IFS, Sway Bars, and the new Tacoma

[Schattenjager]

I have made the remark about the poor off road function of my IFS and a few of you have suggested that I remove the front sway bar or get quick disconnects. I have called around to a few off road shops and have heard the same thing: there are no commercial 05+ IFS quick disconnects because the suspension design is all road manner biased. Disconnected the sway bars will only make it sway on the road and do nothing for the off road ability. :(

True???

Anyone here with an 05+ or newer Tacoma that has removed the sway bars and noticed an improvement? If so, do you have any pictures of the articulation without them?

Yeah, she goes off road OK, but the entire rig pitches around horribly. This photo is the best articulation I can muster without the rig capsizing.

[TACODOC]

Disconnected the sway bars will only make it sway on the road and do nothing for the off road ability. :(

True???

Anyone here with an 05+ or newer Tacoma that has removed the sway bars and noticed an improvement? If so, do you have any pictures of the articulation without them?



I disagree. My sway bar has been off for a while now... here are pics that illustrate the articulation sans swaybar. It takes getting used to on road but it was never meant to be driven like a sports car anyway. Off road it is better without the swaybar IMO.

Here is a link to the page in my thread that detals my swaybar removal:
http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=521&page=18

Pictures are worth 1000 words...

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g230/devildoc25/2007_1118TacoDocExPoMeetNGret0200.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g230/devildoc25/2007_1118TacoDocExPoMeetNGret0202.jpg

[taco chaser]

I have made the remark about the poor off road function of my IFS and a few of you have suggested that I remove the front sway bar or get quick disconnects. I have called around to a few off road shops and have heard the same thing: there are no commercial 05+ IFS quick disconnects because the suspension design is all road manner biased. Disconnected the sway bars will only make it sway on the road and do nothing for the off road ability. :(

True???

Anyone here with an 05+ or newer Tacoma that has removed the sway bars and noticed an improvement? If so, do you have any pictures of the articulation without them?

Yeah, she goes off road OK, but the entire rig pitches around horribly. This photo is the best articulation I can muster without the rig capsizing. Disconnecting the sway bar should allow more down travel but is a bad idea do to the degree limitations of CV half shaft's, that's a good way to break thing's unfortunately, a torsion bar style would allow more controled down travel, still might push the limits but with alot less stress and no change to drivability. With a little bit of work and measurements you might be able to fit a Currie anti rock or something like it under your truck.

[TACODOC]

Disconnecting the sway bar should allow more down travel but is a bad idea do to the degree limitations of CV half shaft's, that's a good way to break thing's

Never heard of anyone having a problem with anything like that on the new gen Tacomas.

[taco chaser]

Never heard of anyone having a problem with anything like that on the new gen Tacomas. It's just how CV's function, they have maybe 30 t0 35 degrees of travel built into them and anything after that is binding and can cause failure. That's all I'm saying, not trying to discourage, just trying to give info, pro's and con's.

[Schattenjager]

I have seen pictures of the older body style IFS flexing very well. This makes me think that maybe it is a poor design of the new generation Tacoma's that limit their off-road ability.

If this is TacoDoc's rig sans the sway bar, it does not look like it offers much advantage over my truck with the bar in place. If I have to pull a ruler out to measure the gain, it won't be worth the trouble.

Look at this awesome previous generation IFS flexing. I have no idea what he did, but I am curious as to the factory design differences.

[TACODOC]

You can see my IFS flexing in this pic... notice the drivers side front dropping down?

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g230/devildoc25/2007_1118TacoDocExPoMeetNGret0202.jpg

[taco chaser]

I have seen pictures of the older body style IFS flexing very well. This makes me think that maybe it is a poor design of the new generation Tacoma's that limit their off-road ability.

If this is TacoDoc's rig sans the sway bar, it does not look like it offers much advantage over my truck with the bar in place. If I have to pull a ruler out to measure the gain, it won't be worth the trouble.

