Erik N
Adventurer
A picture is worth 1000 words
T of F: Everything else equal, I would prefer solid axles to independent suspension?
- Thread starter Cee-Jay
- Start date
A picture is worth 1000 words
HillbillyfromAL
Explorer
The HMMWV also has gear reduction hubs to provide more clearance the only Civilian vehicle I know that has them on an independent suspension is the H1. For the complexity I bet they could have done it simpler with some Mog axles. I've spent a fair amount of time in HMMWV's, but they are too wide to take on the trails I drive.
Buliwyf
Viking with a Hammer
That Hummer is also likely around $120,000+.
I prefer solid axles. But it really depends on the truck.
I'll only approve IFS if it has rack and pinion steering. Combining old school steering box type steering and IFS is an Ackerman and bumpsteer nightmare that eats tires joints and rods. So that limits IFS to light duty trucks.
And "IFS rides better" is really not a quality opinion. Some people think softer is better. I think control and proper damping are important. And such things are not going to be soft on a big truck. Yes my fleet of GM's have a softer ride than the Fords. But those same GM's are very, very hard to control going over a bumpy bridge on the freeway while the Fords maintain control very nicely. Really I feel safer and more in control when I'm in the stiffer Fords. Same for gravel roads. The Fords and Dodges are somtimes harsher, but they outperform the GM's big time.
Lately some of our GM's have been improved and come with better dampers and spring rates. They drive better, but are no longer as plush or soft as the Fords. They actually have a stiffer ride.
I just got a new GM 3500 Express van. It's not a terrible machine, but it bounces 3 times every time it hits a bump. GM has lost all ability to build quality safe suspensions. Shame on GM. I'm actually considering sneaking some Bilsteins on the front of my company vehicle on my own dime. That's how bad it is. Shocks alone won't fix the problem, but hopefully they'll help a little.
Some other solid axle plus's that I don't think anyone mentioned:
+can be lighter overall
+decent ackerman settings
+strong enough for smoother auto lockers like the Detroit and Yukon.
+made out of steel not aluminum
+consistant ground clearance. IFS ground clearance changes, and bouncing over an object your clearance can drop 4" easy. Braking down a hill, your front axle will have less clearance than it would going up the hill with IFS.
+easy on steering tie rods. When IFS hits a bumps and the suspension moves, bumpsteer tugs on the tie rod with enormous force. Solid axles don't have this.
+not much to align, or the need to
+simpler
+cheaper
+swappable. I can pull a dana 50 out of a Ford and install a Super 60 without breaking a sweat. Your stuck with whatever is under a Chevy.
PS: The Ford IFS Dana 50 is the devil. Nothing brings me more pleasure than chopping up one of those junkers with a torch. And solid axle Mustang>IFS Mustang Cobra.
I prefer solid axles. But it really depends on the truck.
I'll only approve IFS if it has rack and pinion steering. Combining old school steering box type steering and IFS is an Ackerman and bumpsteer nightmare that eats tires joints and rods. So that limits IFS to light duty trucks.
And "IFS rides better" is really not a quality opinion. Some people think softer is better. I think control and proper damping are important. And such things are not going to be soft on a big truck. Yes my fleet of GM's have a softer ride than the Fords. But those same GM's are very, very hard to control going over a bumpy bridge on the freeway while the Fords maintain control very nicely. Really I feel safer and more in control when I'm in the stiffer Fords. Same for gravel roads. The Fords and Dodges are somtimes harsher, but they outperform the GM's big time.
Lately some of our GM's have been improved and come with better dampers and spring rates. They drive better, but are no longer as plush or soft as the Fords. They actually have a stiffer ride.
I just got a new GM 3500 Express van. It's not a terrible machine, but it bounces 3 times every time it hits a bump. GM has lost all ability to build quality safe suspensions. Shame on GM. I'm actually considering sneaking some Bilsteins on the front of my company vehicle on my own dime. That's how bad it is. Shocks alone won't fix the problem, but hopefully they'll help a little.
Some other solid axle plus's that I don't think anyone mentioned:
+can be lighter overall
+decent ackerman settings
+strong enough for smoother auto lockers like the Detroit and Yukon.
+made out of steel not aluminum
+consistant ground clearance. IFS ground clearance changes, and bouncing over an object your clearance can drop 4" easy. Braking down a hill, your front axle will have less clearance than it would going up the hill with IFS.
+easy on steering tie rods. When IFS hits a bumps and the suspension moves, bumpsteer tugs on the tie rod with enormous force. Solid axles don't have this.
+not much to align, or the need to
+simpler
+cheaper
+swappable. I can pull a dana 50 out of a Ford and install a Super 60 without breaking a sweat. Your stuck with whatever is under a Chevy.
PS: The Ford IFS Dana 50 is the devil. Nothing brings me more pleasure than chopping up one of those junkers with a torch. And solid axle Mustang>IFS Mustang Cobra.
