prefer red because the color appeals to me more than any other color that I have seen. What else do you need? Do I need to go in how I prefer the chemical makeup of why red is red..and why I prefer red's chemical makeup over any other color?

Bobby:
No I don't want to know what you like about the "chemical makeup of red", and I specifically asked if it was "like" preferring the color red in that there IS no rational explanation. In other words, there are no details to be had. So, I guess in some ways it is. Ok, not how I look at such things, but I'll buy that I guess. But then you do list some details as reason to prefer IFS, and other than one, those are spring/damping rate issues.

You do bring up one very interesting point that's been missing till now (I think) and that is the steering. I have no idea where the "almost sloppy" comes in since there should be no perceptible difference unless the idler or some component is worn, and SFA would be the same. And in any case, IFS should be no worse than a 2WD of any flavor. But, SFA does tend to turn tighter than (GM at lease) IFS. Anyway, thanks for giving what details you could... So there is another point for SFA.

Thanks for continuing the discussion, even though I know your getting fed up with it.

James:
Yeah, over this thread I'm finding that I am willing to concede that cost/complexity issues less and less. Most of the things that are held *against* IFS are pretty much identical to 2WD IFS. There are the half shafts to deal with, but other than that, not a whole lot of different except *stronger*. And yet I don't believe anyone would accept that a 2WD front is the cheapest, best handling and most durable front system. Many people forgo the 4WD not for the upgrade cost, but simply because 2WD is seen as the best for a tow rig and far cheaper in the long run. So it really just comes down to the half shafts and CVs I guess? And that certainly doesn't compare poorly to the over all "complexity" and repair/maintenance of a SFA...

SuperTrucker:
That makes perfect sense, and is kinda what I was getting at earlier. That support for IFS is part of what makes GM trucks the most expensive 4WD LD trucks out there. And larger classes are less likely to make compromises that cost more and in return have less ultimate brute strength, even if it does improve handling. So, we often see "live" front axles even in 2WD applications. And I can think of other reasons too, none of which apply to the LD world. As I've said before, MD and larger are a whole different world with completely different goals and constraints, which is why I hate seeing people use the "well, this must be better or they wouldn't use it on MD trucks" argument…

And on the upgraded D60s and all the issues like DW. Right again. I've got a GM K5 running a D60 with 35" BFGs on it. And it drives me NUTs with DW at speed on fire roads. And this thing was completely rebuilt just before I got it. I guess at some point I'll have to get out there and pull the @#$%@#% knuckle off to see if it has already split a cone or something. But my truggy couldn't hold together in stock(ish) form running 42" TSLs, so it had to be upgraded to handle them. So I guess the "large tires" should be amended to say "somewhat larger tires". Up to 33s and no lift, IFS is fine. Up to 38s or so, Dana 60 is fine. More than that, the Dana 60 tends to pop hubs and stubs on a regular basis when used in a "serious" off road vehicle. Darned fragile Dana 60s… :stir:

Justin:
Sounds like we are on the same page. I've actually learned a fair bit from this thread, and I'm even more convinced that IFS is misunderstood and unfairly discounted.

***This post has no facts, just opinon and what I have read***

I spend a minnimum of 2.5hrs a day in my 2500HD, cranking Bob Marley, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, etc...
I love it!! My 'Cowboy Cadilac'!
When I get home from my commute my body doesn't vibrate fer 20min afterwardswaytogo

I have never owned an IFS 4x4 beefer and my 72K5 is the only SFA 4x4 I have ever owned. I love'm both AWSOME!

I'll comment something worth saying after I begain to tow with my HD in the next month or two.

One comment about 'cost', sence when was a D60 'cost affective'? Thoes suckers are expensive. From the stories I have read on rebuilding a D60 the cost involved is so high some guys are forced to only re-build one side..wait a month then re-build the other..:popcorn:

***This post has no facts, just opinon and what I have read***

That's basically true, but I would hope that at least most of it is opinion supported by reason. I've read on the physics of internal combustion engines and hydraulics, and reason tells me it makes sense, therefore I am confident in accepting it as fact (or at least "close enough" considering the impact of modern physics). And parts of this discussion I accept on the same basis, but there is room for debate and discussion, so here we are. Looking objectively (as possible) at my entire world view, the VAST majority (perhaps almost all) falls into that category of "opinion and what I have read". Almost all understanding gained from "experience" is heavily colored by opinion and "standing on the shoulders of others" (i.e. reading). We can personal research and apply the scientific method to become rather more certain of the "facts", but how many of us do that on much of anything? And even that often does not stand the test of time as we find out that base assumptions were wrong (or at least not quite right in all cases, see modern physics for more info).