Look at this awesome previous generation IFS flexing. I have no idea what he did, but I am curious as to the factory design differences.Here are some pic's of my friends 06 with the Fab Tech and the sway bar attached, it doe's really good on the trail.

[Schattenjager]

You can see my IFS flexing in this pic... notice the drivers side front dropping down?

Yup - I can get some drop out of mine - it's upward articulation that I am after. I am going to Lake Wellington tomorrow, so perhaps I will get a chance to take a photo or two to further illustrate what I am looking to cure.

BTW TacoDoc - you have got a smoking rig! The dismay over mine is no reflection of my opinion on yours.

Taco Chaser - I looked into the Fab Tech stuff, but don't want to go that far with an IFS - I'd do an SAS first!

[HMR]

Schattenjager- What kind of wheeling are you doing? It sounds like you're encountering some pretty hardcore stuff if the Tacoma isn't pulling it off. I was standing on the sidelines while those pics of TacoDoc were being taken. The rocky sections in his pics are more extreme than what 95% of us see during "normal" exploring. TacoDoc's rig handled it without a problem. A few minutes behind him was Nuclear Redneck in a completely stock '05+ TRD. After several attempts he also made it to the top (BTW- he was towing an adventure trailer, too).

I have the swaybar off for now. I recently installed SAW 2.0's up front and Bilstein 5100's/Wheelers' Add-A-Leaf in the rear. I did 1000+ miles over the past 3 days with lots of twisty mountain roads, 50mph desert crosswinds on I-40 and LOTS of trails including Broken Arrow in Sedona. I'm very happy with the ride and don't miss the swaybar at all. I think the IFS rocks!:)

http://wileyp.smugmug.com/photos/224886081-M.jpg

[slooowr6]

[hi-jack]
HMR, which add-a-leaf did you get? The 3 leafs version or the 1 leaf? How much it raised the rear? Thx
[\hi-jack]

[grouch]

It's just how CV's function, they have maybe 30 t0 35 degrees of travel built into them and anything after that is binding and can cause failure. That's all I'm saying, not trying to discourage, just trying to give info, pro's and con's.
Yea but removing the sway bar doesn't really increase your droop, at least not on my 03. The droop is limited by the upper arm, and internal bump stops in the shocks, it will only go down so far. I have seen this first hand on my truck with four different set ups all with the sway bar removed. I had the stock coils with Billy HD's which flexed like mad but it was unsafe at highway speeds. Next I went over to the Tundra coils and the HD's. That set up gave little rebound as the coils were constantly pushing against the internal bump stops, and the spring rate was too heavy and wouldn't compress much at all. Then I went back to the stock coils and added a set of preload adjusting HD's. That set up flexed like stink, rode a little better on the highway compared to the first one but the droop was still limited as they were the exact same shock on the inside. Now I am on DR's and I get a decent amount of flex on the upstroke and about the same on the rebound as the other set ups. DR's have some dampening on the internal bumo stop that may allow it to droop a little more than the HD's. One thing is certain, when you take the weight off the front end rapidly like off a small jump, it is not harsh like the others. Removing my sway bar did smooth things out considerably as it alowed the front end to work independantly. I would imagine there is no difference in the 05's and up. Are you going to gain a ton of flex by yanking it? Not really but you will increase the drivability factor over washboards and the like. The front end only has so much to give.

[HMR]

[hi-jack]
HMR, which add-a-leaf did you get? The 3 leafs version or the 1 leaf? How much it raised the rear? Thx
[\hi-jack]1 Leaf.

I was trying to keep the stock height but ended up with 2" of lift (that's with my fiberglass shell, wooden platform and 200+ lbs of camping gear). No more bottoming out when loaded for a trip. For $77.50 (http://www.wheelersoffroad.com/05uptacoaal.htm) it's the best money I've spent on my Taco.

[slosurfer]

It's just how CV's function, they have maybe 30 t0 35 degrees of travel built into them and anything after that is binding and can cause failure. That's all I'm saying, not trying to discourage, just trying to give info, pro's and con's.

