Kevin108
Explorer
It's easier to swap a solid axle under a newer rig than it is to improve the features, reliability, technology, and comforts on an older vehicle.
To straight axle swap or not? Let's hear it.
- Thread starter javajoe79
- Start date
It's easier to swap a solid axle under a newer rig than it is to improve the features, reliability, technology, and comforts on an older vehicle.
4x4junkie
Explorer
1stDeuce's post is almost spot-on... Except that I think a well-done SAS can be very reliable for everyday use, and 35s on a mid-size isn't extreme at all if (again) the rig & it's suspension is well-thought-out (attention paid to things that affect ride & handling such as shock valving, link geometry, roll center, etc.).
Indeed the S-10 IFS definitely is nothing to write home about (especially if you intend to saddle it with another ~300lbs in the form of a 4BT). You seem to have knowledge and the means to do a swap... I would say go for it. Just try to keep it low as you can. It's possible you may have to get creative on some things since many IFS frames don't have much clearance for slinging a solid axle under them (notching, then plating the frame, mounting your bumpstops on the sides of the frame vs. underneath the frame, etc). The red ZR2 posted earlier looks good, but IMO would be better if it had about 2-3" less lift.
Indeed the S-10 IFS definitely is nothing to write home about (especially if you intend to saddle it with another ~300lbs in the form of a 4BT). You seem to have knowledge and the means to do a swap... I would say go for it. Just try to keep it low as you can. It's possible you may have to get creative on some things since many IFS frames don't have much clearance for slinging a solid axle under them (notching, then plating the frame, mounting your bumpstops on the sides of the frame vs. underneath the frame, etc). The red ZR2 posted earlier looks good, but IMO would be better if it had about 2-3" less lift.
ExplorerTom
Explorer
I swapped IFS for a SA. The Explorer IFS is about as good as the S-10 IFS- although the S-10 I went wheeling with on an easy trail couldn't drive home because the alignment got knocked out of whack.
What size tires do you think you need? What do you need to make those fit with IFS? On my Explorer, running 33s I had to crank the torsion bars up which ruined the ride and wore the ball joints quickly. A SA solves those problems.
I can now run a traction device in the front without as much worry of breaking an axle.
The one thing I don't like about my SAS is the height I gained. Off camber spots on the trail can be a little more exciting. Highway avoidance maneuvers aren't as good. Stepping in and out can be a challenge at times. Loading stuff on the roof rack sucks.
What size tires do you think you need? What do you need to make those fit with IFS? On my Explorer, running 33s I had to crank the torsion bars up which ruined the ride and wore the ball joints quickly. A SA solves those problems.
I can now run a traction device in the front without as much worry of breaking an axle.
The one thing I don't like about my SAS is the height I gained. Off camber spots on the trail can be a little more exciting. Highway avoidance maneuvers aren't as good. Stepping in and out can be a challenge at times. Loading stuff on the roof rack sucks.
javajoe79
Fabricator
The ReaLift guys down in Tucson put together something like this... used the lower control arms (in their stock location) with the stock torsion bars as upper control arms, mounted fullsize Chevy truck lower control arms below them and used the fullsize spindles and axle. The only major parts fabricated are the "basket"/subframe that holds the LCA's and the new steering linkage.
I put serious thought into copying this when I was working on a ZR2...
I saw that on another forum but didn't know any details. That's a good start.
javajoe79
Fabricator
Sounds like you get it.
javajoe79
Fabricator
35s are the goal. Would normally require a lift and or higher offset wheels
underdrive
jackwagon
Think I'll jump on the SAS bandwagon here. Now, keep in mind, if this were a halfton or larger truck, I'd say just keep the IFS and beef it up, plenty of aftermarket components out there for just that - I love GM's fullsize IFS in ride and handling, and it's a decently capable off the pavement as well. But the S10 suspension is barely adequate for its factory application, and if you're adding more weight (engine) and load (tires) on it that won't keep it happy for very long. So at this point you pretty much MUST do either SAS or the custom IFS stuff, correct? Well my issue with anything super-custom is that it's just that, a custom one-off job - should a failure of a component occur somewhere far from home base repair may be neither easy nor financially-reasonable, and you'd probably still be relying on someone else's fabrication skills (which can swing either way). Whereas a good SAS can be done with mostly factory parts and minimum custom fab work - availability of both quality repair parts and qualified mechanics to install them thus pretty much skyrockets.
Another thing, whoever said the only way to do SAS is coils, I believe you are mistaken. Yes coils are great if done right, but so can be leaves. We have a frankensteinted monster that is leafsprung that rides and handles about as every bit as good as the much newer factory-coil models. When we were putting it together the coil vs. leaf thing naturally came into question, ultimately the only reason we went one way and not the other was that the first axle we got a good deal on happened to be a leafsprung model - if we really wanted coils we could have easily converted that to coils, but by keeping it mostly stock we made sure that should something undesirable ever happen down the road repair or even full replacement would be relatively easy and not terribly expensive and/or time consuming. Yes this is a truck that empty weighs probably more than the OP's S10 will fully loaded, but still, it is a truck that occasionally gets to travel all over the country, so the same reliability concerns apply. And those would be what would make us go the SAS route were we faced with the OP's situation.
Another thing, whoever said the only way to do SAS is coils, I believe you are mistaken. Yes coils are great if done right, but so can be leaves. We have a frankensteinted monster that is leafsprung that rides and handles about as every bit as good as the much newer factory-coil models. When we were putting it together the coil vs. leaf thing naturally came into question, ultimately the only reason we went one way and not the other was that the first axle we got a good deal on happened to be a leafsprung model - if we really wanted coils we could have easily converted that to coils, but by keeping it mostly stock we made sure that should something undesirable ever happen down the road repair or even full replacement would be relatively easy and not terribly expensive and/or time consuming. Yes this is a truck that empty weighs probably more than the OP's S10 will fully loaded, but still, it is a truck that occasionally gets to travel all over the country, so the same reliability concerns apply. And those would be what would make us go the SAS route were we faced with the OP's situation.