And so this thread takes a philosophical turn.. :cool:

Ooppps:doah:
What I ment by putting that in my post was: What I am about to type is just my personal rambelings. I didn't mean the whole thread (even though it sorta applied) but just my post:pimp:

LOL, I guess you could say I "read it both ways". But since it does apply to pretty much the entire thread (and any other you're likely to find here), and it got me thinking along those philosophical lines, I decided to post my thoughts. :D Which also goes to say that I think your "opinions" or any other supported by reason are just as valid as mine, only developed from different criteria, and perhaps reaching a different conclusion.

I really must get back to work, but I hate this part of my job SO bad, I'll take any excuse to do something else... :doah:

Bobby:
You do bring up one very interesting point that's been missing till now (I think) and that is the steering. I have no idea where the "almost sloppy" comes in since there should be no perceptible difference unless the idler or some component is worn, and SFA would be the same. And in any case, IFS should be no worse than a 2WD of any flavor. But, SFA does tend to turn tighter than (GM at lease) IFS. Anyway, thanks for giving what details you could... So there is another point for SFA.

Now i'm somewhat interested since this could be a topic that is actually worth discussing. :D

I shouldn't really use the term "sloppy" because that is just the characteristic I have found the GM's to be. I've found that the steering in the GM's is a lot like the 2wds, loose and very easy to turn the wheel. Regardless about the IFS, my K5 is was somewhat the same way when the tires were stock size.

It probably has to do more with the different steering designs mainly in the gear boxes between Dodge and GM than if's it's IFS or not but I much prefer the tighter, "heavier" feeling of my Dodge. :)

Now that makes sense and it's something I can agree on at least as far as the cause (i.e. an artifact of the steering sector design and such). Glad we got you on board for at least part of the discussion. :D

It's too bad you don't have the oportunity to drive or tow with a 2500HD or 3500 GM IFS, you might well find that many of your dislikes disappear. I like a good "feedback" in the wheel, but not "heavy" feeling, and I think that my truck is a good ballance. Then again, you might find your concerns validated again, hard to say. But I would LOVE to hear your thoughts if you get a chance to drive one some time...

If your really nice Bobby I'll let you ride in my 05:stir: waytogo maby even let you drive it:pimp: but only for 1.2 miles then you gotta get out or you will FALL IN LOVE WITH ITrotfl rotfl :popcorn:

Bobby (and others):
Hey, something just occurred to me while replying on a different thread. Have you ever ridden in or driven an IFS GM truck with upgraded shocks? The stock shocks are total garbage and I noticed a MAJOR improvement when I replace ~10k old factory shocks with Billsteins, and others report similar dramatic improvements. I wonder how much that alone would change IFS perceptions in the handling/drivability category?

I second that, GM factory shocks suckrocks:o

Wow, agreement in this thread after all. rotfl I will agree that GM steering systems in their trucks from around 99-00 and newer do have an "easy to turn" feel. At least in the 3 GM 2500 and 3500 HD trucks I have driven, at lower speeds the steering is extremely easy to turn, and this easiness goes down a few notches as speed increases. While others, Dodge and Ford, keep the same feel throughout the operating speed of the vehicle. It did take me a while to get used to this when I drove a 2500HD while towing 7k for over 1000 miles. So I can relate to what Bobby says when he means that the steering in his Dodge (and my Ford for that matter) feels heavier.

If your really nice Bobby I'll let you ride in my 05:stir: waytogo maby even let you drive it:pimp: but only for 1.2 miles then you gotta get out or you will FALL IN LOVE WITH ITrotfl rotfl :popcorn: I would really like to ride in it sometime Burt, that would be fun.