I guess I didn't realize that the newer vehicles didn't have droop bumpstops (I'm used to my '93 which has droop and compression bumpstops), so on the 05+ tacos, what does stop droop? Is it the shocks or the swaybar?



On my '93 it was night and day with the swaybar removed, it was much better. Not really that I gained more flex, but that it was much easier to use all my flex and it made it much better in the dunes, dessert road, washboard etc...

HMR, did you get the rear suspension tsb done yet?

[HMR]

Is it the shocks or the swaybar?I have bumpstops on my '05.

[slosurfer]

I have bumpstops on my '05.


I know there is a lower bumpstop that is for compression, where is the upper bumpstops that stop the droop?

[slooowr6]

1 Leaf.

I was trying to keep the stock height but ended up with 2" of lift (that's with my fiberglass shell, wooden platform and 200+ lbs of camping gear). No more bottoming out when loaded for a trip. For $77.50 (http://www.wheelersoffroad.com/05uptacoaal.htm) it's the best money I've spent on my Taco.

Thanks! Any idea how thick is the 3 leafs?

[taco chaser]

Yea but removing the sway bar doesn't really increase your droop, at least not on my 03. The droop is limited by the upper arm, and internal bump stops in the shocks, it will only go down so far. I have seen this first hand on my truck with four different set ups all with the sway bar removed. I had the stock coils with Billy HD's which flexed like mad but it was unsafe at highway speeds. Next I went over to the Tundra coils and the HD's. That set up gave little rebound as the coils were constantly pushing against the internal bump stops, and the spring rate was too heavy and wouldn't compress much at all. Then I went back to the stock coils and added a set of preload adjusting HD's. That set up flexed like stink, rode a little better on the highway compared to the first one but the droop was still limited as they were the exact same shock on the inside. Now I am on DR's and I get a decent amount of flex on the upstroke and about the same on the rebound as the other set ups. DR's have some dampening on the internal bumo stop that may allow it to droop a little more than the HD's. One thing is certain, when you take the weight off the front end rapidly like off a small jump, it is not harsh like the others. Removing my sway bar did smooth things out considerably as it alowed the front end to work independantly. I would imagine there is no difference in the 05's and up. Are you going to gain a ton of flex by yanking it? Not really but you will increase the drivability factor over washboards and the like. The front end only has so much to give.How come none of you guy's run the Total Chaos set up that replaces your upper arms and halfshafts with better one's that are designed for offroad instead of the hwy. All I was trying to explain was the reasons for running with or without and I did suggest a torsion bar set up, which is more flexable than a solid sway bar and would not require any kind of disconnect.

[DaveInDenver]

It's just how CV's function, they have maybe 30 t0 35 degrees of travel built into them and anything after that is binding and can cause failure. That's all I'm saying, not trying to discourage, just trying to give info, pro's and con's.
The sway bars probably do limit CV travel to some extent, but the bump stops are the travel limiters. The CV joint should be able to handle the movement that the stock suspension has between those. I took my sway bar off my truck about 8 years ago and haven't looked back. I also run low profile bump stops on both the top and bottom (which are about half as thick as stock). Granted my torsion bar IFS is different, but I hit both upper and lower sides and I'm not exploding CVs (which are now 17 years old with a locked front diff on 33" tires). I would think a stock truck might sway more without the sway bars attached, but with a properly sprung and valved front end I think my truck rides better without the sway bar attached personally. But do keep in mind that my top speed is practically 70~75MPH and I rarely drive past 65MPH...

[slosurfer]

The sway bars probably do limit CV travel to some extent, but the bump stops are the travel limiters. .

This is what I was thinking (as it is true for our older IFS rigs), but I looked with a flashlight real quick last night at our '07 Taco and I don't see any upper bumpstops that stop the downtravel. I haven't been able to learn very much about our new trucks suspension, so I'm confused at to what exactly limits the down travel on it. Or did I just not see the upper bumpstops last night in the dark?

