T of F: Everything else equal, I would prefer solid axles to independent suspension?

[Cee-Jay]

True or False: Everything else equal, I would prefer solid axles to independent suspension for my style of overlanding and/or expeditioning.

The “everything else equal” part of my question is key. Think of your current vehicle. Keeping everything the same, would you prefer it to have started with a factory installed independent suspension or factory installed solid axles (imagining for a moment that both options were available)?

Recognizing that:

1)Suspension is but one of many factors to consider when selecting a vehicle,
2)All solid axle designs and all independent suspension designs are not created equal,
3)All axle makes and models are not created equal,
4)The ideal suspension for a given person depends on a number of factors including expected terrain, load, etc.

So to be clear, I'm NOT asking if solid axles are the critical factor in which vehicle you're going to choose. Toyotas are among the world's best overland vehicles and most of them are rolling out of the factory with IFS, for example. Instead I'm asking for example, if you had the choice, would you have purchased your 2010 FJ Cruiser with a factory solid front axle instead of the IFS it came with?

 

[haven]

Depends on how much you use the truck on-road vs off, and how much rockhopping you plan to do. If your idea of a good time is to take the most challenging off-road route, then you can have fun for less money (cheaper to modify) with a solid axle truck. If you want a good all-around suspension, then IFS would be my recommendation.

 

[762X39]

I have owned vehicles with both and even my old Russian Lada (with factory IFS) always went where I pointed it with total disregard for suspension or axle type. For true overland travel from one village to the next, it likely doesn't matter. I would be much more concerned with all the un-engineered changes made to adapt a vehicles suspension and driveline from one type to the other (all things being equal).

 

[1stDeuce]

I have two vehicles; a slightly stretched Jeep TJ, and a '96 GMC 2500. I like them both exactly the way they are!! I don't four wheel the GMC much, and it sure rides and drives better than the solid axle dodges and Fords that I've driven, and the Jeep goes where I point it without teetering all over like IFS trucks tend to do in the rough, and makes even the roughest of trails seem easy. In fact, it's actually pretty tough to get my Jeep to lift a tire at all, and because the solid axles help it keep all tires on the ground, I rarely ever need the rear locker.

So all thing being equal, I think it really matters what you plan to do with it, not what your "opinion" is on the subject. IFS makes for a really nice driving vehicle, but gives up some flexibility in the rough, while solid axles tend to flex much much better, but normally have less refined ride and handling characteristics. Talking about which is stronger is just dumb, as I can break anything, and I can make just about anything live forever. Lots of 1000hp duramaxes with sock front ends holding up just fine, and lots of '90's 1/2 ton dodge trucks with bent axles, sagging balljoints, wasted wheelbearings, etc.

Run what makes sense. Or whatever the vehicle you like has, and just know it's limitations and deal with them.
Chris

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

Both have benefits. Both have limitations.

For me, I'd choose IFS for what I do.

 

[4x4junkie]

Mine has both... well kindof sortof anyway lol (Ford Twin Traction Beam, which technically is IFS)
Basically Ford took a solid axle and built it into two halves, blending the flex & durability of said solid axle with the ride & handling characteristics of IFS. I'm happy with it, it works very well both on a good rough trail, as well as on the road (is decent on long drives).

Between a solid axle and a more conventional A-arm IFS, I'd almost certainly take the solid axle.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

Mine has both... well kindof sortof anyway lol (Ford Twin Traction Beam, which technically is IFS)
Basically Ford took a solid axle and built it into two halves, blending the flex & durability of said solid axle with the ride & handling characteristics of IFS. I'm happy with it, it works very well both on a good rough trail, as well as on the road (is decent on long drives).

Between a solid axle and a more conventional A-arm IFS, I'd almost certainly take the solid axle.

Yeah, that style of axle is definitely a unique and interesting piece of art..... And dumb as hell to work on.

 

[bob91yj]

Sitting on the fence for this one...

I've got both, an '05 Wrangler and a GMC 2500Dmax, which vehicle I use depends on where I'm going and how I'm getting there...sometimes I take both!

 

[4x4junkie]

Yeah, that style of axle is definitely a unique and interesting piece of art..... And dumb as hell to work on.

Not if you're familiar with it... However not everybody is, so it tends to get a bad rep because of that (the suspension industry has also done it no favors with mismatched pitman arms that cause them to wear tires quicker after you lift one). Properly set up however, they do work well over many types of terrain (it's always done good for me anyway).

It would be a tough decision for me if the choice was between the TTB or the solid axle... The TTB setup handles & rides much better, especially in the dirt. The solid axle doesn't have it's camber alignment tied to it's ride height however, so there's less to mess with if you change things around in the suspension. Of course this thinking is basically moot, the only twin-beam Ford still offers anymore you can't get with a front diff.

 

[Erik N]

4 wheel independent A-arm suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes. Rigid axle on leaf springs? My dad's tractor has a more refined suspension than that!

 

[Martinjmpr]

Well, first off I think you need to distinguish between front and rear. I like my solid rear axles and actually passed on a possible vehicle choice (the 05+ Nissan Pathfinder) because it has IRS.

But, having come of age during the solid axle/leaf spring era, I have to say I don't miss it. Wife's YJ (which is leaf-sprung) rides like a buckboard and is terrible on washboard.

I think the biggest advantage to SFA is that it's easier/cheaper to lift. If you're not running huge tires the advantage is minimal.

 

[Cee-Jay]

Well, first off I think you need to distinguish between front and rear.

At the time, I decided that independent all-around was rare enough (excluding crossovers) that it wasn't worth making the distinction, but that may have been a mistake. 1) Some crossovers are quite capable and frankly the line between crossover and real deal SUV isn't always clear. 2) More and more trail worthy bloodlines are moving in that direction: Hummers, Gen 3 Monteros, Patrol, Grand Cherokee, Explorer, etc.

So I think you make a fair point and in fact I was thinking last night that it might have been better to create a multiple choice allowing for a) solids front and back, b) IFS + solid rear, c) independent front and back, or d) Doesn't matter/Not Important.

 

[LaOutbackTrail]

The biggest proponents to IFS/IRS rigs are Jeep and Land Rover at the moment. But who wants an electronically controlled suspension system?

 

[F1Chase]

For the terrain I'd be likely to see, I'd choose a well built TTB setup. As my habits tend to take me to the desert more often then not, the strength of the TTB (vs IFS) and it's ability to more easily create large amounts of wheel travel (vs solid axles) would be more beneficial to me.

As for IFS vs solid axle debate, I'd go IFS consisting of a well built and thought out design, kinda like the 4Wheel & Off Road Ultimate F150.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

True

I'll go out of my way not to buy anything with independent suspension. I still haven't had much luck finding a solid axled ATV though.