Bobby (and others):
Hey, something just occurred to me while replying on a different thread. Have you ever ridden in or driven an IFS GM truck with upgraded shocks? The stock shocks are total garbage and I noticed a MAJOR improvement when I replace ~10k old factory shocks with Billsteins, and others report similar dramatic improvements. I wonder how much that alone would change IFS perceptions in the handling/drivability category?

My dad has Bilsteins also on his burb. waytogo

As to your previous post,
I would imagine that the HD trucks have a "heavier" steering feel to them since there is more weight up front from Dmax and heavier components, not only that but I would imagine the newer GM's handle better than my dad's '98.

I've driven samples of the big three US cars and trucks over the years. GM has always had lighter "feeling" PS compared to ford/ dodge across the lines. I think its just a GM thing. Its the way GM does it.

Good lord this is a long thread! I have a Chevy, but I prefer SFA. That said, I love my Chevy, but would have considered another brand if I ever planned on lifting it.

Marc

IFS is great on a mall cruiser. :popcorn:

Yep; malls, highways, interstates, freeways, camp grounds, dirt roads, etc... :D

And the GM service department......

Id rather have to drive in to the GM service department than get towed into the dodge..........

:eek: :poke: rotfl :stir: :popcorn: Id rather have to drive in to the GM service department than get towed into the dodge..........

Hehe, good one Joe.

And Bobby, look back a few pages, we've covered the service thing as yet another "myth" based on problems cause by various "lifts" and the like. At least nobody was able to provide evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, IFS is little or no more problematic or expensive than SFA in the normal use case (as a tow rig).

Id rather have to drive in to the GM service department than get towed into the Ford department.......... I fixed it for you, I'm sure thats what you meant. Since Dodges don't break down and everything.. rotfl

BadDog, this is brand wars. I successfully ruffled your feathers with a reply. My job is done here. :D

Since Dodges don't break down.
Mostly
Old
Parts
And
Rust
:stir: rotfl :popcorn:

Mostly
Old
Parts
And
Rust
:stir: rotfl :popcorn:
Nice
little
saying
that
has
no
relavence

OOH, OOH I got one.
Moments
Of
Power
Are
Rare waytogo

BadDog, this is brand wars. I successfully ruffled your feathers with a reply. My job is done here. :D
Hah, it'll take a lot more than that to "ruffle my feathers". You successfully provoked a reply, but that is all... ;) :stir:

Id rather have to drive in to the GM service department than get towed into the dodge..........
rotfl rotfl waytogo

Id rather have to drive in to the GM service department than get towed into the dodge..........


Ha,ha rotfl rotfl That is funny ! But it makes me a little sad because it's true in my case ...... I love my truck but it has been in the shop more times than I care for.
Tom

Man I can't believe you guy are still beatin' this dead drum. rotfl
Come on..... We all know what makes a truck........even if your truck has to have A-arms :stir:
BadDog. I've shown alot of people this thread and even before I can put a word in on your defence they say BS. Now this is from guys that JUST bought 2500 HD's and already having to replace tires. Dealership tires mind you which doesn't say much for all brands. These guys and myself still question GM for not having the D60 as a option or a equial SFA.
Seriously in all due respect they would sale more trucks IF they would offer the SFA. You have your preferances and I have mine. I have always been a GM fan unfortunatly my Cummins came wraped in a Dodge. Maybe were just stone age good ole boys but damn it a truck is a tool and you better get use to it's harshness. waytogo

Let 'em call BS if they want to, it still makes no sense. Do they also claim that SFA 4WDs have better tire wear than 2WD? Because that's basically what they are saying when they claim IFS fronts wear out tires. Or did they lift theirs and stick on over-sized tires? If so, that's a whole different issue and unrelated to IFS for our discussion. But my '02 IFS wears 33s so well you quite literally could not ask for better, even though I don't rotate as I should and it's only been aligned once in the entire time I've had it.

And I can't say much about the factory tires (mine came off within 20 miles of purchase) except nobody ever seems to get decent service out of them. But I do have real world experience that says otherwise on general tire wear since mine has worn VERY well. In fact, just as well as any 2WD truck I've ever had and better than any SFA (and there have been several of all different makes).