[grouch]

How come none of you guy's run the Total Chaos set up that replaces your upper arms and halfshafts with better one's that are designed for offroad instead of the hwy. All I was trying to explain was the reasons for running with or without and I did suggest a torsion bar set up, which is more flexable than a solid sway bar and would not require any kind of disconnect.
For me it is a matter of not needing it or possibly buying trouble down the road. I try to keep my truck as reliable as possible. If something goes wrong with my DR's, I could either replace them or go back to stock. I simply don't need that type of set up and complexity with the fiberglass fenders and such. I have seen a Total Chaos set up in person and it made me drool for sure but my guess is that my truck will still be on the road long after his has seen the end if for no other reasons than the type of use he put his through vs what I do. I dabbled with the idea of the DR uppers but decided to keep what I have due to the limits of the design. I shouldn't ever have to worry about over stressing my front end. If I ever come into more money than I know what to do with, I will probably order a set of those super cool uppers. I just wished they weren't so flashy.

[Bergger]

I may be wrong, and please let me know if I am, but I've always thought sway bar disconnects were useless on IFS vehicles. You might get a small amount of downward articulation but what good is that if you have no traction with that tire. The only tire that will have traction on an IFS vehicle is the compressed one so it really does not matter if the other tire is airborn or slightly on the ground. It'll just spin. I'd just keep the sway bar connected for better highway control. Now if you had a front locker then that might change everything.

[grouch]

I may be wrong, and please let me know if I am, but I've always thought sway bar disconnects were useless on IFS vehicles. You might get a small amount of downward articulation but what good is that if you have no traction with that tire. The only tire that will have traction on an IFS vehicle is the compressed one so it really does not matter if the other tire is airborn or slightly on the ground. It'll just spin. I'd just keep the sway bar connected for better highway control. Now if you had a front locker then that might change everything.
You are right in a sense but it isn't useless. It allows the front to track better cruising down a dirt road as each wheel can do what it needs to without being tied to the other. You do gain a slight increase in flex but it isn't much. These front ends just aren't made for silly flex. They are fantastic at what they do well however. Also, you have to take in to account what the rear is doing. On my truck for instance, it is almost impossible to hang a rear tire, the springs just flex that much. So I pretty much always have three wheels on the ground, most times it is four because the rears flex enough to allow the front to tip over to the point that both of the front tires are touching something.

[slosurfer]

I may be wrong, and please let me know if I am, but I've always thought sway bar disconnects were useless on IFS vehicles. You might get a small amount of downward articulation but what good is that if you have no traction with that tire. The only tire that will have traction on an IFS vehicle is the compressed one so it really does not matter if the other tire is airborn or slightly on the ground. It'll just spin. I'd just keep the sway bar connected for better highway control. Now if you had a front locker then that might change everything.


There is some truth to that as far as the traction on the compressed side. On the other hand, your vehicle stays more level longer. For example, with the swaybar connected (this is on my '93), as soon as a put a front tire on any kind of rock, it immediately lifts the whole front end up including the other tire, therefore you only have traction on the one tire anyways.

Same rock with the swaybar disconnected, when I put the tire on the rock, the vehicle stays level longer, because that side is allowed to move upwards independently till the lower control arm gets to the bumpstop, then it lifts the whole front of the vehicle upward.

So, it isn't necessarily about the added downtravel, I have found that I am able to take almost full advantage of my uptravel with IFS disconnected on my '93. I haven't messed with the 07 taco yet, but I know for sure it helped my '93, as I have run many trails with it both connected and disconnected.

[TACODOC]

:lurk:

[Jacket]

I've had my sway bar removed since last spring, and I think it has made a difference in keeping both front tires in contact with the ground. As far as on road performance, if there is a difference without it, I haven't noticed since the first day I removed it. I told myself last spring that I'd reinstall it this winter, but I can't see myself doing it now. The truck drives fine without it.

There are a ton of posts in here already, but I guess I'll just add some thoughts as well.

