Suspension Comparison

[Backwoods Rambler]

So for a future vehicle, I'm considering both a 2008+ Grand Cherokee (V8) or a 2005+ 4Runner (V8).

My question is not simply which is better, but which has a suspension design that is better suited to a small lift; about 2.5" or 3.5" at the most and still offer good/great on-road characteristics?

I'm definitely more of a Jeep guy and really like the QDII 4wd system, but I tend to think that the 4Runner is the correct answer to this particular question; although I don't know why. But, I wonder if the GC just hasn't been tinkered with as much for some reason. I also tend to lean towards the 4Runner for the body-on-frame design even though for my intended usage (light/med offroad + camping off the beaten path), the Uni-Body setup would be more than adequate.

Are there some other reasons to choose one over the other that I'm not considering?

[Photog]

The 4th Gen 4Runner will be an easy and dependable lift. OME springs & shocks all 4 corners. This will give a 3" front and 2" rear lift. For more money, the Overland Warehouse Coilover suspension and matching rear spring/shocks, will provide a smoother ride and still provide load carrying ability.

There have been very few reliability issues with the 4th Gen 4Runners, many having well over 100,000 miles on them (mine has 135k).

The ride is excellent, and quiet. Build quality is high. Not much spare room in cockpit for radio equipment (must be very selective). The ATRAC II traction system works very well. It also does not interfear with a locker, if one is added later. It has a selectable Center Diff Lock (CDL).

There is enough aftermarket equipment to armor the rig and a number of good roof baskets & accessories.

I don't know how CG compares between the Toyota 4R and the Jeep GC. I also don't know anything about the reliability of the GC.

Hope that helps. :)

[teotwaki]

What he said except mine is 108k miles in 63 months. Zero problems. Current mods are in my sig.

[SWbySWesty]

is the 4Runner IFS? I think the GC still has a solid axle, right?

[teotwaki]

is the 4Runner IFS? I think the GC still has a solid axle, right?

Yes to both

[nwoods]

I don't have either vehicle, but my friend has a newer generation 4runner (but not the brand new one). He went with an Icon shock & coilover set up, with Total Chaos front control arms. The results were amazing! He got about 3.5" of lift, no vibrations, and the functionality of the suspension has me green with envy. Very drivable on the street, it's amazingly flexy in slow motion rock crawling, with great articulation, and it handles dunes and whoops like a SCORE Baja rig. It was not inexpensive, but its the best performing suspension I have ever seen.
Edit: There is a write up about his set-up in the recent Toyota Owner's magazine.

http://nwoods.smugmug.com/Family/JT-NewYear-2010/JT-NewYear2010-02/757071252_Y6Snk-XL.jpg

http://nwoods.smugmug.com/Jeep-Adventures/Trail-Runs/Mojave-Trail-Fall-2009/ExPo-Mojave-2009-67/697223696_o8P4D-XL.jpg

http://nwoods.smugmug.com/Family/JT-NewYear-2010/JT-NewYear2010-16/757076783_hwjWq-XL.jpg

[Backwoods Rambler]

is the 4Runner IFS? I think the GC still has a solid axle, right?


Yes to both

Correction...The GC got IFS starting in '05.

This is the reason for the question. I don't know much, if anything, about lifting an IFS rig. Drop bracketry, steering angles, CV angles, road manners....all a mystery to me with IFS.

On the one hand, I don't like the idea of drop bracketry. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of extreme CV angles making things wear out sooner.

If the GC still has a solid axle I would have never posted this question, but maybe I should have. Maybe lifted IFS rigs have better street manners than lifted SA rigs??? :coffee:

[nwoods]

I am NOT by any stretch of the imagination a knowledgeable expert on this issue, however, I dealt with it quite a bit with the Land Rover LR3, which is independent at all 4 wheels.

The key factor is maintaining a relatively shallow angle on the CV joints. The greater the angle as a result of a lift, the more shear force is applied to the CV joints, in a vector that is their weakest point. For this reason, you see diff drop kits on pick-ups and other IFS rigs, to reduce the angle on the CV's.

The Toyota IFS system is allowed to be lifted 3" and still stay under factory warranty (how cool is that!), and has a practical limit of 3.5" to 4" before bad things happen.