So, I still have seen NOTHING to make me think that SFA is better than IFS for a *TOW RIG*. Lots of people calling "BS!" but not one solid argument against IFS IMO. SFA does have it's "pros" in lifted trucks (longevity, cost, ease, etc.) but that's really about it. In fact, before this thread I was also willing to give SFA another point as "much cheaper to maintain" but based on this discussion, I'm no longer convinced that is true relative to other modern SFAs. I'll also give SFA the point for initial cost since that is a fair amount of what drives up the costs of GM 4x4 trucks (as I recall, GMs 4x4 upgrade option is quite a bit higher than the others).

Oh well, I'll never convince the die hard "SFAs rule!" crowd any more than I'll dispel the other myths that abound. "Dodge sucks!", "Ford sucks", "GM sucks!", "IFS sucks!", "Cummins is best for LD trucks because it was used in LD trucks!", and on and on. But hopefully the lack of any solid, supported argument against my assertions in this discussion WILL convince others who are not already dead set in their ways to not automatically write off IFS if it is suited to *their* needs...

True, true I would not wright off IFS either. The few that I know with the stock trucks seem to be having problems with the outer edges of their tires in full lock due to the unequel A-arm design on pavement and also no return to center after full lock is made which I also experience in my 98 2wd. Once again stock heigth. Aftermarket is just that. Not always engeneerd corectly as opposed to factory.

Dealership tires mind you which doesn't say much for all brands. That definantly goes for Ford and GM but Dodge put Michelin LTX A/S tires on 2nd gen trucks and are using a differenet michelin now, but I'm sure it's an E rated tire like the A/S's.

There is something about having a big solid axle under the front, it feels more solid to me and not like a mushy Lincoln Town Car. I know both my SFA trucks can take a beating, unlike IFS. I've seen many different IFS front ends fall apart on both stock and modified trucks. My buddies whole spindle broke apart and completely fell off along with the tire and wheel, it was quite the spark show. Granted, he did have a 6" lift and 33" tires but he had it setup correctly with it not all cranked up. I would think the stock IFS should be able to handle a premium short lift kit like a 6" with a small tire like a 33".

My neighbor, which owns a dairy and beats on his trucks, knocked the whole A arm setup out of whack on his stock as a rock '98 K2500. My dad has had pretty good luck with his '98 burb but did find a broken sway bar under the front at one time, I think it was a sway bar.

.......... Seriously in all due respect they would sale more trucks IF they would offer the SFA. You have your preferances and I have mine. I have always been a GM fan unfortunatly my Cummins came wraped in a Dodge. Maybe were just stone age good ole boys but damn it a truck is a tool and you better get use to it's harshness. waytogo


{wow, great thread for me to get acquainted with folk.........and an old thread at that}

I'd have to agree with this statement. I've had GM products all my life. I grew up on a farm and we beat the crap out of the '70-'80s Chev/GMC and they just didn't seem to care what you did to them (2wd and 4wd). I was more into muscle cars back then and didn't care what kind of suspension the trucks had. I noticed NO heavy users (5th wheel tow rigs) of trucks that I know bought '88 and newer Chevs and wondered why. They all started buying Ford or Dodge about '92-93 and still do.

I got into Jeeps about 6 years ago and started learning about solid axles and leaf springs, etc. (I've used up one Cherokee and am building a one ton YJ with 350 TBI, etc) and wondered why there were no IFS Chevs out on the trails. That seems to be another subject and I won't get into that. I've watched Walker Evans 'almost' make his IFS buggy work in UROC competition and it's just not predictable enough in sidehill type of situations. In some cases it works great and in others it just can't keep enough 'gravity' pressure on the tires for them to grip where a solid axle rig (same chassis later in the year) will do the same obstacle (St. George, UT 2003) with ease.


Recently, I've been looking for a new tow rig to replace the '89 Suburban that we have. I've driven no less than 9 2500 IFS Suburbans (some {2 or 3} with the heavier springs) and really don't care for the 'Caprice Wagon' type of ride of the '92-99 Subs. The '00-current are a little better and I honestly don't notice the 'funky' ride in a Dmax (probably spring rate?) and feel like they are the best of the GM, I have driven. My wife obviously factors into this equation, and she wants a F*rd Excursion! :doah: Unfortunately, I believe that's where we are going and voting with our $$$$$.