- The comparison pictures on the first page aren't a reasonable comparison. You need to have two trucks running the EXACT same line to properly compare suspension characteristics
- The fundamental design of the 05+ front suspension is the same as the 04- Tacomas, so I doubt you will see a significant difference in performance.
- I find that the length and long wheelbase of my truck are far more limiting factors for off-road performance than the performance of my front suspension.
- As far as damaging the front suspension components, everything we do to modify these suspensions is going to have some negative affect on wear and tear, especially lifting and changing the CV angles. Removing the sway bar will probably also have an affect, but I'd consider it minor compared to some of the other modifications.

This is probably the best picture I have of my front susp. flex:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h201/mralsto/pierson_park_0907/IMG_1424.jpg

but I think that doc's picture is a better demonstration of the "reach" that our IFS can produce.

Another option to improve front suspension performance is a new set of UCA's. The Total Chaos brand seems to be the most popular and best fit/price point for our trucks, and you'll get some improved performance from that product. But as others have stated, ultimately the bump stops have the final say.

[Overland Hadley]

:lurk:

This is all very interesting.

[slosurfer]

But as others have stated, ultimately the bump stops have the final say.

Where is the bumpstop that stops the downtravel? I just crawled under mine and there are only bumpstops that stop uptravel. Is it the shock extending all the way that acts as the bumpstop?

[grouch]

Where is the bumpstop that stops the downtravel? I just crawled under mine and there are only bumpstops that stop uptravel. Is it the shock extending all the way that acts as the bumpstop?
The upper arms will limit the down travel as well as the shock it's self. Jack up the front, take the shock and coil assembly out and see how hard it is to extend the front end. Matter of fact, you generally have to use a bottle jack to extend the downtravel enough to get the coil assembly back in. The after market UCA's don't have this but they still only allow about an extra inch of down but you have to have a shock like an extended travel DR to take advantage of it.

[Ron B]

I don't drive a toyota, but I just added air suspension to my hummer (ifs/irs) and lost the front sway bar. The a-arm bushings limited the travel to some extent, but In my truck the shocks were the primary limiting factor for the droop/extension. I had to install limit straps as well as relocate the shocks. I don't notice a difference in handling (excepting the obvious improvement of the bags) but it's a heavy truck and I don't drive it like the race car it's not. What is nice is the several extra inches of extension I can now get. My first boo-boo was allowing too much droop...it was too much angle for the boots and they were pulled off the inner cv housings (the cv's were fine). With the adjustable clevis/straps I can make sure it doesn't droop too far and suck it in as the straps stretch from use.

sorry if you think this is unrelated, I just found this thread interesting to read as I'm playing with a similar suspension set-up. It's a learning experience (or is it expense?) so I enjoy hearing what others find.

now...I just have to figure out bumpstops!

ron

[Overland Hadley]

Wow, the H1 has IFS/IRS! I would have thought the H2 or the H3, but it is interesting that the H1 has IFS/IRS.

[slosurfer]

The upper arms will limit the down travel as well as the shock it's self. Jack up the front, take the shock and coil assembly out and see how hard it is to extend the front end. Matter of fact, you generally have to use a bottle jack to extend the downtravel enough to get the coil assembly back in. The after market UCA's don't have this but they still only allow about an extra inch of down but you have to have a shock like an extended travel DR to take advantage of it.

Thanks, that makes sense. I always just assumed that they had upper and lower bumpstops like the older IFS, till I looked under there last night. Thanks for the clarification.

[Schattenjager]

I went on a bit of an experimental trip today - lots of ruts and rocks. With the sway bars in place the articulation was minimal. The wheels did "dip" pretty well. Upward articulation - what I am after here - was pretty much non-existent. The low parts of the trail were absorbed OK - the high spots (rocks, burms etc.) were where the rig got tossed around like a kernel of corn in a hot deep frier. :Mechanic: :(

So, I made my way back to the beginning, removed the sway-bars (the anti-fun thing to do at a trail head, BTW) and did the exact trail again. Results? SEE ABOVE. Total waste of time. The ride home was a bit strange sans bars, but I have now replaced them. The highway ride did not suffer, so to speak, it was just different. Barely - but noticeable.

