Why are torsion bars so vilified? And were Land Cruisers ever designed for recreational off-roading

[Ozark_Prowler]

I've seen a lot of complaints on various off road and Land Cruiser forums about the torsion bar set up in the front of the 100 series. I'd be curious to hear from 100 series owners if any of these criticisms are justified?

I don't really have a problem with torsion bars myself - they're simple, durable, and easy to maintain.

I realize they may not be ideal for monster lifts and eye-popping flex, but I'm pretty sure Land Cruiser wagons were never really designed for technical rock-crawling in the North American sense. Sure, the older models had solid front axles, but they had leafs or radius arms in the case of the 80 - designed more for long term durability than for a weekend romp through the Rubicon; otherwise they would've linked it like a Jeep.

I could be wrong here, but do you see people driving their Land Cruisers over r boulders just for the sake of it in Angola or Cambodia? Recreational off-roaders seem like a tiny slice of the market compared to those who drive them for decades along rough unimproved roads that might elicit scoffs fro the typical off-road enthusiast in the US, but still demand a sturdy construction from a vehicle that expects to ply them for an extended period of time.

All in all, it could be argued that the 100 series represents the best ever iteration of the Land Cruiser for the kind of use described above. It may have its downsides - cracking exhaust manifolds and less-than-ideal starter location on the 4.7 and relatively weak front diffs for the size of the vehicle - but it's arguably the most reliable version of the model Toyota has ever produced. It doesn't seem to have as many instances of fluid leaks and gasket failures as previous generations, though some argue it lost that sense of fun and character that made previous generations so endearing.

Sorry for the long-winded post. I'd appreciate any insight.

 

[SDDiver5]

I think the complaints stem from it being older technology. The 100 series has become almost a collectible vehicle and with a plethora of options to lift other trucks and vehicles, I can see how having limited options with the T bar could be an annoyance.

I had t bars on my 98 F150. Had them cranked 2 rotations and had a nice little level and still handled well.

 

[tacollie]

They typically limit travel and can make larger lifts more complicated. It never bothered me in the 100. That thing was a couch with a basic OME lift! It did like to lift wheels.

100 is a good value in my opinion. It's hard to find reasonably priced 200s. '80s win off-road but they are enthusiast vehicles at this point. Most of them are either beat or cost more than a 100. I also like to be able to drive 75 which is a big ask for an 80 in Colorado.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Nothing wrong with- would I prefer coils up front yeah sure but the t-bars are fine. They are 20 year old vehicles but for the most part very reliable- if they’ve been maintained, and that’s a big if. We see them for sale all the time here, and most are giant piles of crap. I’d drive mine anywhere- does leak a drop of any fluids, and doesn’t burn any oil. And the 4.7 is arguably the most durable Toyota engine ever made, just don’t expect it to be efficient or fast.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

In the 1990's, the fill size Chevy Blazer and original GMC Yukon went with a solid roof, independent front suspension with torsion bars. GMT400 Blazer and Yukon. Full size. V8. Comfy as all get-out.

the set up was fantastic on the highway. Comfortable and rugged at the same time. Yes, you could turn the torsion key to get a little bit of lift. But yes, it made the truck ride a little more harsh if you did. It complicated any lift. That's why it's been vilified. But if I recall correctly, you could get at-bats that were offset, so that the ride was comfy on road WITH the lift.

The torsion bar, applied to a truck with sufficient stock clearance, was actually quite good. And as you pointed out, nobody drives over big rocks if they dont need to, only because they want to

 

[DaveInDenver]

Toyota used basically the same Hi-Trac IFS on the Hilux/Pickup and 4Runner from 1986 to 1997. So it wasn't a new configuration when they put it on the 100 series.

Having now 8 years with coil sprung IFS and 15 years before it on a torsion bar truck. If there was a choice of two Toyota trucks equal in all other ways I'd still pick the torsion bar but it's not because of performance but other decisions Toyota made with coil-over IFS that I dislike. For example, if the shock and coil were separate (which I'm not even sure is practical or even possible) and if ball joints were bolted on again.

Torsion bars don't flex but they're simple. I'm not convinced they're any more reliable. Coils ride better. Thus the advantage I see to a Toyota IFS using torsion is better use of space and access to parts away from a shop with a spring compressor.