Why I 'think' I don't like IFS. I'm buying a truck. I've been driving trucks for the past 25 years and accept a truck for what it is. They are not supposed to be Cadillacs (even Dmax with Onstar, toasters, latte makers, heated seats, center consoles, etc. etc.) and I don't know why the modern consumer expects them to be. Until the GM 'Employee discount' promotion, GM was EXTREMELY proud of their trucks. I can quickly haggle a Dodge to $32-33k and can't get a GM under $43Kish and still can't get a stick shift.

Things I absolutely HATE about IFS: The rear suspension in an IFS truck seems far superior in ability to take a load over the 'floaty' feeling I get from the front at speed on the interstate (talking specifically about the '95-'99 Subs I've driven) over the dips and what not (our freeways leave a little to be desired---maybe from the extreme temperature range in Utah?). The solid axle truck just doesn't react to those items (well, you get that friendly 'bounce'). I'd HATE to feel a loaded trailer over those same dips with the IFS. That alone makes me not like the IFS and will shed my brand loyalty and deal with F*rd (whacked pumps of every kind and all). I'd prefer Dodge (no big SUV---b!tches) if I had my choice {why don't they produce the Jeep Rescue concept vehicle?--solid axles, Cummins, 3/4 ton chassis, seating for 8, etc.}.

Honestly, if GM had a solid axle K3500, with a coil setup similar to the Dodge, I'd be brandishing my "GM forever" badge, but I'm voting with my wallet and will be buying a diesel F*rd Excursion (whole other topic on why no Dmax Burb as I'd like to check that out????:confused: {I've heard it has something to do with the tranny tunnel, but whatever......:shrug: )......

Welcome aboard! Great way to jump in, sort of a "trial by fire"? :D Very well worded and thoughtful reply too. waytogo

But, (and there is always a but right?) as I suggested earlier, try not to focus on "ride" issues as that is an aspect of shock/spring rate and should really be considered a tunable parameter IMO. Sure, GM chose softer progressive rates and dual rate shocks to keep it a soccer mom, horse fanatic, and geriatric RV'er friendly (a reasonable market position IMO considering the money available in that market), but that rate would feel largely the same regardless of IFS or SFA as far as I can see. The only real ride characteristic that can be attributed to the IFS design is lower unsprung weight and I've never heard anyone make a reasonable argument that higher unsprung weight is a good thing, unless you really like the reduced control and skitter that goes along with higher unsprung weight (mass really, but who cares).

Anyway, there are certainly scenarios where the SFA wins out easily, I don't deny that at all nor would I deny folks the right to choose based on empty biased opinion or even "looks". But it is my position that IFS is clearly superior for a focused tow rig, and I have yet to hear any real counter to that position. And I really hope GM does not go back to SFA since that would completely abandon those of us who want the most functional and useful 4x4 possible for use as a tow rig and no interest in lifting or off-roading. This gives us choices and that is good. However, I would love to see both an SFA and IFS option! Now THAT would be 100% gravy and not that hard or expensive for GM given the sales it would (possibly) generate among those who do want to lift and wheel their HD but buy FMC/DC just for the SFA. But I'm sure if they thought they could make an extra buck in that market, I'm sure they would have done it by now.

Anyway, the best thing about this thread is that it generated good discussion on the topic, and, IMO, does more than anything I've ever seen before to prove that there are no solid arguments for SFA superiority to IFS in a primary tow rig (modulo the lift and big tires part). It's even dispelled one of the points that I was previously willing to concede to the SFA guys, that of long term expense and maintenance costs.

Thanks for the great discussion and debate guys!!! waytogo

..........But, (and there is always a but right?) as I suggested earlier, try not to focus on "ride" issues as that is an aspect of shock/spring rate and should really be considered a tunable parameter IMO. Sure, GM chose softer progressive rates and dual rate shocks to keep it a soccer mom, horse fanatic, and geriatric RV'er friendly (a reasonable market position IMO considering the money available in that market), but that rate would feel largely the same regardless of IFS or SFA as far as I can see. The only real ride characteristic that can be attributed to the IFS design is lower unsprung weight and I've never heard anyone make a reasonable argument that higher unsprung weight is a good thing, unless you really like the reduced control and skitter that goes along with higher unsprung weight (mass really, but who cares).

