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.
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.
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.
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.
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 , 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. 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. 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. 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.
Maybe not that extreme, but sometimes you do come off that way. 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. 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. 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.
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… 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. 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.
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 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.
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). 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. 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. 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 ??? ) 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