Last edited:
redthies
Renaissance Redneck
The YJ is not really a good example of what leaf springs and a solid front axle are about. I drove a few of those (both stock and modified) back when they were new. Absolute total crap. They have to be the worst example out there.
I like a sfa for the simplicity and strength, but then I load my F350 up with 2500 lbs of cargo on a weekly basis. I think Dodges coil sprung sfa is the best compromise between comfort and capability. I won't get into the maintenance needs though...
I would never consider an overland 4x4 without a solid front axle, you have extra CV joints to fail, all those rubber boots to rip open, those ball joints to fall apart...
Toyota realize that lots of people don't like the idea of IFS which is why they offer the 105 series cruisers in parts of the world where it really matters.
Toyota realize that lots of people don't like the idea of IFS which is why they offer the 105 series cruisers in parts of the world where it really matters.
Last edited:
MaverickTRD
Adventurer
IFS for me personally. I can always upgrade to a long travel set up in the front. I was back and forth between a WJ Grand Cherokee (SFA) 80 series, and my current 4Runner....The 4runner was the only one with IFS, which is why its in my garage.
i have still taken it on plenty of rough jeep trails, just a little trickier and easier to lift a wheel into the air. but my wife enjoys the ride much more. and hitting dirt roads at speed is more enjoyable.
Everyone has their preferences though. and I agree TTB is a sweet set up!
i have still taken it on plenty of rough jeep trails, just a little trickier and easier to lift a wheel into the air. but my wife enjoys the ride much more. and hitting dirt roads at speed is more enjoyable.
Everyone has their preferences though. and I agree TTB is a sweet set up!
Buliwyf
Viking with a Hammer
Do you mean that goofy split dana50 thing on OBS F150's and fullsize Broncos??? With all the alignment problems and +camber change like a Econoline van? I'm going to pretend I didn't hear/see that.
Last edited:
4x4junkie
Explorer
Keep on pretending then... lol :sombrero: It IS infact a great setup, though only if you build it properly (something much of the lift industry hasn't made real easy to do unfortunately, and is why you often see the steering & alignment issues you do with them).
Also, it's a Dana44 on the F-150 & Bronco. The F-250 got the D50 (and I will concede the F-250 leaf-sprung version is quite lame, but the coil-spring/radius arm TTBs are very durable & buildable for lots of flex/travel even on a small budget, something that can't be said of pretty much any other factory IFS offering. Virtually any locker can be fitted to one as well).
Clutch
<---Pass
OP: Couldn't vote because it depends on the vehicle and the application, as in reality not everything is equal.
Whether it be SFA, IFS, or TTB, I prefer coil springs over other types of springs such as leafs or torsion bars.
Auto Fab, Giant Motorsports, Camburg build decent TTB's...
http://www.autofab.com/
http://www.giantmotorsports.com/
http://www.camburg.com/store/susp-s...ford-f-150bronco-4wd-80-96-prerunner-4-0-kit/
If you haven't seen this thread on GoFast Broncos.
http://www.gofastbroncos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=864
...and Speed Unlimited goes over the top with their full custom fabbed TTB
And Hell, who needs 4WD? :ylsmoke:
Whether it be SFA, IFS, or TTB, I prefer coil springs over other types of springs such as leafs or torsion bars.
Auto Fab, Giant Motorsports, Camburg build decent TTB's...
http://www.autofab.com/
http://www.giantmotorsports.com/
http://www.camburg.com/store/susp-s...ford-f-150bronco-4wd-80-96-prerunner-4-0-kit/
If you haven't seen this thread on GoFast Broncos.
http://www.gofastbroncos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=864
...and Speed Unlimited goes over the top with their full custom fabbed TTB
And Hell, who needs 4WD? :ylsmoke:
Last edited:
locrwln
Expedition Leader
Ford TTB description.:bike_rider:
Also I didn't write it, so don't blame the spelling on me.
The History of TTB
"TTB tech and enlightenment article
Fords TTB *twin traction beam* first showed up on the 1980 model
Ford 1/2 ton truck line. Ford credits a fella at Ford engeneering
named "Rupert B Tard" for the concept and design of the TTB.
Although it is widely understood that this design was a copywrite
swindle if there ever was one, but Bolens, makers of fine
garden/lawn tractors was not interested in pursuing any legal
action stating in a press release "it sucked actually let them
have it,we couldn't get them to mow a straight line" (of interest
Bolens admits the idea of their front suspension was garnered
from a blueprint they latter learned was redrawn by a fella that
worked in the mail room after he had spilled his coffee on the
original and didn't want to get in trouble)
How does it work: The TTB as Ford built it is a interesting
suspension..first off one would like to point out that apparently
they designed it to bend/move alot like a limp pasta noodle for
Ride quality. So what we have is a axle that is two
pieces...designed to flex considerably and move through a arch to
promote nice Caddilac type ride in a truck. Now thinking about
this one must ask themselves...why build a suspension to
move....THEN as you do that, also design it so any time it does
actually move it causes other issues? Apparently they realized
that if they limmited how much the front flexed, they would have
also cured the problems associated with it flexing. Much like a
reverse engineered straight axle..you could simulate what
happened here very easily with household tools if a understanding
required looking at a scale model.