 

[Ozark_Prowler]

Nothing wrong with- would I prefer coils up front yeah sure but the t-bars are fine. They are 20 year old vehicles but for the most part very reliable- if they’ve been maintained, and that’s a big if. We see them for sale all the time here, and most are giant piles of crap. I’d drive mine anywhere- does leak a drop of any fluids, and doesn’t burn any oil. And the 4.7 is arguably the most durable Toyota engine ever made, just don’t expect it to be efficient or fast.

Why do you say most 100 series for sale are piles of crap? I haven't looked at many, but it seems like every 80 series for sale under 15k will be leaking everywhere.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Why do you say most 100 series for sale are piles of crap? I haven't looked at many, but it seems like every 80 series for sale under 15k will be leaking everywhere.

Its the same with the 100- they don’t leak much, just tons of deferred maintenance- lots of lipstick on pigs out there.

 

[lugueto]

Nothing wrong with torsion bars, but as every other system it comes with pros and cons, one just has to accept the compromises of whichever option they take.

As far as LC's being made for "North American Wheeling" (ie Rock Crawling), well, they're obviously not. Very few vehicles appear to be made for it, most times they only look the part. More modern vehicles are coming better equipped, increasingly "ready to go" from factory but will always require modification for that kind of abuse.

 

[alanymarce]

I could be wrong here, but do you see people driving their Land Cruisers over r boulders just for the sake of it in Angola or Cambodia?

Angola: I've never seen anyone driving LCs over boulders for the h**l of it - we used them for getting from A to B, on what could be tough roads, but (land mines permitting) would always take the easiest route. In that part of the world breaking something by pushing the vehicle too hard is to be avoided at all costs.

Cambodia: ditto; with the additional comment that most of the LCs I've seen in Cambodia were in Phnom Penh - outside the city people were driving Corollas.

(DUPLICATE POST)

 

[lugueto]

Angola: I've never seen anyone driving LCs over boulders for the h**l of it - we used them for getting from A to B, on what could be tough roads, but (land mines permitting) would always take the easiest route. In that part of the world breaking something by pushing the vehicle too hard is to be avoided at all costs.

Cambodia: ditto; with the additional comment that most of the LCs I've seen in Cambodia were in Phnom Penh - outside the city people were driving Corollas.

(DUPLICATE POST)

That applies to all third world countries (or lower). Roads are usually bad enough, transportation is hard enough. Travelling from A to B may be harder at times than wheeling.

 

[NoDak]

In my experience torsion bars are next to leaf springs in terms of durability, reliability and simplicity in IFS.
In stock form they don’t lack in travel compared to a stock coil spring IFS setup, both of which travel is limited by the control arms.
If you crank the torsion bars you lose down travel just like on a coil sprung vehicle with tall springs or spacers.

 

[Arktikos]

I've seen a lot of complaints on various off road and Land Cruiser forums about the torsion bar set up in
the front of the 100 series. I'd be curious to hear from 100 series owners if any of these criticisms are justified?



....
Recreational off-roaders seem like a tiny slice of the market compared to those who drive them for decades along rough unimproved roads that might elicit scoffs fro the typical off-road enthusiast in the US, but still demand a sturdy construction from a vehicle that expects to ply them for an extended period of time.

All in all, it could be argued that the 100 series represents the best ever iteration of the Land Cruiser for the kind of use described above...

No doubt it's a solid truck with a great engine. There are pros and cons with each generation of Land Cruiser. If you're OK with the increasing amount of technology and complexity in the newer models, I'd argue that the best ever would be the yet to be released 250 series. Why? Much better MPG than earlier models.

 

[Ozark_Prowler]

No doubt it's a solid truck with a great engine. There are pros and cons with each generation of Land Cruiser. If you're OK with the increasing amount of technology and complexity in the newer models, I'd argue that the best ever would be the yet to be released 250 series. Why? Much better MPG than earlier models.

Yea the front ring and pinion just seem to be an unfortunate weak point on the 100 series, especially with the shock loads of ATRAC in the later models.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Yea the front ring and pinion just seem to be an unfortunate weak point on the 100 series, especially with the shock loads of ATRAC in the later models.

I thought the ring and pinion was strengthened after the first few years.