94extreme Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 (edited) anymore then what's readily available you'll need new shafts which are also hard to find. Edited November 16, 2005 by mzxtreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 travel maybe the thing in desert running but on rocks and rough terrain traction is maybe even more important and i guarantee you that you'll never get the traction out of one wheel as opposed to two. i just saw hummers struggle in deep offcamber mud holes a couple of weekends ago .. of course the have other tricks to pull out so they did make it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Pickles Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 yeah maybe in the future IS will be beter but right now way to many problems occur because of it.ANd no-body has said after how much boddy lift u have to replace the steering shaft You don't have to slide it out much, maybe a half inch to and inch if I remember right. Its covered by 88pathoffroad and in turn in the thread I did on my body lift install. Mine was stuck in place so it was a pain to get out, but all in all it really was super easy to extend it once I followed 88's instructions. Search is your friend, try looking for my thread about 9 months-1 year ago, as there were many issues covered and links to other topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I think saying the IFS sucks because it is hard to lift is a bit strong... 99% of the time, an IFS is WAY superior to solid... I know this is blasphemous to say on a 4x4 forum, but solid axles are actually a pretty poor solution for a number of reasons. The only advantage I can see is that they are easier and cheaper to install than a good IS. Give it another 20 years and we'll all wonder what we were thinking... and why inertia had us believing it was the best way to go for so long... The Hummer (the real one) and serious baja style race trucks are a preview into what could be done. So far, production IFS's have been compromised because the manufacturers have been using "traditional" concepts and geometries that severely limit travel. So here's a glimpse into the future.... Take a close look at the rear suspension of a BMW GS1150 or 1200 motorcycle. Envision 4 of those on a truck - two pointing to the rear, two to the front. The ones up front get a little more complicated due to steering, but a variation on the hummer concept of a high mounted input shaft and gear drive to center hub will solve that... Notice, no differentials hanging down to snag and break on rocks. True 4 wheel IFS. According to my models, 30" of travel is feasible with minimal geometry problems... And with active suspension technology, it could be as safe on the streets as any average car, yet more capable off road than the most extreme rock buggies... The only preventers from it happening today are the costs to develop and the perception that most serious offroaders still believe SA's are superior to IS. And no company is going to invest millions to develop a product the target customer will reject out of hand with no consideration that they could be wrong... I understand the military really wanted to reject the humvee because the suspension was so different, but they were trapped into accepting it because the contract was based on performance, not perception. IFS suck 99.99% of the time. On road, fine but off road they are sh!t. There is no point talking about how good they will be in 20 yrs time. This is now. And even in 20 years time, I still think a live axle will out articulate an IFS front end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyb33 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 how can you even say that in 20 years the IFS will suck? in theory they are much better, sure you can get articulation with a solid... but i still dont like the idea of seeing these massive fords on the road, huge lifts, with there little axles hanging down completely exposed, it looks stupid for one. Secondly, the IFS tucks your diff, up and out of the way, with a few setbacks its still amazing to have the ground clearance, the ford guys can only say they have body clearance, (only with bigger tires will they get true ground clearance) so i agree, that in twenty years IFS will be the sh!t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 how can you even say that in 20 years the IFS will suck? in theory they are much better, sure you can get articulation with a solid... but i still dont like the idea of seeing these massive fords on the road, huge lifts, with there little axles hanging down completely exposed, it looks stupid for one. Secondly, the IFS tucks your diff, up and out of the way, with a few setbacks its still amazing to have the ground clearance, the ford guys can only say they have body clearance, (only with bigger tires will they get true ground clearance) so i agree, that in twenty years IFS will be the sh!t You may not have noticed that this is a Nissan Pathfinder site. Not a "huge Ford" site. So we don't have the issues Fords seem to have. Yes IFS tucks you diff out of the way. Unfortunately by doing so it increases the angles on your CV joints. That inturn makes them easier to break. The boots wear out quickly letting in mud and dirt too. The lower wish bone will sit lower than any live axle too, so it is susceptible to regular damage. Do you want to talk steering component issues now? I doubt if in 20 years time that we will see anything different to what we see today anyway. Desert racing 4wds are big $ modifications on a standard car, and I do not think the car manufactures will expect the average Joe to buy something like that or be able to justify the cost to the consumer. Yes, tyre size equates to ground clearence but that is not all you need. Having said that, I would love to see 46" tyres on an IFS, though