De-lux wrote:the times i have been out wheeling, i have discovered that with decent tyres, locker(s), and a little clearance, most trucks can get to most places. presonally, i prefer solid, purely becuase they seem to break less parts than IFS.
the amount of flex / travel you have seems to be a bit of a penis sized argument... who has the most!
"...the amount of flex / travel you have seems to be a bit of a penis sized argument... who has the most!
...."
The point I was making is that IFS have varying amounts of clearance and basically fixed travel vs fixed clearance and variable flex of beam axles, and that they require different driving styles. It is not a matter of being able to jump out of one into the other and adoptng the same strategies. I was using my own vehicle to demontrate a point as I already had the figures for it.
"... i prefer solid, purely becuase they seem to break less parts than IFS.
"
Design it right in the first place and it really shouldn't matter.
Toyota stuffed up the LC 100 IFS by putting underweight Hilux diffs in the front. Suzuki really haven't had a significant design dimension upgrade since the W/T Sierra, despite the weight of their vehicles going up by 50-80% (Vitara/GV). Hilux IFS wheel travel is limited due to the use of a sightly modified leaf spring chassis (already pretty wide). Interesting to note the new Hilux IFS is coil sprung (coil over??).
Most IFS use torsion bar suspension which uses the chassis as a "return" path for the twisting moment forces, the 93-96 (??) Rodeo and Jackaroos are now turning up with massive cracks around the suspension/streering areas of chassis from torsion loads acting on the chassis near the steering mechanism (actually subject to recall notices overseas, even ARB supplies a fix for them). Torsion bars also restrict the distance the suspension mechanism can be away from the chassis rails, and due to their length, they effectively require that the bars are as wide as the main body of the chassis +/- the width of the chassis rails, restricting the length of the actual suspension arms and therefore the travel (not to mention increasing the angles on the CV's/DOJ's).
All these have combined to give IFS a bit of a bad rap.
It could reasonably be argued that the open knuckle design of IFS will also allow a tighter turning circle than the closed knuckle design of the Japanese/English beam axles, giving them an manouverability advantage in "go around or go over" situation.
I admit the beam axle will be able to "go over" more readily, but at the cost of adding to any "unusual attitudes" they may already be experiencing. The more angle they are subject to, the less the potential is for sufficient grip, and the more stresses that are placed through the driveline.
adding further to the debate (not getting personal).....
George Carlin, an American Comedian said; "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise that half of them are stupider than that".
Pajero for me 
.
