| Author | Message | ||
     Steve Reisman (Barton) Member Username: Barton Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2003 |
It's been pretty well established the SFA is the preference for performance offroad.... ....so why the heck are most the auto manufacturers going to IFS? Is it significantly cheaper??? I'm not making any point here...I'm just curious if anyone knows why they are doing this. I'd guess it's more expensive to build, maintain and repair an IFS? | ||
| mantaray (Mantaray) Member Username: Mantaray Post Number: 138 Registered: 02-2002 |
IFS = smoother ride and better road handling. manufacturers go with it because all the morons jumping in SUVs to be trendy and then complaining about how it doesn't ride or drive like the car they just traded in. like any other company trying to make money, car companies go with what their consumers want, and if they want a car-like ride in their "truck", that's what auto makers will give them. those of us out there that actually use the vehicle segement for it's original intended purpose are left out in the cold because we are in the minority. | ||
| Glenn Guinto (Glenn) Senior Member Username: Glenn Post Number: 550 Registered: 02-2002 |
Well said Mantaray! -Glenn | ||
| Steve Reisman (Barton) Member Username: Barton Post Number: 44 Registered: 02-2003 |
So all those years I drove around so incredibly pleased with the car-like (dare I say sport-car like) handling of my Jeep Cherokee...I was actually suffering from a poorer-then-IFS ride?? Is SFA really that much rougher???? I can't say that I've experienced that....but it seems to be the general rule. Good answer, thanks for the question. Btw...which one is cheaper/easier to build/manufacturer? | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 680 Registered: 09-2002 |
The mechanics of Independant Suspention inhibits modification without serious cost but I am thinking that by now it is less expensive to produce that solid axles simply because it is now the industry standard. | ||
| Steve Reisman (Barton) Member Username: Barton Post Number: 47 Registered: 02-2003 |
WORD | ||
| mantaray (Mantaray) Member Username: Mantaray Post Number: 139 Registered: 02-2002 |
thanks Glenn.  industry standard or no, i'd still have to think that solid axles are still cheaper than an independent system simply because they are less complicated to build and invlove fewer moving parts. | ||
| Steve Reisman (Barton) Member Username: Barton Post Number: 49 Registered: 02-2003 |
Mantaray...that is exactly what I was thinking...SFA is both cheaper and more effective offroad....so why bother messin' with IFS? I had somewhat considered rippin' it all apart and replacing it with a Dana 60....but I've been assured that it would provide very little margin for real improvment...and I'd still be stuck with a planform that's overly wide and has a long wheelbase: she'll never be a rockcrawler...so why bother? For that matter, anything much more then a Rubicon likely would sacrifice capability in rock-crawling? | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 691 Registered: 09-2002 |
Yup there is only so much you can do to a vehicle before it would just be cheaper and better to buy the thing that you want to turn your thing into anyway. And if you are not carefull you will progressively turn your rig into something that resembles mine. It is very deceptive and you may already be addicted before you even do your first mod. You might say you can stop anytime you like but just try. Then next thing you know you are sneeking parts ang making duplicat receipts. | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 693 Registered: 09-2002 |
crap...wrong link.....can't figure out how to edit. | ||
| Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Senior Member Username: Brianfriend Post Number: 694 Registered: 09-2002 |
../17/15272.html> that should work better. |
