SAS/SAC debate thread

[ntsqd]

I ask this in all due sincerity, but why start with an IFS rig if you are planning on eventually building it for a live axle?

Biggest reason is availability. In a Toyota pick-up you're looking at two years worth of U.S. production with a live axle if you want an Xtra Cab configuration. EFI was available both years, but was an option for the first year, so there aren't a lot of those around. Makes the '85's highly sought after trucks. If a std cab config works then add only another 5 years worth of U.S. production. So a total of 7 years worth or production that is now 23 years old at the youngest.

There are multitudes of crawler oriented SAS kits out there. 4" springs are the lowest usually offered, and that is on top of (under?) the ride height that the kit itself usually adds. Which I understand to be in the 1" range.

 

[4Rescue]

I would tend to agree here. Unless there's a cheap way to add a solid axle to a vehicle, I would think starting with a solid axle would make more sense.

Problem here in NA is that there aren't alot of options, and the ones that do come with SFA's... Well let's just say they're a far cry from the Toyota's we all know and love.

-Disco and or ANY Rover: You're taking a risk here. I have my opinions and they're well recorded EW's new 5spd D1 sure seems neat, but I've seen people run bigger tires on the "Old" toyota IFS with less trouble. The disco axles are kind of a weak point with big tires, and the front axle is not as strong as a Toyota Mini SFA.

-Jeep XJ: Well, I won't buy another one. they're really fun while they last, but they get terrible milage adn they tend to IME fall apart rather when abused. Plus the SFA used is no tough guy and again isn't as a strong as the Toyota SFA.

-Wrangler: Nice but severly limited in it's capacity adn I don't like the new JK motor... an LJ would be awesome, but the 4.0L get's terrible milage and well, the build quality of Jeep's is a far cry from a Tacoma.

-Domestic F/S: Aside from the Dodge Power Wagon these are hardly comparable to the Tacoma and others in terms of nimblness. Even the PW is no small truck and can be a monster on the trail. I do love the PW though.

-84-5 Toyota Mini Truck/4Runner: Best option available but pretty hard to find one that's not rusted to pieces. IMO the best thing to do would be to find an 85 4Runner or X-Cab P/U (good luck on the X-cab), gut the interior and build to suit, scrap the motor and drop in a 1KZ-T 3.0L I4 Diesel. but then you only have 2 doors and not THAT much room over say a Jeep LJ unless you go with the P/U but then you have a "Less" nimble trail rig.

Honestly if you start with a Nice Tacoma and then put an SFA under neath it you have the best of all worlds. It's a Toyota and it now has the flex and strength of a SFA. BUT, more to the point, I just wonder, what's your IFS NOT doing that you think an SFA will solve???

Cheers

Dave

Cheers

Dave

 

[Martinjmpr]

Problem here in NA is that there aren't alot of options, and the ones that do come with SFA's... Well let's just say they're a far cry from the Toyota's we all know and love.

Forgetting something?

How about an FJ/FZJ-80? Plenty of them around, parts availability, fairly new (certainly newer than an 85 Toyota, with its paper-thin sheetmetal) and affordable. Take the money you'd spend on the SFA and kit the 80 out and there you go.

 

[xechcorx]

-84-5 Toyota Mini Truck/4Runner: Best option available but pretty hard to find one that's not rusted to pieces. IMO the best thing to do would be to find an 85 4Runner or X-Cab P/U (good luck on the X-cab), gut the interior and build to suit, scrap the motor and drop in a 1KZ-T 3.0L I4 Diesel. but then you only have 2 doors and not THAT much room over say a Jeep LJ unless you go with the P/U but then you have a "Less" nimble trail rig.
Dave

:victory: I like your train of thought. I'm a diesel freak and as no one offers a small diesel pickup nowadays I decided to build my own, and being as I have always wanted a SFA Yota, I had my chassis but had to scrap just about everything else.

 

[xechcorx]

Forgetting something?

How about an FJ/FZJ-80? Plenty of them around, parts availability, fairly new (certainly newer than an 85 Toyota, with its paper-thin sheetmetal) and affordable. Take the money you'd spend on the SFA and kit the 80 out and there you go.

True true, It's a shame they never offered that same platform with a truck bed!
Now THAT would be the vehicle to own, IMO.

 

[Martinjmpr]

True true, It's a shame they never offered that same platform with a truck bed!
Now THAT would be the vehicle to own, IMO.

Cutting the roof off of an 80 would be much easier IMO than putting an SAS on a Taco. I think if you go over onto IH8MUD you can see more than a few FJ80 "truck conversions".

 

[jh504]

I ask this in all due sincerity, but why start with an IFS rig if you are planning on eventually building it for a live axle?

My reason is because my vehicle of choice is a compact Toyota. Unless I have an early 90s model Hilux I would have to settle for a vehicle built in 1985, which are great trucks, but I would prefer something newer. For a lot of people a Tacoma is an excellent vehicle which meets their needs. If the only thing missing from the equation is a solid axle, why not start with the vehicle that you actually want and upgrade the front end? Its not that difficult (EDIT: I guess it is kind of difficult, but fun) and is better than settling for a vehicle you dont want just because it has a SFA. Thats just my reasoning. Of course a Cruiser would be a great SFA rig to go with, but if it is too big or if you want a bed then it doesnt work for you.