01tundra
Explorer
I agree with a lot of the comments here.
If done properly, SAS can be a benefit, especially when running tires over 35". I did the SAS on my '01 Tundra at 26,000 miles and kept it for 11 yrs, used it as a daily driver the entire time, had it in 26 states from coast-to-coast, and never trailered it (except when I had my truck shipped out West to run the Rubicon, and that was purely due to time). The thing with the tires, I did my original SAS with 33" tires and the differentials worked great as plows. The reason 35" minimum tire size is the rule-of-thumb isn't so much about strength as it is about differential ground clearance. But tires 35" and larger also happens to be that point where ifs becomes unhappy as well.
Leaf springs can be made to work well and in my experience have always proven to be the most reliable option. Coils and linked suspensions ride nice, but are much more complex and I can't count the times I've helped others that have had a link, mounting tab, etc fail on a trail.
My current Tacoma is IFS with aftermarket coil overs and rear leaf springs and I can't really say that it rides any better than my Tundra did. The biggest challenge with SAS is always the ride height. IFS vehicles are built around the suspension and you typically see issues with the engines being mounted really low in the frames, this is where you get into oil pan / differential clearance issues. I ended up having to notch my oil pan and notch my frame to keep my truck as low as possible.
The comment about liking to build is spot on, there's a lot of engineering, trial & error, modifying, etc. that goes into SAS......it's a very expensive rabbit hole in my experience.
So while I miss my old Tundra and wish I had it back.......I won't being doing a SAS on my Tacoma because it's "good enough" for what I use it for, which is mostly light duty trails, camping and exploring.
If done properly, SAS can be a benefit, especially when running tires over 35". I did the SAS on my '01 Tundra at 26,000 miles and kept it for 11 yrs, used it as a daily driver the entire time, had it in 26 states from coast-to-coast, and never trailered it (except when I had my truck shipped out West to run the Rubicon, and that was purely due to time). The thing with the tires, I did my original SAS with 33" tires and the differentials worked great as plows. The reason 35" minimum tire size is the rule-of-thumb isn't so much about strength as it is about differential ground clearance. But tires 35" and larger also happens to be that point where ifs becomes unhappy as well.
Leaf springs can be made to work well and in my experience have always proven to be the most reliable option. Coils and linked suspensions ride nice, but are much more complex and I can't count the times I've helped others that have had a link, mounting tab, etc fail on a trail.
My current Tacoma is IFS with aftermarket coil overs and rear leaf springs and I can't really say that it rides any better than my Tundra did. The biggest challenge with SAS is always the ride height. IFS vehicles are built around the suspension and you typically see issues with the engines being mounted really low in the frames, this is where you get into oil pan / differential clearance issues. I ended up having to notch my oil pan and notch my frame to keep my truck as low as possible.
The comment about liking to build is spot on, there's a lot of engineering, trial & error, modifying, etc. that goes into SAS......it's a very expensive rabbit hole in my experience.
So while I miss my old Tundra and wish I had it back.......I won't being doing a SAS on my Tacoma because it's "good enough" for what I use it for, which is mostly light duty trails, camping and exploring.
javajoe79
Fabricator
I am sort of leaning towards adapting bigger GM components and keeping IFS.
GM 8.25" diff and suspension from any number of GM trucks. Maybe make custom arms and use the bigger 6 bolt hub knuckles and a custom coilover setup. This will get me the wider stance that I want, minimal lift, etc. It will also retain mostly stock wear parts like ball joints and axles.
My understanding is that the weakness of the 8.25 is the case itself. I might make some bracing to strengthen that even though it takes a pretty good amount of abuse to break the case.
GM 8.25" diff and suspension from any number of GM trucks. Maybe make custom arms and use the bigger 6 bolt hub knuckles and a custom coilover setup. This will get me the wider stance that I want, minimal lift, etc. It will also retain mostly stock wear parts like ball joints and axles.
My understanding is that the weakness of the 8.25 is the case itself. I might make some bracing to strengthen that even though it takes a pretty good amount of abuse to break the case.
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
If limited travel wasn't an issue I would suggest using the IFS off the Montero, guys have ran up to 37's on them without any real issues, plus you can add an ARB locker and manual hubs. Downside is they have less than 5 inches of combined up/down travel.
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
Here is a local guy's s10 build that I have seen on the trail and works very well https://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?73287-98-S10-SAS-build
goodtimes
Expedition Poseur
Years ago, Mike Copeland did a few upgrades to his ZR2, including an LS1 (and later an aluminum 427), a 3/4 ton front diff out of a full size Chevy, hybrid half shafts, etc. He had a few custom pieces made, but as I recall it was mostly GM parts. It's pretty well documented (the website I used to frequent is now defunct - but google know where to find him). He was always friendly & willing to answer questions - even technical details. It might be worth a few minutes of trying to track him down & see if he has any thoughts.
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
A popular swap for Xterras and Frontiers is the Titan swap. You take the front diff and suspension from the full size and put it on the mid size like what has been discussed already in this thread. For overlanding I'd prefer to keep IFS if you can and the front bits from a full size should be cool with 35s and the added engine weight.
babybluebeast
Member
I have done an sas on a K1500 the right way and it was a much better truck than it ever was as an ifs truck. That being said, I don't think I would do it to an S10. To do it right will cost more than you think or have budgeted. You would be better off to sell it and buy an 80 series land cruiser with lockers. It will cost less in the long run and have a better resale value if you ever need the money.