Model exercise: Take a straight axle Dana 44 and sawzall or torch
the axle in half about 2/3 of the axle length being one piece,
and the remaining 1/3 the other. Now bolt on a barn hinge to
facilitate ataching the two axle halves. This should give you a
rough concept of the engeneering involved here and why Ford
choose to keep it from moving *as much as possible* in the actual
production built trucks.
The simple design of the TTB also required a interesting dillema
when it came to steering it. After all a tie rod can't be built
of flexable plastic or something simular...and a tie rod that
changes length was out..so without the technology for these two
possible solutions to the need for flexable steering it was found
that if they created enough links and connections in the
steering...the natural slop would allow it to function if they
kept it once again from traveling more than a few inches.
Memo from Ford test driver: It exhibits a want to be driven like
a hay wagon...with constant correction and high attention to
direction it sure does ride nice.
After many differant solutions were tried a think tank at Ford
concluded that the correct way to market this axle was to seek
the Gray Haired ladies and gents who were past fighter pilots and
pin ball wizards thus a market segment in retired seniors with
incredable reflexes, and excellant hand eye cordination were
sought to buy these trucks.
Over view: The above basically explains what the goal of Ford was
regarding the TTB suspension design and some history behind it.
One must marvel at the goals achieved as well as the engeneering
required to build an axle with such a deviance from what was the
industry standard.
Alighnment specs:
Caster: Changes every foot it drives *when adjusting read Fords
special bullitan on personal mental health for the line mechanic"
Camber: Specs here very with each truck and side to side on the
same truck " Ford Service bullitan #21548 TTB Alighnment:
dictates the following procedure. " Pretend to adjust,charge
accordingly and smile and nodd and tell the tructh " tiz as good
as it gets"
Toe: To adjust this you must have a ridged platform..no wind, and
please do not use a actual alighnment machine. A limp string and
scotch tape being a better plan. Also something as simple as the
earths gravitational pull can affect the toe settings. When a
final adjustment is complete... do NOT move the truck or all your
work will be for naught *Again consult Fords special bullitan on
personal mental health for the line mechanic"
My personal experience with TTB is that even on a stock truck, keeping them aligned is difficult.
Jack
Also I didn't write it, so don't blame the spelling on me.
The History of TTB
"TTB tech and enlightenment article
Fords TTB *twin traction beam* first showed up on the 1980 model
Ford 1/2 ton truck line. Ford credits a fella at Ford engeneering
named "Rupert B Tard" for the concept and design of the TTB.
Although it is widely understood that this design was a copywrite
swindle if there ever was one, but Bolens, makers of fine
garden/lawn tractors was not interested in pursuing any legal
action stating in a press release "it sucked actually let them
have it,we couldn't get them to mow a straight line" (of interest
Bolens admits the idea of their front suspension was garnered
from a blueprint they latter learned was redrawn by a fella that
worked in the mail room after he had spilled his coffee on the
original and didn't want to get in trouble)
How does it work: The TTB as Ford built it is a interesting
suspension..first off one would like to point out that apparently
they designed it to bend/move alot like a limp pasta noodle for
Ride quality. So what we have is a axle that is two
pieces...designed to flex considerably and move through a arch to
promote nice Caddilac type ride in a truck. Now thinking about
this one must ask themselves...why build a suspension to
move....THEN as you do that, also design it so any time it does
actually move it causes other issues? Apparently they realized
that if they limmited how much the front flexed, they would have
also cured the problems associated with it flexing. Much like a
reverse engineered straight axle..you could simulate what
happened here very easily with household tools if a understanding
required looking at a scale model.
Model exercise: Take a straight axle Dana 44 and sawzall or torch
the axle in half about 2/3 of the axle length being one piece,
and the remaining 1/3 the other. Now bolt on a barn hinge to
facilitate ataching the two axle halves. This should give you a
rough concept of the engeneering involved here and why Ford
choose to keep it from moving *as much as possible* in the actual
production built trucks.
The simple design of the TTB also required a interesting dillema
when it came to steering it. After all a tie rod can't be built
of flexable plastic or something simular...and a tie rod that
changes length was out..so without the technology for these two
possible solutions to the need for flexable steering it was found
that if they created enough links and connections in the
steering...the natural slop would allow it to function if they
kept it once again from traveling more than a few inches.