[teotwaki]

I never really needed a diff drop bracket. They might help if you are trying to gain more room in the wheel wells for larger tires? I have roughly 2.5 to 3" in the front (coilovers) and it has been that way for 4 years.The 4Runner is at 108K and no issues at all.

[Root Moose]

I'm not "up" on the two vehicles you are looking into.

If I were building an IFS rig there would be a few things I would confirm.

First, make sure the suspension is a true short/long arm front suspension (e.g. SLA, double A-arm, etc.). MacPherson struts have no place on a 4x4 truck (Bt/dt).

I'd look at what lifts are available that do not drop the front differential. I'm guessing that these lifts are in the 1.5" - 2.5" range. The longer the front half shafts the more lift without dropping the differential that is practical.

Then I'd look at aftermarket fender flares that make room for "big tahrs".

Between those two things you should be able to get a decent size tire on the rig.

I really dislike the "wall of steel" that most IFS lifts with differential drop brackets create between the front wheels. I'd do anything practical to avoid it.

$0.02

[Photog]

No drop-brackets necessary for 4Runner. The factory CV's are at a negative angle. A 3" lift puts the CV's into the same angle, just in the positive direction.

IFS does have better street manners.

The 4Runner has dual A-Arms (short & long). There are no McStruts on the 4Runners, just coilovers up front.

Bushwhacker is working on some flares, but they are not available yet. Big tires are not restricted by fender width. The restriction seems to be the mudflap areas, body mount, and the upper control arms (UCA). Wheel offset corrects the UCA issue, but makes the mudflap issue worse. The body mount can be trimmed, without any problems.

[Backwoods Rambler]

Great info everyone.

I was able to dig up a little bit of info on the WK (2005-2010) Grand Cherokee front suspension (http://www.wkjeeps.com/wk_suspension.htm)

It seems that it is also a SLA design.

I know they do make "spacer" lift kits for the GC that are labeled as "strut spacers" but the suspension uses a dual SLA + coilover design much like the 4Runner

The biggest difference that my non-engineering mind can think of between the GC and the 4Runner setup is the CV angles at stock height. If the GC angles are already pointing down, then a drop bracketry system would be necessary to manage lifts over 2".

[Root Moose]

Agree, you have to concede the point on the CV shaft angles. That said, just how low is the front differential in a Toyota in stock configuration?

It's starting to come back to me about the WK/XK suspension. The upright is kind of constructed like a strut that bolts or is TRE'ed to the A-Arms. If you look for posts by "getlost4x4" on this site you can find some information on how he lifted his XK (same suspension). I think he made his parts himself. I can't remember if he dropped the differential. There are some decent images in his threads I think. Also, he has a blog listed in his signature block that has all the info about it as well.

If it were me I'd by an XK just for the looks. :)

[Backwoods Rambler]

I know that this is a bit off of the IFS topic, but I digress....

One of the percieved "pros" of the toyota is the availability of true lockers & possibly more gearing choices (I think). I've been watching youtube vids of the Jeep QDII 4x4 system on Commanders & GC's and have to say I'm quite impressed! I already knew it was a good system based on a couple of reviews, technical articles and word of mouth, but the videos speak volumes.

That's not to say that I think the QDII system is better than true lockers. I think there are pros & cons to both. The big pro being that QDII is a system that works well in all conditions without even thinking about it. The big pro of true lockers being that you control when & where they lock; no questions asked (assuming there's not problems with electrical or air lines).

As far as gearing...... I think with the v8, both vehicles can handle the tire size I would consider without gearing changes. Maybe I'm wrong?? You tell me; I'd be looking at a 31"-32" size.

[Black Dog]

I'd look at what lifts are available that do not drop the front differential. I'm guessing that these lifts are in the 1.5" - 2.5" range. The longer the front half shafts the more lift without dropping the differential that is practical.

There are those portal gears like in unimogs and H1's which isn't really a lift but it would still give you clearance for bigger tires without having the wall of steel. But only people who are made of money can afford those, I think they are a couple thousand bucks per axle.

[Root Moose]

I think with the V8 you don't need to re-gear unless you find you really need to later on. Deferred costs can be good. At altitude towing a trailer may be an issue.

I think the QDII is a fine system. While a real locker is perhaps better for the 0.01% of the time you really need a real locker the Jeep setup works the rest of the time. If it really bugs you then throw on a winch.