I doubt you could ever get them on or it would last too long. You forgot to mention ramp angles. Yes, the all important, can't wheel without them, ramp angles. There is no point having big tyres if you are too low to the ground is there? Suspension lift anyone? How lucky are those guys in their Fords. They can not only get massive ground clearence but they can get good ramp angles too. As good as you can get in a "huge Ford" anyway. Give me a live axle anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowser Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 OK I hate to quibble with Dowser but there is more to a body lift than just putting it on, you have to modify your 4x4 shifter, and you have to modify your steering column. However that is cheaper than suspension lift. Also if you upsize your tires you're going to have to beef up your steering, you're at least going to have to add an idler arm maybe more. Of course problems such as this go along with any vehicle, if you want to play you have to pay right! SC88PATHY is absolutely Right. I didn't have to do my own Body Lift as I purchased my Vehicle with it already installed. With that said, I never looked into how involved the Body Lift actually was. I have since looked into some threads on installing them and see that there are some other complications. It is still more economically feesible to do the Body Lift as opposed to the Suspension Lift all matters considered. Dowser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 It is still more economically feesible to do the Body Lift as opposed to the Suspension Lift all matters considered. Agreed, but they accomplish significantly different things. If all one is after is running bigger tires, then the BL is the better/cheaper/easier way to go. If I ever do a BL, it will be 1-2"MAX. I'm all about the suspension... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Why would you go with only 1-2"? Most kits give you 3 anyways....so why take less? Add that with a 3" SL and you've got room for 33's!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Luker Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Why would you go with only 1-2"? Most kits give you 3 anyways....so why take less? Add that with a 3" SL and you've got room for 33's!! I am thinking of doing the same actually. 1" body lift on top of my suspension lift. The way I look at it, I already have a rather low 2" or so suspension lift so it rubs a bit under compression in the wheel wells. I need the downtravel for trails so there is no way I am gonna be cranking the bejesus out of my t-bars. Why should I install 3" body lift, raising my center of gravity by quite a bit in order to gain only 1/2" under diff clearance from going to 33" tires? I am just gonna install the 1" body lift (still sourcing materials). That's all I need for flex in the rear and less rubbing in the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Alright....makes sense. I wasn't asking the question as a criticism. I actually was looking for the benefits of it. I see your point Luker. I don't think I'm even going to do a body lift, as 10 years worth of rust on the body mounts scares me a little, in terms of the installation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Why would you go with only 1-2"? No criticism taken. Something like Filthy said. I do not plan to run greater than 31" tires on this truck, they are big enough so I don't need huge wheel well gaps. Besides, IMHO thats all the stock motor can pull effectively. I may do headers in the future, but will probably just enjoy the power boost rather than increase tire size. I don't like the CG any higher than necessary. My opinion is that a BL is mainly for huge tires or deep water/mud (it can save rocker panels though). I'm a cautious wheeler; my goal is NOT to get stuck. I plan to do a SAS and may need that extra 1-2" for articulation. A 1" lift has far fewer issues than a 3". I could probably make my own 1.5" lift for free other than the material and some bolts. I'm not trying to build a rock crawler, my truck is a daily driver (in the winter at least), just build a reliable, capable 4x4. It just comes down to how you want to set it up. To me, taller is not necessarily better, and the driver is just as important at the rig... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I agree with alot that you've said there B. That's another reason I'm thinking of not doing a body lift. Mine is my daily driver as well, and I already have the 32's on with about a 3"SL. I don't need it any higher either, and I'm also a cautious wheeler, as I can't afford to break too much!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 If COG is a concern then a BL is better. Only the boby goes up while the heavy gear like the chassis, engine, box, TC and fuel tank stay at standard hight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 If COG is a concern then a BL is better Yes, it is a concern in my book, but only 1 factor in the whole picture. The BL only gives you more wheel well space and more room in the engine compartment. The SL is more valuable and effective IMHO. My consideration is adding a BL to a SL when not necessary... That just compounds several issues, not to mention when people pile their roofs high with crap... CG goes WAY up then and low trees cause problems... Again, it's all about how you use your truck and where. There is no real right or wrong, just application and personal preference... SAS first, then we'll go from there... B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Pickles Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 What are you trying to say, B? You got a problem with lift? You just don't want to get it up for us? (3" suspension + 3" body + meaty tires that still are only 31X12.5) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now