Conclusion - the rear end is the saving grace of these new gen Tacomas. It flexes quite well, and with a locking diff, can push the truck around at will. I think that the reason the truck rides so harshly "in the rough" is that the rear end is compliant and the front end is an ice-breaker's bow - making the chassis work over time to keep things together. As someone else pointed out - the driver makes all the difference. While I am in no way an expert trail driver, I do know what I like and what I don't. i love my truck. I hate its limited abilities. Everything is a compromise, no?

This is just my experience. This boards responses prompted the test. Granted I am comparing my Land Rover Experiences in Colorado and Alaska to this Tacoma. I picked the Tacoma because of it's legendary ability (oops) and it's undeniable reliability and toughness. I am now going to search for a Range Rover Classic and transplant a Toyota V8 and tranny. :) Maybe...
:rappel:

Thanks for the input! It prompted me into a test I would have otherwise theorized.

[TACODOC]

... did I forget to mention I also lost about 50 lbs up front by losing the swaybar? :shakin:

The only way to gain any up travel with this IFS is probably via new UCA's or... SAS!

[Fireman78]

Check out this flex...

[Overland Hadley]

So, I made my way back to the beginning, removed the sway-bars (the anti-fun thing to do at a trail head, BTW) and did the exact trail again.

Did you take pictures at the same spot on the trail with the sway-bars on, and then with the sway-bars off? I would be interested in seeing the difference, even if it is only a small difference.

[Schattenjager]

No camera today. Suffice it to say that I would need a micrometer to measure the difference. Perhaps if I take a trail with a new gen Tacoma sans sway-bars I can get some comparison photos. I won't go through the hassle again on my rig, however.

[ntsqd]

Wow, the H1 has IFS/IRS! I would have thought the H2 or the H3, but it is interesting that the H1 has IFS/IRS.
They've always been that way. AMC model 20 diffs (in aluminum cases) too!

In reading this thread I'm unclear on if you're hitting the up-travel limiting bumps or are just feeling the results of a high rate coil spring?
A longer, lower rate coil spring would yield the same ride height and be more supple over the high points, IF there is the up-travel available to configure this way.

[teotwaki]

I may be wrong, and please let me know if I am, but I've always thought sway bar disconnects were useless on IFS vehicles. You might get a small amount of downward articulation but what good is that if you have no traction with that tire. The only tire that will have traction on an IFS vehicle is the compressed one so it really does not matter if the other tire is airborn or slightly on the ground. It'll just spin. I'd just keep the sway bar connected for better highway control. Now if you had a front locker then that might change everything.

Toyota IFS vehicles such as 4Runner, FJC, Sequoia and Tacoma (IIRC) have a computer setup to stop the wheelspin called Automatic Traction (ATRAC). If a tire is in the air the ABS system is used to engage/pulse the brakes on the spinning wheel causing the power to go to the wheel on the ground. It works extremely well.

[TACODOC]

Toyota IFS vehicles such as 4Runner, FJC, Sequoia and Tacoma (IIRC) have a computer setup to stop the wheelspin called Automatic Traction (ATRAC). If a tire is in the air the ABS system is used to engage/pulse the brakes on the spinning wheel causing the power to go to the wheel on the ground. It works extremely well.

ATRAC is a neat system and works well in most cases.

Note: Not standard on all models - my 05 Tacoma does not have ATRAC.

[Schattenjager]

ditto

[Photog]

They've always been that way. AMC model 20 diffs (in aluminum cases) too!

In reading this thread I'm unclear on if you're hitting the up-travel limiting bumps or are just feeling the results of a high rate coil spring?
A longer, lower rate coil spring would yield the same ride height and be more supple over the high points, IF there is the up-travel available to configure this way.

I don't think they read the part where you said "H1". A real HUMMV.