You aren't building a rock crawling machine (are you?). If you are rating features per feature I'd put the differences between TADs as a third order thing.

[Backwoods Rambler]

If you are rating features per feature I'd put the differences between TADs as a third order thing.

I'm not sure what that means....:snorkel:


No definitely not a rock crawler. If I decide to go that route again I will buy an older vehicle or keep, then upgrade, my current XJ, while using my next vehicle for mild camping & exploring. And yes, it will have a winch, as I think that is an important tool for any offroad vehicle, whether mild or wild.

[teotwaki]

If the Jeep QD system is similar to the 4Runner ATRAC and the Land Rover variants it definitely has limits. The main one is that for the double ABS sensors to get a good measure of wheel spin they have to se the wheels spin. A locker doesn't care. It is locked when you push the button. I used ATRAC for about 4 years until I felt I had reached the limits and then installed a rear locker.

[nwoods]

As far as gearing...... I think with the v8, both vehicles can handle the tire size I would consider without gearing changes. Maybe I'm wrong?? You tell me; I'd be looking at a 31"-32" size.


My buddy with the dark blue 4Runner has the V6 model, and went from the stock (31"?) tires up to approximately 34" tires without regearing. It still feels plenty peppy, and he regularly drives the upper range of highway speeds. He did loose a few MPG, he has all the details and I linked him to this thread. Hopefully he'll give you the straight info here soon.

[Photog]

With my V6 4Runner, I moved up from the factory 30.5" tire to a 32" tire. I lost 1 MPG, after correcting for the odometer.

For camping and exploring, you may never need more than the QDII or the ATRAC for traction control. You can add a locker to the 4Runner (ATRAC) system, without any negative effects. I don't know if a locker is available for the Jeep (should be available), and I don't know how a locker and the QDII would work together.

Look up the ground clearance of both vehicles in stock trim, then add in the available lift, to see what the lifted clearance is for both rigs. This may also help with your decision process.

-----Edit:-----
The factory 4R tire is 1" taller than the factory GC tire. This would be a 1/2" of ground clearance more for the GC, if it had the same tire as the 4R, bringing the GC to 8.8", on a 30.5" tall tire. In other words, if both vehicles had the same size tires, there is only 0.3" difference in ground clearance, in favor of the 4R.

GC Overland Model Stock ground clearance = 8.8"--Lifted 2.2" = 11.0"
4R Sport Model Stock ground clearance = 9.1"------Lifted 3" = 12.1"

Jeep GC - http://www.edmunds.com/used/2008/jeep/grandcherokee/100909640/specs.html
Toyota 4R - http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/toyota/4runner/100614751/specs.html

One thing I did notice: The headroom in my 4Runner feels tight, with a hat on. The Jeep GC has 2" less head room (very tight).

[cbradley]

My buddy with the dark blue 4Runner has the V6 model, and went from the stock (31"?) tires up to approximately 34" tires without regearing. It still feels plenty peppy, and he regularly drives the upper range of highway speeds. He did loose a few MPG, he has all the details and I linked him to this thread. Hopefully he'll give you the straight info here soon.

I'm the guy with the blue V6 4Runner. The OEM tires are about 30.5" (265/65/17). I have about 33" (285/70/17) tires on mine right now. Nathan is correct that the stock gearing does pretty well with the larger tires. It has lost some of it's pep from a stop, but does fine at freeway speeds. I may regear as an adjustment, but I don't think it is necessary.

I used to get about 18.5 mpg and am down to about 16.5 with the much heavier 285 tires. I plan to go to 255/85/17 KM2s the next time around and expect to get a little boost in mileage.

From what I understand, the V8 gets nearly the same mileage as the V6, especially when you are running lifted and on larger tires. The 4.7L V8 2UZ-FE is a highly regarded engine they used on several of the Lexus models, as well as the Land Cruiser as well as in the Tundra and Sequoia.

There are quite a few options for the 4Runner suspension:

ARB
Standard Nitro Shocks http://www.arbusa.com/Products/Suspension-Systems/Nitrocharger-Shock-Absorbers/31.aspx
The standard ARB setup is relatively inexpensive, and seems to be pretty good, though I don't know many people using them.

