Wonderland
Explorer
Do you have a link?
Did Nissan Kill the SFA for Toyota???
- Thread starter wesel123
- Start date
Do you have a link?
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Nope. Coilover vs Torsion Bar. Not possible.
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
No such option exists for the 100's front end. Well, a couple of folks have run one setup that gains about an inch travel, though I believe the design is flawed and it costs reliability. I would never consider it. The negatives far outweigh the positives in my opinion.
There is a long-travel rear setup which I was the first to try out. It provides 3" added wheel travel and is a simple bolt-in solution. 3" added to the rear makes one hell of an improvement over 1" to the front. You need a minimum of 3" lift in the rear however to use this setup.
Wonderland
Explorer
Can't you ditch the torsion bars, and weld in buckets for the coil overs?
I have seen long travel torsion bar setup on a 4Runner before, somewhere on TTORA.
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
Nope. No room. Hasn't been done.
Wonderland
Explorer
Anything is possible with time and money. :elkgrin:
Not a 100, but you can get a 4WD long travel IFS built, if you have the money.
http://www.stewartsraceworks.com/our_vehicles.php?truck=mcmillin4wd
Last edited:
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
True
Very true
Very true
Life_in_4Lo
Explorer
this has been gone over in far more detail on Mud
Brian894x4
Explorer
In response to the origonal question in the thread, when doing research for my old "Foreign Toyota" websites, I came across a few articles from Australia that pointed that Toyota was losing marketshare by the boatload by the mid 1990s to Isuzu and Nissan in it's non-NA markets, due to selling mostly solid axle Hilux trucks. That's when Toyota decided to drop the SA all together for the Hilux and go entirely with IFS.
It should be noted that Toyota stuck with it's original torsion bar IFS and 1 ton frame, originally introduced in NA and some select high end overseas models in 1986, when it introduced the new Hilux in 1997 (as i recall). And did not adapt the NA exclusive coil spring and rack and pinion steering set up of the 1995 Tacoma.
There was definately some concern about the strength of the Tacoma set up, which was later proven to be inferior to the original Toyota IFS/steering set up, when the U.S. military purchased Tacomas and sent into battle in Afghanistan..but that's another story.
As far as solid axle verses IFS, I'm definately not getting involved in that debate, but I will say this. On my 1989 pick-up, prior to doing the SAS, I had installed a long travel A-arm set up on the IFS and it was one of the coolest driving off road vehicles I ever had. Even without sway bars, it handled like a dream on the roughest roads. I still believe different suspensions are good for different things. There just is no catch all. There are things I could do with that long travel IFS I couldn't do with my SAS pick up or my current 80 series, but at the same time, there are things I could do with my SAS truck and 80 series that I couldn't so with the IFS truck. But I do think unless you're doing extreme stuff, you get away with with a well built IFS truck just about anywhere and enjoy IFS advantages on the highway. My next vehicle (somewhere down the line when I outgrow my 80) will probably end up being a late model 100 series.
The 100 series has a very unique suspension not shared with any other platform, so making suspension kits for it would be difficult and probably not worth the money for such a minimal market. On my pick-up torsion bar IFS, the kit I used simply used longer custom A-arms and heavier duty torsion bars. I would think the same set up could be designed for the 100 series. Or at least same basic idea. One of the problems with longer A-arms is that it pushes the suspension outward which widens the vehicle track and would require customer fenders as well and I'm not sure how the firewall or other things would interfer. Also entirely new custom axles are needed to adapt to the longer A-arms and if done properly, new CV joints would be needed to take advantage of the longer wheel travel, that could adapter to steeper angles. My set up used custom axles with special Porsche inner CV joints and stock outer joints. The longer A-arms could also add a few inches of lift, without lowering the front diff, if these axles are done right.
