Is a SAS the only option?

[ericbphoto]

So I've been looking for the right jeep springs to use. I airway have a 6 in lift on my 94 super cab ranger 4.0. I'd like to keep that ride height. Been having a hard time trying to figure out what springs I should go with 8in springs to compensate for the weight? It's been hard to find the ppi for the springs in looking at. Also would I have to get longer radius arms and if so is there a write up on how to fab some up? I do have a welder.

Have you read the "how to tech" articles about this? There is some great info there regarding how to works and bunches of ways to modify it. If you are running 6" lift with original radius arms, I would strongly suggest longer arms.

This message composed solely of recycled electrons. Go green!

 

[4x4junkie]

So I've been looking for the right jeep springs to use. I airway have a 6 in lift on my 94 super cab ranger 4.0. I'd like to keep that ride height. Been having a hard time trying to figure out what springs I should go with 8in springs to compensate for the weight? It's been hard to find the ppi for the springs in looking at. Also would I have to get longer radius arms and if so is there a write up on how to fab some up? I do have a welder.

Early Bronco springs are often around 275-325 PPI and would work well on a Supercab truck. I've seen people use JBG Superflex coils, and then trim one or two windings off, though this will stiffen them up slightly.
At 6" lift, you probably wouldn't have to trim them though...

What do you have planned out for your steering? (since drop pitman arms alone absolutely do not work with lower-rate springs and 6" lift, and neither will a Superlift Superrunner without some major work done to it).

And ×2 on the radius arms. You need extended arms to be able to take advantage of the articulation they offer.

 

[cnelson]

Marking for future referemce, thanks OP

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Will]

I've stayed out of these arguments for years.

My dad gave me his '87 Ranger back in about 2000 after the tranny blew. I looked under it and saw a pumpkin and was disappointed. I was working in Africa in the early 90's and we had 2 Suburbans. We had a '91 with a straight axle and a new '93 with independent. We always tried to get the '93 when we had to go up country. The '91 would throw you side to side and smack your head into the windows. The '93 was a magic carpet. Nobody wanted to get stuck with that straight-axle Suburban.

Earlier, during Desert Storm and Shield, we had a similar thing. Out First Sergeant would bring out the mail, but all he had was a CUCCV--a 1-ton Chevy pick-up with straight-axles. He had Hummer wheels and tires put on it, but it beat him to death. He stopped coming out.

So I had a bad impression of straight axles.

I did a lot during my early years at TRS to maximize the TTB. I don't have the energy to relive all of that right now. But it's a good system for offroad. You can make it strong. The failures are due to binding of parts--you have to cycle the parts without the springs in and grind the yokes so it won't bind. You can make it indestructible.

But the Toyota IFS is as good as the TTB can be made to be. There is no binding in it, and with the sway bars off it almost matches what you can do with the TTB--but it does it with the tire flat, not on the edge. Same is true with a straight axle. It also presents the edge of the tire.

I went to Attica and drove my FJ everywhere I went with my B2 and it went easily. We never even locked the rear axle. It has a button that uses traction control with the brakes, but never limits engine power. Just stock it was as good as I could build with a TTB with lockers on both ends and floppy springs, ground-out yokes and long radius arms.

We have an FZJ80 as well. It has a straight axle and a full-float rear axle. It drives bad on the street--like my schoolbus. But we aren't going to wheel it.

 

[Shran]

Different things for different applications... a lot of the rock crawling trails I have run COULD be done with a TTB axle, and I did a lot of that years ago. My solid axle I feel is better in that application simply because its performance is more predictable - for example I can pick a line and not wonder where my axle beam is in relation to obstacles. It is also a gain in terms of ground clearance, fewer moving parts, better steering, and aftermarket support. It's not indestructible but I can beat on it pretty hard and not worry. Ride quality...well... that was not at the top of my needs list... although it's not awful.

On the other end, I'll leave the D35 in my Explorer forever. It rides nice, performs extremely well on terrain that is within the capabilities of a more or less stock truck. I have done even some moderately hard stuff in it, Hell's Revenge in Moab and the back road to Crown King, AZ are two good examples. I do worry a bit if the front locker is on though... I have broken enough hubs to know that I need to be careful there and I have at least two spares with me all the time.

I think IFS rigs are slowly getting better. The problem all along with them is there is very little aftermarket support and increasing wheel travel either way is difficult. There is a reason all of the old school Toyota rock crawler guys are not wheeling new Tacomas... they do not perform like they used to in that application. But they do work very well on easy-mild trails and ride quality is great.

Build for your intended purpose. Solid axles belong in the rocks, (stock) IFS does not. TTB falls somewhere in the middle.

 

[sgtsandman]

Agreed, match the axle to what you want to do. Each has it’s strengths and weaknesses.

 

[4x4junkie]

But the Toyota IFS is as good as the TTB can be made to be. There is no binding in it, and with the sway bars off it almost matches what you can do with the TTB--but it does it with the tire flat, not on the edge. Same is true with a straight axle. It also presents the edge of the tire.

I went to Attica and drove my FJ everywhere I went with my B2 and it went easily. We never even locked the rear axle. It has a button that uses traction control with the brakes, but never limits engine power. Just stock it was as good as I could build with a TTB with lockers on both ends and floppy springs, ground-out yokes and long radius arms.

The 2005-up Toyota IFS axle (2007-2014 for the FJC) indeed does appear to be pretty robust just by looking at the size of it's parts. The shafts are 30 spline (older trucks were 27 spline, as is also the D35), and the CVs are much larger than on earlier Toyota IFSs (the '86-'94 trucks were pathetically weak). The steering appears a bit weak, but I understand a FJ-200 Land Cruiser steering rack can be made to fit pretty easily and is a significant upgrade.
I've yet to work with the Toyota IFS (soon though), however I don't see that it could ever have the same amount of available articulation or travel that the Ford TTB is capable of without a (also much wider & costlier) long-travel setup. The CVs are primarily the limiting factor right after the upper ball joints, they can only tolerate so much shaft angle.

I don't feel that the angle at which the tire contacts the ground is of much significance. The ground itself is rarely perpendicular with the tire when you're articulating over an obstacle that has any potential to break your traction, and the tire (aired down) tends to conform to the terrain as well.
To this day I still have the TTB under my BII, and it's getting the job done as it always has (the last 5 years in a row I've made the trek with friends to Coyote Lake in the Sierra-Nevadas w/o issue, the trail there and back is about the same caliber as Rubicon or Dusy, and is about 5 miles length each way). What IS surprising to me is I had expected to have broken at least one of the 27-spline shafts by now running 35s, but somehow still nothing (I've probably now jinxed myself lol, though I do carry spares)

 

[scotts90ranger]

I do take my Ranger pretty easy on the front end and the 2.3L doesn't really have torque, but I've been running it on 35" tires for a decade now and have been getting rougher on it expecting something to give... the only thing that's given so far has been the aussie locker and some maintenance items... My V8 explorer is getting TTB just cuz, I like how the Ranger behaves offroad and really want something that has better balance for high speed and torque... a 347 powered Explorer with full width TTB on 36-37" tires as low as I can get (hopefully 6" lift) sounds like a blast to me...

 

[North Idaho 5.oh]

I prefer the TTB over any IFS any day. The ride you get with TTB is so much smoother.

 

[dvdswan]

Great article. Very interesting read for sure.