Independent vs Solid

[corsaoceano]

It seems like most vehicles that are used for this type of travel have solid front axles. Is there any merit behind this?

I appreciate the feedback

 

[haven]

IFS vehicles drive the Panamerican Highway every day. Your Montero would do fine. Mitsubishi isn't as common as Toyota in Central and South America, but there are plenty of Monteros on the road there. So in the event that you need a repair, you could find mechanics who are familiar with the vehicle.

I recommend that you keep your Montero close to stock. Suspension modifications and oversize tires will be difficult to repair in out of the way places.

There are lots of advantages to a solid front axle. It's cheap to build and repair, and can be modified to provide great articulation for relatively little money. Since big trucks use solid front axles for strength and low cost, there's a macho sentiment that independent suspension is for cars, not trucks.

Independent suspension rides more comfortably and offers better control at highway speeds than solid front axle designs. IFS is used on all current American light duty pickups (F150, Dodge 1500, Chevy 1500, Toyota Tundra, Nissan Titan) and imports like the Toytoa Tacoma and 4Runner. IFS is used on the Ford Raptor. IFS is a requirement for light military vehicles, such as the HMMWV and its replacement. IFS is common on off-road race vehicles that travel at high speed, such as Trophy trucks and Dakar Rally racers.

IFS can be modified to provide extra articulation for rock crawling, but it's an expensive proposition if you want more than a couple of inches of lift. A rock buggy with IFS has won two of the last three King of the Hammers races, mostly because it could drive faster than the solid axle vehicles in the desert section of the race.

 

[Willy G]

Another thing is that there are normally less wear parts on a solid axle, there is no rack and pinion, just normaly a steering box with manual linkage, for heavier abuse, but I you are light on a IFS, they should last for a long time.

 

[off-roader]

(called Pajero in Spanish speaking countries)

Actually based on my understanding, it's just the opposite. They changed the name from Pajero to Montero in Spanish speaking countries because in some Spanish dialects, Pajero means 'wanker' or someone who masturbates.:Wow1: Montero on the other hand means mountain man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Pajero)

I concur with the rest of your post though.

 

[geocrasher]

Solid axles have their place in rock crawling and the like. They are strong, cheap and reliable. They are fairly easy to set up and are all around simple. IFS on the other hand is more difficult to do correctly. I personally think that Mitsubishi has done very well with their IFS on the Monteros. It flexes half decently and is plenty strong and reliable. Not all IFS's are built as well. There's a reason you see the Toyota guys ripping out their IFS in favor of a solid axle, and and its that the Toy IFS isn't that great (not as strong as the Montero), and a lot of the Toyota guys are going for rock crawling and need the extreme flex that you can only get with solid axles.

For "expedition" type of stuff, the IFS is really just fine. It rides nicer than leaf springs and in general works just fine with stock-ish tire sizes. The Montero IFS is known to work with 35" tires just fine.

I'm not an expert here, this is just my opinion.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

Either of your vehicles would do perfectly fine on the trip. Its up to you to decide which one you are most comfortable with and the most reliable (if you're into the reliability thing).

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

Just from my VERY limited experience driving mild dirt roads (or even badly serviced streets) I feel like my Gen 1 Montero actually feels more planted on the road when at speed (25-55mph) vs my Discovery. So if I wasn't intending to get into any extreme offroading would a Gen 1 / 2 Montero be capable?

IFS gives a softer ride and you don't generally feel the potholes as much. This may be what is making you feel it's firmer planted in the ground. Also on gravel/washed out roads your suspension components really get a work out. If a component is worn you'll notice there first. You didn't say which was newer or which has had more stuff added to it. All of that can make a big difference in the way any vehicle feels off road. If your Discovery is rattling you out of the seat there's something wrong somewhere.
Independent suspensions have a lot less unsprung weight, than a comparable solid axle. Thats why potholes don't feel as rough in your Montero, or any IFS/IRS setup. From what I've heard the Montero's have a very solid IFS.
If your planning on any trips in either one of them, know how to work on them, and know how to service them. Some people, like me, go out of our way not to buy vehicles with independent suspensions. I personally like the solid axle setups because they are easier to modify, and generally much better for flex on the trail. The innards are also usually designed to be stronger on the solid axles. Meaning larger ring gear, larger axle shafts, and larger birfields or u-joints. Those matter more with heavy tires and rougher off road stuff more so than just dirt roads. Either way Good Luck

 

[4D55 Performance]

