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.
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…
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. opcorn:
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.
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. 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 ). 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: imp:
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.
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..opcorn:
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..
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 postimp:
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. 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:
Now i'm somewhat interested since this could be a topic that is actually worth discussing. 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. 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 itimp: but only for 1.2 miles then you gotta get out or you will FALL IN LOVE WITH ITrotfl rotfl opcorn:
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?
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.