Nitro Sport Shocks http://www.arbusa.com/Products/Suspension-Systems/Nitrocharger-Sport-Shock-Absorbers/128.aspx
ARB has the "sport" ones out either now or soon, and annecdotally they sound pretty good for the price.

Icon
Stage 1 (and others)http://www.iconvehicledynamics.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_40_79&products_id=181
These are what I have, and I have been really happy with them. They have resi models available, but that is probably overkill for what our group typically does.

Camburg
2.5" Coilovershttp://www.camburg.com/?p=472
Camburg has a suspension setup that is similiar, both in design and cost to the Icons. I don't have any personal experience with them, but they seem to be well regarded.

Overland Warehouse
Full Suspension Kithttp://stores.overlandwarehouse.com/-strse-15/Suspension-kit/Detail.bok
These are relatively new, but have been well received by the 4Runner community. They are slightly more expensive than the basic Icon and Camburg setups, but not extraordinarily so.

Both King and Fox also have suspensions available, but they are more geared to mid and long-travel setups.

You can read about any of these in more depth over on Toyota120.com.

I am really biased, but I don't think you can go wrong with the 4Runner. There seem to be much greater options for building it up relative to the GC as well.

[JCMatthews]

Yes to both
The 2005+ Grand Cherokee is when they went to the IFS just like the Commander. The lifts available are 2-3" with spacers basically or the Super Lift 4.5" lift that AEV (American Expedition Vehicles) helped design.

[JCMatthews]

I don't know if a locker is available for the Jeep (should be available), and I don't know how a locker and the QDII would work together.
[/QUOTE]

I talked to the AEV Guys out of Montana at the EJS in Moab the year they were testing the GC. They were running what is not the Super Lift 4.5" lift. They had locker in the Jeep, and had run it on trails all week long. They said that the QDII worked so well they had not even used the lockers. So there are lockers available, but you don't need them. My brother has the Commander and the ETC works so well that most of the time you would not need lockers.

[winkosmosis]

Do the halfshafts really angle upward on a stock 4Runner? Did they really lower it that much vs previous generations??

[winkosmosis]

nwoods, shouldn't the front track be much wider with the Total Chaos arms?

[Backwoods Rambler]

Well, I just took pictures of a stock 4th gen 4Runner (SR5-v8) a stock 3rd gen GC (Loredo-v8) & a stock 3rd gen 4Runner (SR5-v6).

I'm not sure how well the phone pics will tell the tale, but the 4th gen 4R does angle up, as does the 3rd gen GC, although not as much as the 4th gen 4R. The 3rd gen 4R angles down about the same amount as the 3rd gen GC angles up.

.

.

.


I tried to upload the pics, but was getting dabase errors??? :snorkel:

[winkosmosis]

You can upload your pics to http://imageshack.us

[Amauri]

A bit off topic but I think the WK is better looking :D

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/zerosktrkd/fbccbdf1.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/zerosktrkd/850ca537.jpg

[Backwoods Rambler]

I think they're both equally good looking

[Backwoods Rambler]

I talked to the AEV Guys..... They had locker in the Jeep, and had run it on trails all week long. They said that the QDII worked so well they had not even used the lockers.

The QDII system works in conjunction with the ELSD's in the axles, so I'm having trouble understanding how it could be so good without the ELSD, that they didn't use the locker???


My brother has the Commander and the ETC works so well that most of the time you would not need lockers.

I can believe that. I don't even need LSD's most of the time :elkgrin:

[oz97tj]

The QDII system in the WK is true lockers. They automatically lock and unlock as conditions require it. I'm not sure why Jeep ever decided to call them what they did, but they are lockers front and rear. The QDI system is brake based, but still works fairly well.

I had a completely stock 07 WK with the QDI system and the 4.7. It even had stock tires. I took it out from time to time playing on some easier stuff that led me to some stuff that I should have been on. It really surprised me. I was with some lifted and locked TJs and could do everything they did, at least that my ground clearance allowed me to do. It really was pretty capable rig.

I ended up trading it in on a 09 JK because I got rid of my old trail TJ and wanted a rig that could do everything. However, for a rig that will see daily driving and mild wheeling / exploring a WK is hard to beat in my opinion. A mild spacer lift will allow you to run 31s or 32s and it would do most everything you would need. If I had the money, I would have another one, but I needed something more hardcore for the rocks and stuff I play on.