For those who have never owned a Montero it is hard to explain how strong the IFS components are. People like to compare them to Isuzu Troopers, 4 runners, s-10 blazers, etc. The reality is, the Montero IFS is capable of running 37+ tires while rock crawling with out breakage issues. Mitsusbishi uses a higher quality of metal than other manufacturers. The Montero IFS is also the only light duty IFS that I can honestly say is stronger than its solid axle counter parts. I consider it to be stronger and more reliable than the solid axle that was in my FJ80's, and my JK rubicon. It is not uncommon for a Montero IFS to go several hundred thousand miles before needing service. My FJ80's needed to be serviced ever 20K miles. I would have to re-grease the front axle and that can be a pain in the butt. Also every 80K miles I would have to have the whole front axle completely rebuilt because it would start to leak and that is an $800-1000 repair. I think it is a misconception that a solid axle more reliable and cheaper to maintain.

 

[haven]

Thanks for the correction, off-roader! The name Pajero is used by Mitsubishi in countries where people don't speak Spanish! I have edited my post to remove the Pajero reference.

 

[Cruisn]

These wagons are tough as man. you cant go wrong in stock form. I have almost finished my rig for long range touring in rough terrain and I kept all the factory suspension. less a 2" lift of course.

the diffs in these wagons are overkill. seriously. if you grenade a diff you deserved it. haha. same with the front cv setup. I run 33's with zero worries about breaking cv's

keep the ifs and enjoy the ride. your back will thank you later.

 

[Monterorider]

People drive around the world in all kinds of silly vehicles. Most of driving consists of pounding pavement or worst of it graded gravel. Unless you plan on crossing Darien Gap it really doesn't matter. Even then good IFS like Montero would beat wimpy solid axle day and night. I's all about reliability not articulation or other silly things. Solid stock Montero setup will get you everywhere you want.

 

[off-roader]

People drive around the world in all kinds of silly vehicles. Most of driving consists of pounding pavement or worst of it graded gravel. Unless you plan on crossing Darien Gap it really doesn't matter. Even then good IFS like Montero would beat wimpy solid axle day and night. I's all about reliability not articulation or other silly things. Solid stock Montero setup will get you everywhere you want.

Well, most places you want to go and especially where the OP is intending to go. I will say it won't get you through the hammers on 38's :Wow1: but I digress. OK, no more afternoon coffee for me...:coffeedrink:

 

[Monterorider]

I was thinking " going to drive from Alaska to Argentina" I'm pretty sure Toyota Prius will do just fine if you manage to avoid bad gas. For Darien Gap won't matter be it Hummer, Unimog or whatever. You need road building crew, equipment and few Navy SEALs.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

Actually, two feet or a donkey would be most ideal for crossing the Darien. It has been and will remain a Gap for a reason.

 

[Cee-Jay]

Solid Axle Strengths (on average):
-Better articulation
-Easier and less expensive to work on, replace or lift beyond a couple of inches
-Swapability (for example, you can upgrade a GM 1/2 ton solid axle with a GM 1 ton and it's pretty much a bolt-on improvement that anybody could perform… not so with IFS).
-In the past anyway, it seems the solid axles on SUVs and ½ ton trucks tended to be stronger than the IFS units
-Stability (solid axles all around tends to provide more lateral stability in comparison with rigs outfitted with a poorly articulating IFS and a very strongly articulating solid rear axle... not really the fault of independent suspension per se, but rather the mismatch caused by the common decision to pair a solid axle with an independent unit.

IFS Advantages (on average)
- Much better ride on most types of terrain and esp at higher speeds
- Lighter weight
- Very easy to lift a little bit (assuming the unit can perform well after a torsion bar crank or two... which may not be the case with some units)

Many of the top current model expo vehicles are still solid axle: G-Wagon, Defender, Land Cruiser 70, Jimny, Patrol Y61, Wrangler, etc. And you'll find plenty of vehicles on this website and others that have had IFS swapped out for solid axles. But it is also true that plenty of independent suspension rigs have proven capable: LR3, Montero, Hummer and the Trooper to name a few… and of course the vast majority of Toyotas made in recent decades (and Yotas are among the most successful expo vehicles in the world).

Overall, my impression is that solid axles front and back probably offer the most practical/cost-effective platform if you’re planning to build up your vehicle with medium to larger lifts and much bigger tires to handle extreme terrain. That being said, with modest tires/lift heights, IFS can be just fine... possibly even better depending on the terrain you'll be exploring. And as has been mentioned, some IFS units are downright tough and will handle bigger tires just fine.

With your planned trip and build, I doubt it would even matter one way or the other.