The reason the solid axle feels more secure is because in emegency maneuvers, you have two masses initially going in the same direction when one, the tow vehicle, abruptly changes direction. The boat will want to continue going straight while the tow vehicle's suspension needs to cope with the forces applied to change its own direction as well. The overall consensus from Ultra4 racers is that IFS gives you the upper hand through the desert while solid axle is an advantage in the rocks. Nothing can beat the way independent suspension absorbs uneven terrain at speeds upwards of 100mph.
Overlanding is the self-reliant overland travel to remote destinations where the journey is the principal goal.Posts:Monthly Discussion Topic Series:. January & February:.
March:. April:. May:. June:. July:.
August:. September & October:. November:.
December:Past Discussion Topics:.Overland Related Events.Spring:. April -. April -. May -Summer:. June -.
June -. July -.
July -. Aug -. Aug -Fall:. Sep -. Nov -We will no longer list firm dates. We will however try to keep the general season/month of each event for people to checkup on their own.Links:. The overland encyclopedia of Overland Travel.
A recent addition to the Overlanding Forum game. Focuses on most aspects ofoutdoor life.
The largest Overlanding forum. All the nitty gritty details of overland travel. A lot of great information about Overlanding on two wheels. Another site for 2 wheel adventurers. Digital maps of most of the National Parks, Monuments, Recreation Areas, andso forth.Related Subreddits. For me, it comes down to balance, maturity and practicality.
Most 4x4s do fine at stock height or with a very small (1'-2') suspension lift. Beyond that you are no longer building a vehicle for practical overlanding.
You are then going down the path of building a rock crawler or dedicated off road vehicle. So given that, I feel that a quality vehicle with IFS should not be overlooked. However, if the platform you are looking at has a solid axle, then great. But we all know that a lot of modern SUVs and light trucks are no longer coming with solid front axles, at least here in the USA.So really, you have to ask yourself, 'what am I building my rig for?'
General overlanding? Intense overlanding in remote areas? Rock crawling?
Weekend camping trips? If you are like most of us, and spend 80% of your time on tarmac, I see no reason to ignore all of the great vehicles that have IFS. If you are planning a year long expedition through central Africa and you MUST have ABSOLUTE dependability, then it might be best to find a vehicle with a straight front axle for strength and simplicity.To me a quality overland rig needs to be dependable, practical and fit the needs of the owner, before all else. If your idea of a quality overlanding rig is a truck with an 8' suspension lift and a 4' body lift and 37' mudders, than you need to change your vocabulary from overlanding to a more appropriate term. I have always had IFS rigs and I have had zero issues outside of dry-rotted CV boots. I have a 2' lift on my rig and I can deal with just about any moderate to difficult offroad trail.
But am also a person who does not go OVER it when I can go AROUND it. And this is what I meant by 'maturity'. If you need to traverse from point A to point B safely and dependably, I do not think a solid axle or IFS should be the make or break factor. It all comes down to the route, the driver, and what you want to get out of your experience. No where states that control arms in IFS are fixed length.
One of the first things a proper IFS lift should replace are control arms or you'll start chewing through CV joints. Control arms in a solid axle setup and control arms in an independent suspension are very different designs so saying they put less stress on components is null given the difference in components. IFS can be made to flex plenty as well, the only difference is cost, which is yet another variable in a long chain of non-comparable attributes. There isn't one inherently better system, it's all personal opinion.
Solid axle.I think rugged reliability is even more important in an overlanding rig than a toy rock crawler or mud bugger. The overlander is more likely to be further from home - your life may depend upon it (think Australian Outback) and certainly your wallet (towing or overnighted parts are expensive). Broken overlander can mean ruined trip (weekend or more).I broke an IFS idler arm while overlanding out near Canyonlands NP a few years back. Was 20+ miles in and hadn't gotten to the interesting parts yet. It has all been just rough road at that point.
Would have been an expensive tow if I hadn't managed to limp out. Decided to spend the money on a SAS for the peace of mind. Many more upgrades are available.Had also broken a CV on Hell's Revenge on a previous trip.Lifting IFS usually messes with steering geometry and CV angles, putting them under more stress. My lifted IFS handled about the same or worse than the completed SAS.Solid axles usually have a bigger (stronger) ring and pinion. Better locker options.Heavy duty birfields and u-joints are a thing.
Heavy duty CVs are usually harder to come by (non-existent in the Toyota world - I think RCV are still working on it).Up rated tie rods and TREs are easy and common on solid axles (e.g. 1-ton GM TREs on Toyota mini truck axles).Most steering boxes (solid axle) will take more of a beating than the steering racks in modern IFS rigs.Most solid axles rigs will articulate better (or can be easily made to) which can help avoid roll overs or getting stuck even on mild trails.Don't buy the malarkey that solid axle rigs are bad on the road or handle badly. Parallelogram steering is superior to the track bar setup of sfa vehicles.