If I'm supposed to spend $40K on a truck I will focus on whatever I want to. :D I honestly feel like the ride of a newer Dodge with the SFA is very comparable to the IFS GM trucks. I like the simpler design of the SFA and when the suspension does cycle, the arc the axle travels through doesn't feel as awkward to me as the arc the IFS travels through. That said, I think the unit bearings (on either truck) are copout by the factory. One of those planned obsolescence things to generate $$$$.

Let's take a totally different vehicle as an example. Jeep Grand Cherokee. Go drive a '99-'04 then go drive a new 'improved' version with IFS. I think you'll only see the difference of the arc as I illustrated above. The spring rates are almost the exact same between the two vehicles and would give you a good seat of the pants comparison. I'll take the solid axle version just on 'feel'. I like it's 'feel' better (additionally, as it gets older, the lift is CHEAP and I can use it like I'd like to---which I think you alude to below) and more predictable.


Anyway, there are certainly scenarios where the SFA wins out easily, I don't deny that at all nor would I deny folks the right to choose based on empty biased opinion or even "looks". But it is my position that IFS is clearly superior for a focused tow rig, and I have yet to hear any real counter to that position. And I really hope GM does not go back to SFA since that would completely abandon those of us who want the most functional and useful 4x4 possible for use as a tow rig and no interest in lifting or off-roading. This gives us choices and that is good. However, I would love to see both an SFA and IFS option! Now THAT would be 100% gravy and not that hard or expensive for GM given the sales it would (possibly) generate among those who do want to lift and wheel their HD but buy FMC/DC just for the SFA. But I'm sure if they thought they could make an extra buck in that market, I'm sure they would have done it by now.

Opinions....well, they're like ...... :D For a tow rig (especially), I like the predictable handling of the SFA. I guess I'm just used to it or something. I'd love to see GM come up with an option, but I think they've got their corporate head up their @sses and I'll not hold my breath. They did offer a leaf sprung SFA (with the 2WD work trucks C3500HD for a few years--mid '90s) and I still see those buckets around.

For a freeway/highway only tow rig, any of the platforms in question would peform admirably, IMHO. I've spent a bunch of seat time in all of them trying to figure out what to spend my bucks on, but none is a clear winner, depending on what you want. I want a GM with the Dodge front suspension, no 'gay' transfer case selector (just how hard is it to pull a lever :confused: ?????) button/dial, a reasonable interior package (carpet, power locks & windows, etc.) and old style wheel bearings. However, my wife wants to keep the 8 passenger capability and that limits us to two trucks (Suburban/Yukon XL vs. Excursion) and we've both decided which way we lean there. Not that the Suburban is 'bad', but even she doesn't like the on-highway feel of the IFS (I'm not sure how she'd quantify that, but that's what she said) and likes the F*rd interior over the GM. If Dodge made a full-size, 8 passenger SUV with a diesel engine option (based on the 2500-3500 platform) we'd both feel like we should buy that.


Anyway, the best thing about this thread is that it generated good discussion on the topic, and, IMO, does more than anything I've ever seen before to prove that there are no solid arguments for SFA superiority to IFS in a primary tow rig (modulo the lift and big tires part). It's even dispelled one of the points that I was previously willing to concede to the SFA guys, that of long term expense and maintenance costs. .......

