2018 G-class adopts IFS ?

[haven]

http://www.autoblog.com/2017/05/25/spy-photos-reveal-more-mercedes-benz-g-class-updates/

Spy shots of development vehicles indicate that the next G-Class will utilize independent front suspension. :Wow1:

(I guess I wasn't paying attention. There are articles online from early 2014 saying the G would move to IFS, plus lose some mass and reduce aerodynamic drag. Here's a post on ExPo from 2015 saying the same thing. I even posted in the thread. The mind is the first to go...)
http://forum.expeditionportal.com/t...wider-new-engines-new-interior-IFS-suspension

 

[zimm]

it doesnt have any articulation now, it'll be an improvement.

 

[Redline61]

I think it will be an improvement too. realistically you aren't going to be doing anything too hardcore in a g and the benefits outweigh the negatives offroad imo anyways. Plus the only people that buy these things new are all living in Beverly Hills anyways so lets just hope Mercedes keeps it offroad orientated.

 

[otiswesty]

realistically you aren't going to be doing anything too hardcore in a g and the benefits outweigh the negatives offroad imo anyways. Plus the only people that buy these things new are all living in Beverly Hills anyways so lets just hope Mercedes keeps it offroad orientated.

Ya, nobody ever really off roads in these things any ways. Mostly just the market, and of course going to the theatre.

 

[burquedoka]

Yeah, I never leave the pavement in any of my G's, especially the rally G, no way.

 

[zimm]

I think it will be an improvement too. realistically you aren't going to be doing anything too hardcore in a g and the benefits outweigh the negatives offroad imo anyways. Plus the only people that buy these things new are all living in Beverly Hills anyways so lets just hope Mercedes keeps it offroad orientated.

dont be dumb.

Im curious if this means they will improve the locker design from the current dog tooth system, or if they are just going to hack the center section from the axle. i hope they switch to the eaton elocker, its the cats meow compared to the existing system. they could stand to make some adjustments to the front frame for turning radius also. typically i'd expect MB to put some money into it, but the way they keep patching the G, i'm not so sure. it may be just enough to get the washboard behavior suitable for wealthy women.

better get the portal axle godzilla while you can.

 

[kotton]

So 2017 will be the last of the good models then. This is as bad as when GM stopped producing the K5 and turned to the craptastic IFS Tahoe/Blazer.

 

[otiswesty]

So 2017 will be the last of the good models then. This is as bad as when GM stopped producing the K5 and turned to the craptastic IFS Tahoe/Blazer.

At this point I would view it similarly to the Toyota 80 -> 100 series transition. Very similar looks with new independent suspension front axle. They will likely be good vehicles. Some prefer the 460 models, some the 1990s 463, and some the newest stuff. Likely there will be a robust fan base for the new model assuming it is executed well.

Both the ML (GLE) and GL (GLS) were designed to replace the G-class as a civilian model. I doubt that the era of a serious off road G is over.

 

[ILIAN]

There is no major problem with the locker system as it is. My 17yo system works great and I use it regularly. I only did some small work to the vacuum side of it for reliability and ease of troubleshooting. I would improve the front of the frame for better approach angle and strength for mounting a big winch.

 

[zimm]

So 2017 will be the last of the good models then. This is as bad as when GM stopped producing the K5 and turned to the craptastic IFS Tahoe/Blazer.

you dont be stupid, either.

original porsche turbo motors lasted for ****, and the gm diesel experiment in the 70s set unreasonable expectations for crap. ford can now make a 2.7l six for pickup that will last 200000 miles, and we all know a diesel can roll 500000 not 50000. there is NO inherent weakness in IFS, just sloppy or cheap design, which no one expects MB will do. will they care about making it as off road effective as the 100lc? thats another question. My 100 has excellent rear droop and can stuff 35's with a mere 1.5" of lift, and that has a bearing on how IFS effectiveness. with a narrow truck such as a G, likely to have short arms if designed only with on road handling in mind, how tight the rear space is, and how poorly G's lift (granted, much to the front linkage design), it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

for guys happy with a 2" lift max, and 33's, mostly "overlanding" and not wheeling, i cant see it being anything but better.