Stress is distributed through more equally, and handles worn components better. Death wobble isn't a problem unless something is broken.I'm not sure why so many manufactures went to rack and pinion on their 4x4s. Steering boxes are much more durable and compact.
I want to say Nissan still uses steering boxes on the Xterra.A solid axle is more durable, better articulating, and will probably hold an alignment better. But you can gain better ground clearance with IFS.
You'd have to use larger tires or portal axles on a sfa to achieve the same thing.In my opinion, it's a horse a piece, until you get into something really hairy, where the solid axle will shine. While the debate over solid axle vs IFS will not be solved on this one thread, the common element in the responses thus far is reliability.Yes, some people buy a vehicle specifically to build into an overland rig. However, most people build what they have.
If you go to websites such as Expedition Portal, you will see people overlanding in a VW Bus, Land Rovers of all sorts, Toyota's and just about anything you can imagine. There are even people who do this on motorcycles.In the end, as long as it is within your budget, it is well maintained and reliable, then it really won't mater what front suspension you choose.Whatever you choose, just make sure you know how to take it apart and put it back together again. You may have to in some very nasty places.
Before you all go spouting off saying solid rears are stronger and all that sort of crap that we all already know. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty.I would love to see some true facts about these two systems come up, not just random BS and unsupported 'well i think this' bullcrap.IRS: Smoother ride stock. Yes, you can get soft-ride springs and all that for a solid axle, but that is obviously not stock.
Not meant for towing/hauling large loads, generally on cars, but now migrating to the yuppie-suv's.Solid: Classical. Bumpier ride stock, however, can be setup in various arrangements with 4-links, coils, leafs, et cetera.Now. My real question isn't as much about the strength of them. Nor am I questioning why manufacturers are putting them into new vehicles, because I understand the fact that the yuppie-suv buyers now want to move their kids around and drive to work and back.However, doesn't IRS ultimately RUIN the vehicle for towing? I know the Ford Explorer has IFS/IRS now, and still has 'okay' tow-ratings.
However, I am trying to picture how the hell an IRS system would ever wear your tires even partially even when towing or hauling any load that would make the suspension droop or dip at all? It's the method of IFS/IRS that the tires camber changes as it cycles through it's motions, whereas a solid axle's tires also do so, but not if both sides are 'bumped' or 'dipped' equally.SO, the real question: is it possible to tow with IRS and not wear the rear tires to hell if the suspension is dipping at all? The tow rating specification most likely considers the change in camber a tire has when the rig is loaded. The tow rating probably is spec'd so that the change in camber is minimal.
So minimal that the sidewall flexes enough to let the tire sit more or less flat on the ground.Otheriwse, they don't expect a lot of regular towing so tire wear is not an issue since 99% of the time the rig is unloaded.remember that the drivetrain itself can handle the GCVWR but GVWR + tongue load is all the designers expect a rig's suspension to see. Too many people overload the tongue and still pile it into the back of the rig without compensating for it at all. Wouldnt it all depend on what you want the vehical for? For offroad, no one has been able to quite come up with a IRS system thats been widely accepted. Because of the obvious strength issue, and the fact that a solid axle can have 10 times the amount of articulation. Hence why the world class scorpion and sniper rock crawlers use solid axles.
Then again some of the super fast baja trucks run a IRS system but those things are broken more then they are running. But baja and rock crawling are 2 different monsters.so what works for one thing doesnt work for something else. So its sorta a apples or oranges type of question. I wouldnt even own a truck with a idenpendant front suspension let alone IRS. Heak even on a 2wd truck id rather have a solid steer axle up front: nothing beats beef.thats my opinion and nothing more. That's what I was unsure of. I knew it would be a minimal change, but I know with all three of my trucks, that when loaded to maximum #'s they squat a bit.
Which, with the rear solid axle, is fine. However, I couldn't imagine it being too pretty with IRS.I imagine it's out there in maybe some of the more high-end IFS/IRS Suv's, but is there any sort of air-bags or something similar to that for the IRS setup such that one could have it ride at the same angles with a ton of weight on the back as it does unloaded, or when you have 4 people in the vehicle?.Pavement Sucks is an enthusiast website covering off-road activities, vehicle modifications and repairs, and land use issues. Jump on to discuss axles, suspensions, engines, mudders, 4x4s and more. We also cater to outdoor living like camping, fishing, RV'ing, ATVs and boating. Join the forum today!.
Site Functions. Support the site!The management works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. Care to buy us a beer?
We'd really appreciate it!