 

[4Rescue]

Cutting the roof off of an 80 would be much easier IMO than putting an SAS on a Taco. I think if you go over onto IH8MUD you can see more than a few FJ80 "truck conversions".

Very good point, but I wouldn't say it's easier than swaping a Mini-truck over. That conversion (using leafs) has been done so many times and ways that really, if you know what you're doing you can do it in an afternoon. I have always loved Slee's hack-jobs though. There was even one of a simillar nature(might even have been one of SLEE's trucks I don't know) running around Portland for awhile, it was pretty sweet. My biggest issue with the SAS is how tall the rig usualy ends up being. The 80 idea would make a nice, low COG rig with some sweet underpinnings. Now I want to see more choped 80's or even a choped 60 P/U, now that would be new and cool.

Cheers

Dave

 

[xcmountain80]

My reason is because my vehicle of choice is a compact Toyota. Unless I have an early 90s model Hilux I would have to settle for a vehicle built in 1985, which are great trucks, but I would prefer something newer. For a lot of people a Tacoma is an excellent vehicle which meets their needs. If the only thing missing from the equation is a solid axle, why not start with the vehicle that you actually want and upgrade the front end? Its not that difficult (EDIT: I guess it is kind of difficult, but fun) and is better than settling for a vehicle you dont want just because it has a SFA. Thats just my reasoning. Of course a Cruiser would be a great SFA rig to go with, but if it is too big or if you want a bed then it doesnt work for you.

Yep like the retro Taco at Sema, my brother was in with a sop in Orlando that was going to charge him cost on parts and no labor as long as he showed up at events ans such when they asked him to. Not sure whatever happened to that, heck for that matter I might call em and see if the offers on the table. The 4Runner sprugn under like Sonorans would be very useful. Though a Rock Jock 60 would be sick and overkill 44 would be perfect.

Aaron

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Lots of great arguments and discussion, I find it ironic that 4WD Toyota Owner magazine has an article this month relating to the same thing, bout as decisive as we are

I don't think it has to be mutually excusive IFS versus SA, in fact I think for many its cheaper to build one of each than it will be to try and make one vehicle do everything your asking. Ask my wife, I've even convinced her that the multiple vehilce system is the best answer, of course bribing her with a FJ45 for her "lawn and garden" truck was rather helpful.

I can't imagine trying to take two distict vehicles (for example FJ40 + Tacoma) and trying to merge them into one vehicle without an infinite number of tradeoffs. Just not practical.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Raise your hand if you've taken a rooftop tent through Pritchett...

LOL! Closest I can say is that I took a WilderNest through the Rubicon.

 

[01tundra]

Well for me, I already owned the Tundra and liked the fact that it had the Toyota quality (as far as engine and overall build quality), had more room than a Tacoma, but wasn't quite as wide and bulky as a domestic pickup - so basically it was the perfect platform for me if it would have came with a solid front axle. Plus, I've owned seven different Jeeps and wanted something a little more unique (I prefer to redesign and rebuild my own vehicles).

Now I've also got an '08 Tundra 4x4 that will always remain IFS, simply because I use it for different purposes where a solid front axle would not benefit me. I actually just gave it to my fiance, yet she still always hassels me to let her drive the "white" one to work because she likes it better.......

If I had an LC60/80/whatever I would still rip the axles & suspension out from under it and swap in something bigger and better, that's how I am.......so for me it really doesn't matter what I start with, I'm going to still tear it apart and try to build it better to suit my needs......

 

[4Rescue]

I don't know about the T-100 because I haven't ever really poked around underneath one, but I will say that from a chasis standpoint the 86+ Mini-truck frames are pretty hard to beat in the realm of "something to start off". THere are several options, LT IFS from Total Chaos seems to be a pretty sweet idea but has issues and needs just like an SAS does, but again in terms of what you start building, I think that the older frames are absolutely GREAT to start with. I agree that the sheetmetal is a little thin, but I'm lucky I live in the NW and we don't use salt and my body is in great shape, but I know that you mean and have seen awful pictures online of mini-trucks that were literaly eaten apart with rust.

Again I come back to the question of what the OP DOESN'T like about his current set-up. I'd like more flex sure, ut honestly for an exploration truck my BJ spacers and OME rear spriongs and shocks have been pretty unflapable and pretty damn capable off-road in a variety of conditions. I find my Tires and curent lack of traction devices like a locker are more limiting than my IFS is.

Cheers

Dave

 

[jh504]

My biggest issue with the SAS is how tall the rig usualy ends up being. The 80 idea would make a nice, low COG rig with some sweet underpinnings.

Thats my thing with building a SASed rig for expedition style travel. The last rig I had was lifted 6.5" with SFA and it was at the very top of the spectrum for how high I want to be. When going the SAS route I would try to keep it as low as I could without totally hindering flex. The smallest kits give you 4" of lift plus the hangers which would put you at 5" or so. That is definitely as high as I want to go. Of course you could custom piece it together and get it a little lower. I would prefer 4.5"-5" if it were me. Then I would definitely not skimp on the swaybars and stabilization. Good WORKING swaybars will make all the difference in the world for your highway drive.

 

[jh504]

THere are several options, LT IFS from Total Chaos seems to be a pretty sweet idea but has issues and needs just like an SAS does,

Yeah, those TC kits are awesome. I would love to have a long travel kit on a 4runner or taco. That would get you through Mexico pretty quick!