[Backwoods Rambler]

I test drove an '06 GC with a Hemi & QDII. Obvioulsy it was powerful enough (they didn't have a 4.7 in stock) and there wasn't a place to test the QDII like I would want to. But I have to say, I was not impressed with the seating comfort & the homelink rearview mirror took up 1/3 of the windshield visibility....very dissapointing. Mybe a non homelink mirror would be better?

I'm hoping to teast drive a 4Runner in the upcoming week.

[Backwoods Rambler]

Actually the WK eLSD is a true limited slip differential that is capable of providing variable torque up to full axle lock.

Not really the same as a true locker, but I think the difference may be splitting hairs considering the "full lock" statement. The big drawback here is that the eLSD uses clutch packs, which wear with use. That's kind of a drag, but I'm not sure how else you could do it. It would be nice though, if a similar system could be developed using a Detroit Truetrac type LSD configuration which doesn't wear out.

SOURCE (http://www.jeepcommander.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5709 )

[oz97tj]

Actually the WK eLSD is a true limited slip differential that is capable of providing variable torque up to full axle lock.

Not really the same as a true locker, but I think the difference may be splitting hairs considering the "full lock" statement. The big drawback here is that the eLSD uses clutch packs, which wear with use. That's kind of a drag, but I'm not sure how else you could do it. It would be nice though, if a similar system could be developed using a Detroit Truetrac type LSD configuration which doesn't wear out.

SOURCE (http://www.jeepcommander.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5709 )

I suppose you're right. But it can provide locking capability! My WK didn't have the homelink mirror so I'm not sure of the issue you had. I'm taller so I have to push the mirror all the way up that it'll go, but with that done there was no issues. It's also no different than in any vehicle really.

As for seating comfort, it's a personal thing so everyone will be different. However, I can say I spent quite a few 14 hour days in mine and never had an issue. I will say the seats are somewhat stiff and may give a bad impression during a quick test, but in use I was really happy. Maybe a longer test drive was in order?

The only real complaint I had was once in a while while stepping out I would bang my knee on the door, which was easily avoidable if I got out normal. It only really happened when I was in a hurry or in a wierd position or something.

[Root Moose]

Go look at a Commander as well. It is the same vehicle as the WK with respect to drivetrain BUT it has a more usable interior IMO. I felt really claustrophobic in the WK (like a Toyota) but the XK is decent.

[Backwoods Rambler]

IMy WK didn't have the homelink mirror so I'm not sure of the issue you had. I'm taller so I have to push the mirror all the way up that it'll go, but with that done there was no issues. It's also no different than in any vehicle really.

I have a tendency to push rearview mirrors up all the time, so I did in this test also, but was still dissapointed. The homelink mirror system is just bulky. Perhaps a std mirror would be fine??

I agree about the seating, it's a personal preference.

I will test the 4Runner, I'll probably also test a Commander as well.

[deadbeat son]

Any updates?

We test drove a WK and a 4th Gen 4R back to back when we were considering an SUV for my wife. The WK was a V8 with leather interior and lots of options; the 4Runner was a V6 with cloth and not many options. The salesman set us up for a drive in the Jeep first, so we expected to be disappointed with the Toyota afterward, but the results were the opposite. The Jeep just didn't feel as "tight" as the 4Runner. Also, the Toyota V6 felt peppier than the 4.7L V8. It was surprising. We also felt the Toyota interior was laid out better despite not caring for its HVAC controls.

Also of note, I believe OME offers a suspension system for the WK now, so you're not limited to a cheesey spacer lift.

[Backwoods Rambler]

I was at Mountain States Toyota the other day and they were so busy with customers that a sales rep never came to see me while I was hovering around the v8 runners. I didn't want to take a rep away from a paying customer just so I could test drive, so I just left. Maybe this weekend??

[deadbeat son]

I was at Mountain States Toyota the other day and they were so busy with customers that a sales rep never came to see me while I was hovering around the v8 runners. I didn't want to take a rep away from a paying customer just so I could test drive, so I just left. Maybe this weekend??

Good luck!

I bought my Tacoma at Boulder Toyota and felt I was treated well. I don't care for their service dept, but their sales staff wasn't too bad.