Memo from Ford test driver: It exhibits a want to be driven like
a hay wagon...with constant correction and high attention to
direction it sure does ride nice.
After many differant solutions were tried a think tank at Ford
concluded that the correct way to market this axle was to seek
the Gray Haired ladies and gents who were past fighter pilots and
pin ball wizards thus a market segment in retired seniors with
incredable reflexes, and excellant hand eye cordination were
sought to buy these trucks.
Over view: The above basically explains what the goal of Ford was
regarding the TTB suspension design and some history behind it.
One must marvel at the goals achieved as well as the engeneering
required to build an axle with such a deviance from what was the
industry standard.
Alighnment specs:
Caster: Changes every foot it drives *when adjusting read Fords
special bullitan on personal mental health for the line mechanic"
Camber: Specs here very with each truck and side to side on the
same truck " Ford Service bullitan #21548 TTB Alighnment:
dictates the following procedure. " Pretend to adjust,charge
accordingly and smile and nodd and tell the tructh " tiz as good
as it gets"
Toe: To adjust this you must have a ridged platform..no wind, and
please do not use a actual alighnment machine. A limp string and
scotch tape being a better plan. Also something as simple as the
earths gravitational pull can affect the toe settings. When a
final adjustment is complete... do NOT move the truck or all your
work will be for naught *Again consult Fords special bullitan on
personal mental health for the line mechanic"
My personal experience with TTB is that even on a stock truck, keeping them aligned is difficult.
Jack
Last edited:
4x4junkie
Explorer
No doubt, those are great companies for TTB stuff, but they are the minority (and tend to be on the pricier side too). Many of the bigger-name products have narrow & flimsy axle brackets (which often stress the frame to the point of cracking), and the way they throw the angle of the steering linkage all catawampus because their drop pitman arms are too short (causing massive toe-in/toe-out bumpsteer) have led people to creating humorous stories like the one locrwln posted (thanks for the laugh too BTW lol).
Alignment technicians unable to figure out how to change a caster alignment bushing when needed (or are too lazy to) and them telling vehicle owners "that's just how they are, blah blah" have not helped it's image either.
I've messed with these suspensions for close to 25 years and have written a lot about them for the Ranger & Explorer crowd over on www.therangerstation.com, though virtually all of it can be applied to the F-150 & Bronco too. No doubt they have a unique personality, but they do perform well, ride great, and will stand up to a lot of abuse when setup correctly, all you need is a good understanding of them.
Clutch
<---Pass
Like anything, things can get blown out of proportion, then throw internet bashing and rumors on top of that. All the bad information tends to shadow
the good. A TTB setup correctly will be just as strong as a SFA, and as smooth as IFS...best of both worlds, really. And every system has its' pros and cons.
While not a TTB...that video of the beamed F100 shows how well that design works, and you can really beat on it.
ElCaminoManT
C'mon, don't bulls**t me
having experience with both systems on the same vehicle, id say i prefer the solid front axle. the IFS that our little gmc jimmy came with did get the job done however it was of a very poor design and in order to run a tire of any worth, the torsion bars had to be turned up a bit. this made the 4wd basically useless as it would destroy idler arms as soon as the front wheels applied power to the ground, not to mention the inability to maintain any alignment specs. after many parts replaced, custom build idler arm and ok performance at best off road, we ripped everything out from under the front of the truck. in went a mid 90s high pinion D30 axle from an XJ mounted with a radius arm system and coil springs. now able to run 33" tires, the truck is absolutely amazing. its not too big so it fits in those places you like to go and yet it has the ground clearance and flex to go where you maybe shouldnt. it actually drives better on the road now than it did before thanks to less steering parts, joints and pivots with the solid axle and its steering.
now on my HD duramax, the IFS works fine for what i use it for and fortunately there is enough aftermarket support for the known weak points that its plenty strong. i dont take it off the pavement very much as its just too long being a crew cab long bed and it just drags frame over the slightest obstacle...
now on my HD duramax, the IFS works fine for what i use it for and fortunately there is enough aftermarket support for the known weak points that its plenty strong. i dont take it off the pavement very much as its just too long being a crew cab long bed and it just drags frame over the slightest obstacle...
Last edited:
Wyowanderer
Explorer
I'd prefer solid axles. I have a D44 TTB in my 84 Ford 1/2 ton, and while it works perfectly (another vote for it), it also has too many parts and requires copious maintenance to stay working as well as most solid axles over time.
I sure as sugar wouldn't swap it out for a solid axle, though. Too much expense and work for a negligible gain.
But if I could choose a solid axle as an option on a new vehicle, I would. If I need something that rides nice, I'll take the car.
I sure as sugar wouldn't swap it out for a solid axle, though. Too much expense and work for a negligible gain.
But if I could choose a solid axle as an option on a new vehicle, I would. If I need something that rides nice, I'll take the car.