 

[kotton]

you dont be stupid, either.

original porsche turbo motors lasted for ****, and the gm diesel experiment in the 70s set unreasonable expectations for crap. ford can now make a 2.7l six for pickup that will last 200000 miles, and we all know a diesel can roll 500000 not 50000. there is NO inherent weakness in IFS, just sloppy or cheap design, which no one expects MB will do. will they care about making it as off road effective as the 100lc? thats another question. My 100 has excellent rear droop and can stuff 35's with a mere 1.5" of lift, and that has a bearing on how IFS effectiveness. with a narrow truck such as a G, likely to have short arms if designed only with on road handling in mind, how tight the rear space is, and how poorly G's lift (granted, much to the front linkage design), it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

for guys happy with a 2" lift max, and 33's, mostly "overlanding" and not wheeling, i cant see it being anything but better.

I wheeled with a IFS 4wd for years and there is for sure an inherent weakness with the setup vs a SFA. The articulation just isnt there, even compared to a stiffer SFA setup like the G. On top of that the tie rods for the steering are almost always too thin for larger tires. The CV axles and their boots are always cracking and getting filled with crud, and they really dont like to be lifted and have the angles increased.

Its exactly the reason toyota failed with the new FJ at getting wrangler buyers to come over to their platform, and also the reason you see multiple solid axle conversion kits for IFS vehicles, yet you would never be able to find an IFS conversion for a SFA equipped vehicle.

It really sounds like the new G and the new Bronco will be identical, and with Fords great build quality overhaul the last 5 years it looks like the Bronco will be the better choice.

 

[zimm]

the fact that parts move does not constitute an "inherent" design weakness.

if a part is "too thin" that would be a design flaw. make it thicker. there are plenty of substandard solid axles in use too.

you swap to SFA to achieve greater articulation IF, that is whats desired, for your use. you lift a truck if that is needed for your desired use. neither has anything to do with whether or not an IFS supplied is adequate or not. G's dont take to lifts either. mine is only two inches, and camber is jacked, in addition to coming at the ex pence of the available droop. the 2"s on my 100 however, is unnoticeable, and the droop is unaffected due to the drop bracket. In addition, G front axles require bearing service more frequently than the entire front end of an IFS 100. yes, the stock IFS of a 100 can take a lift, and 35"s, be wheeled, and wear less than a G front axle. it must be magic. not to mention front service on the IFS of a 100 is a 2 banana job compared to a G axle.

Toyota FJ's are one of the few trucks with a HIGHER resale value than a heep, and it never was intended as a direct jeep competitor, it was intended to maximize sales of an existing structure. They sold more than than they thought they could. and since when is popularity proof of IFS weakness? if i was shopping for a "jeep" i wouldnt buy an FJ because its ugly, has the worlds worst sightlines... and the top doesnt come off.

speaking of which, in case you didnt notice, a popular upgrade on a Jeep is dynatrac axles... is that reflective of a design weakness or an inherent weakness in solid axles???

and you clearly never wheeled or owned a G. within its limits, it achieves arete, but like Icarus, if it leaves its intended design, bad things happen.

 

[haven]

Zimm wrote, "with a narrow truck such as a G, likely to have short arms..."

The spy photos of the new G show a body that is noticeably wider. Just like Raptor and ZR2, wider body means longer arms, which probably means longer wheel travel.

 

[kotton]

I always wonder if the toyota resale values stem from the 90's era brainwashing, and the fact that consumer reports has been blatantly in their pocket the last few decades. Theres a reason toyota decided to offer the 105 along side the 100 when they switched to IFS, because even they knew it was admittedly weaker and wanted to offer people the option of having the better solution in the countries that would put these through hard use. For example the wishbones cracking when they hit the bump stops seemed to be a fun time compared to the solid axle sibling. Regardless It just makes sense that a vehicle weighing 575lbs less with 60 less hp, and 34 less torque would put less wear and tear on its components. That is unless you were one of the lucky ones with the two pinion IFS diff, that likes to grenade regardless of the low power.

 

[zimm]

Zimm wrote, "with a narrow truck such as a G, likely to have short arms..."

The spy photos of the new G show a body that is noticeably wider. Just like Raptor and ZR2, wider body means longer arms, which probably means longer wheel travel.

the flairs are definitely wider than my '96, but a wider body would require new hood and roof stampings, and the rear door and other parts match mine. ill bet MB wants to keep the body parts chain the came with the existing military contracts.

the wheels on a 463 are rather deep BS as it is, so i'm going to guess track is only up a maximum of 3 inches total.

I actually wouldnt be shocked if they pulled a "ford cobra IRS" and made a bolt on independent sub assembly like the ford fox body had. I think a long arm short arm would work with the existing frame, and the Gratz line wouldnt have to deal with welding up a different frame.

i'll bet you a case of Iron ****ty, i mean city, beer.