From my knowledge, it seems the only thing that would wear out more on the IFS could be the idler arms (and that seems to be only on lifted and/or used/abused trucks). The ball joints and unit bearings are common to both designs and are probably here to stay just for the ease of installation at the factory :rolleyes:. I know one '99 Dodge owner converting to the older balljoint 60 F*rd knuckles and 'normal' bearings after using up 3 sets of unit bearings in the past 18 months or so (two with a lift and big tires, the latest set with no lift and stock tires :confused: )

However, if you look in the oil fields of Wyoming, western Colorado or eastern Utah, the fleets of trucks are almost devoid of IFS (I've also heard that about the mining fleet trucks in Nevada) unless it's a supervisor truck. I've seen how the 'rank and file' workers 'use' their trucks, and frankly am shocked the trucks last as long as they do. Almost all fleet buyers I know or have chatted with, purchase the Dodge or the F*rd and some of them feel the same way I do about not buying GM. I'll see if I can get in touch with a couple of them and get their comments about the IFS and maintenance. They've bought them and retired them early due to increased maintenance/expense.........I'm not sure exactly why.

However, if I'm paying that much for a truck, I'm listening to those guys. Too much for me to lose $$$ on and their job is to save $$$ for the fleet however they can. The answer to that 'might' simply be the higher initial cost of the GM trucks, but I do remember a golf course conversation or two about maintenance on the heavier IFS vs. a solid axle.

old thread, i know.

anyways; there's a reason the HUMVEE has IFS in front and back...

old thread, i know.

anyways; there's a reason the HUMVEE has IFS in front and back...


What is it about HMMWV that makes people drool? They're HEAVY, underpowered, huge and HEAVY. They're great in open terrain like a desert or something following tank tracks or whatever, but put them in a forest..... ICH Did I mention they're heavy and underpowered?


Oh, and independent suspension in the rear would probably be IRS (but I'm from unedumacated Utah, so that may be different elsewhere?)

Humvees are desert vehicles....not fashion statements like the Yuppies think.

If I needed to get across a desert at a decent speed, I'd want IFS and IRS too!

But.... I don't race across deserts in my Dodge chasing crazy people with funny beards.

I like my heavy duty front D60 beam axle just fine...:D

old thread, i know.

anyways; there's a reason the HUMVEE has IFS in front and back...


You ever Wheeled a Hummer? I and two friends were made fools on hells revenge, By a couple Of wipped assed solid axle jeeps Hummers are JUUUNNK!!!!!!!

If I was A pimp and always drove in good weather I still wouldn't buy one.

You ever Wheeled a Hummer? I and two friends were made fools on hells revenge, By a couple Of wipped assed solid axle jeeps Hummers are JUUUNNK!!!!!!!

If I was A pimp and always drove in good weather I still wouldn't buy one.



I've spent a TON of time on and around Hells Revenge. They're not my favorite vehicle by far, but to go fast in the desert, it'd be pretty sweet. However, they're kind of heavy and are wimpily powered with the 6.5 diesel (I'm sure there's ways to make that potentially worth something?). There are VERY few places a HMMWV would have an advantage on my Jeep in/around Moab or in the Utah area for that matter. In the Sahara or other sandy, desert region, the HMMWV will spank my 'Jeep'. I'll keep the 'Jeep' (that strangely uses HMMWV wheels :D--and a BUNCH of other parts from the General ) in the tighter trails or in the rocks or whatever.

As some who owns of each of the Big 3 I will say that GM's do ride the Best period My leaf sprung ford the worse The dodge is not far behind the GM . All my trucks have over size tires and NEED them for the Towing that we do with them. I realize that I'm a Minority in the fact that I use my trucks so hard . But I need a truck that will hold up. ride is secondary to me . My GM's have had more trouble with the frontends then I have ever had out of all my Solid axle trucks combined. CV's ,Idlers,Tre's,balljoints, and 4wd actuators. Have been the culprits of are troubles


I'm SAS'ing my Suburban. and if Cage Offroads kit is not outrageous I will be coil spring SAS'ing the wifes D-max (Which has been the most troublesome of ALL our Ifs trucks)


and unit bearings SUCK . no matter what frontend you have

What is it about HMMWV that makes people drool? They're HEAVY, underpowered, huge and HEAVY. They're great in open terrain like a desert or something following tank tracks or whatever, but put them in a forest..... ICH Did I mention they're heavy and underpowered?


Oh, and independent suspension in the rear would probably be IRS (but I'm from unedumacated Utah, so that may be different elsewhere?)
1. I never said i'm drooling over a hummer
2. IRS is basically the same thing as IFS...however, thanks for correcting me in such a nice way.