One of the things that makes the 80 so nice is the better aftermarket support for suspensions and the higher number of options. And as mentioned, while it's still solid axle, Toyota definately hit a home run as far as handling goes. I'm sure the 100 beats it hands down, but it's hard to tell you're driving a solid axle truck with the 80. In fact, the only thing that really attracts me to the 100 is wanting more power with the V-8 and just having a generally newer vehicle.
It should be noted that Toyota stuck with it's original torsion bar IFS and 1 ton frame, originally introduced in NA and some select high end overseas models in 1986, when it introduced the new Hilux in 1997 (as i recall). And did not adapt the NA exclusive coil spring and rack and pinion steering set up of the 1995 Tacoma.
There was definately some concern about the strength of the Tacoma set up, which was later proven to be inferior to the original Toyota IFS/steering set up, when the U.S. military purchased Tacomas and sent into battle in Afghanistan..but that's another story.
As far as solid axle verses IFS, I'm definately not getting involved in that debate, but I will say this. On my 1989 pick-up, prior to doing the SAS, I had installed a long travel A-arm set up on the IFS and it was one of the coolest driving off road vehicles I ever had. Even without sway bars, it handled like a dream on the roughest roads. I still believe different suspensions are good for different things. There just is no catch all. There are things I could do with that long travel IFS I couldn't do with my SAS pick up or my current 80 series, but at the same time, there are things I could do with my SAS truck and 80 series that I couldn't so with the IFS truck. But I do think unless you're doing extreme stuff, you get away with with a well built IFS truck just about anywhere and enjoy IFS advantages on the highway. My next vehicle (somewhere down the line when I outgrow my 80) will probably end up being a late model 100 series.
The 100 series has a very unique suspension not shared with any other platform, so making suspension kits for it would be difficult and probably not worth the money for such a minimal market. On my pick-up torsion bar IFS, the kit I used simply used longer custom A-arms and heavier duty torsion bars. I would think the same set up could be designed for the 100 series. Or at least same basic idea. One of the problems with longer A-arms is that it pushes the suspension outward which widens the vehicle track and would require customer fenders as well and I'm not sure how the firewall or other things would interfer. Also entirely new custom axles are needed to adapt to the longer A-arms and if done properly, new CV joints would be needed to take advantage of the longer wheel travel, that could adapter to steeper angles. My set up used custom axles with special Porsche inner CV joints and stock outer joints. The longer A-arms could also add a few inches of lift, without lowering the front diff, if these axles are done right.
One of the things that makes the 80 so nice is the better aftermarket support for suspensions and the higher number of options. And as mentioned, while it's still solid axle, Toyota definately hit a home run as far as handling goes. I'm sure the 100 beats it hands down, but it's hard to tell you're driving a solid axle truck with the 80. In fact, the only thing that really attracts me to the 100 is wanting more power with the V-8 and just having a generally newer vehicle.
Last edited:
ShottsCruisers
Explorer
The good news is that an extreme front suspension upgrade isn't required on the 100 in order to run just about anywhere but the craziest trails. Using existing setups you are set for the trail.
Even IF such an extreme setup could be bought, we're still limited by the 100's larger size so you won't add many of those insane trails to the 100's "do list". For those leftover trails we have other options like a 6" lifted 80 with 37's, Jeeps, FJ40's etc. H2's not apply. :sombrero:
a.mus.ed
Explorer
At first glance, I can't find any problems either. I think I'd better watch it again.
Pskhaat
2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
Folks, we're not talking about high-density tebibyte storage devices or massively multi-core CPs or even chaotic spread spectrum RF technology.
Magnetic levitation suspension, yes; but torsion bars and springs? It was simple: design, tooling, and parts got to a profitable price point and the ride was deemed better by the majority.
Life_in_4Lo
Explorer
Besides the in-depth discussion on improving the 100's IFS on Mud, there is also a great build-up thread on a guy converting his 100 to SFA for an Alaska trek.
Brian894x4
Explorer
That I'd like to see...I'll have to go look. I usually sick to the 80 section only.
sleeoffroad
Adventurer
Here you go
