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. oke: Edit: corrected "shock" for "joint", brain stumbled...
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. 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:
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.
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 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. 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! 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.
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: 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? 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 . 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! :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>
Too late! I love it too! 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. 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! 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! 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 ) 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.