I think you have naild this. When we lift our IFS rigs, we use the springs offered by the aftermarket. These tend to be higher rate springs, and a little longer too. This provides lift and extra load carrying ability. Without the extra weight, it will be very stiff. The solution is a longer spring, with the factory spring rate. The extra length will provide increaded ride height, and the stock spring rate, will take less force to move the wheel through the range of articulation. If it was set up this way, you would notice a large difference without the swaybar.

If you have stiffer springs, and don't have any negative effects without the swaybar, leave it off; it is adding no value. The swaybar forces the body to move, when one wheel is put in compression. There is no reason to engage the body or the opposite-side springs, in the articulation of one wheel. The idea of IFS not acting any better without a swaybar is total BS.

The droop limits on the new Tacomas/4Runners are the upper control arm balljoints. The balljoint runs out or rotation, before the CVs have problems. The balljoints also run out or rotation, before the shocks bottom out. If you would like to verify this,
1) jack up the frame, until the front tires come off the ground,
2) remove tires,
3) unbolt the swaybar,
4) put a jack under the lower control arm for support,
5) unbolt the lower ball joint (2 bolts),
6) now lower the supporting jack.

You will notice the shock and lower control arm continue down much further, before the shock is at full extension. The upper balljoint was holding the entire suspension at the original stopping point. Note: This process is also the easiest way to swap springs & shocks.

The UniBall UCAs allow more articulation of the UCA. Now the internal bumstops of the shocks, will limit the down travel. If you go past this point, the CVs will start to give you problems. One drawback to the UniBall UCAs is they tend to squeek, and are a high maintenance item.

Sorry for the length of this post. There were a lot of comments to respond to.

Cheers!

[tacollie]

Mine is an 02 so I realize it is a little different. With my sway bar off I can stuff one tire while the other droops. I could never do that before. It helps a lot offroad, but is will never be a solid axle. Also, I ran OME before my SAWS and it was unstable on the trail with the sway bar disconnected because of the weight of my bumper and winch. The spring rate was to light. With the SAWS it is a completely different truck. I love it. My .02 on the issue.

[tacollie]

Maybe you should build up the rover with a toyota V8. That would be sick.

[slosurfer]

or this one which is removable:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/slosurfer27/IFS-rear-truss55.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/slosurfer27/IFS-rear-truss11.jpg

[/hijack] since this has absolutely nothing to do with the newer tacoma IFS

[Photog]

Chris,
It doesn't have anything to do with swaybars or articulation either.

But; that is a great piece to add to the older Taco/4Runner, to reinforce the lower arms.
Did you put that on your 4Runner?

[slosurfer]

Chris,
It doesn't have anything to d owith swaybars or articulation either.

But; that is a great piece to add to the older Taco/4Runner, to reinforce the lower arms.
Did you put that on your 4Runner?

Brian, haha, I know it is a total hijack but very important for those that have the older IFS. That is the one that is on my 4runner, it is from Sonoran Steel. I got one of the first ones made and it was actually the first mod that I did to the 4runner.

[Alphonse]

OK, after lurking on this site for about a year I am finally going to jump in here since I have been following this thread for a while and it's got the wheels in my head turning.

After reading this thread and giving it alot of thought I removed the front swaybar today from my Donahoe Coilovered FJ Cruiser. My main concern was what you see pictured below:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/Biginboca/FJOut.jpg

(As you can see the passenger tire is barely stuffed while bearing all the weight.)

Now after driving it I have a few thoughts below and would like to get some opinions since you guys seem to know what you are talking about.

Benefit of No Swaybar as I see it is that it keeps body roll down and possibly maintains driver side tire contact longer in the picture above.

If traction is a simple factor of force/area then wouldn't 1 tire receiving 100% weight = 2 tires receiving 50% weight? So one of the No Swaybar benefits is really an imagined benefit?

Now for IFS besides the obvious on road body roll issue when running no swaybar on road I am thinking there is another more serious issue for the offroader. In the picture above imagine a tree stump is dead center at the top of the crest. W/O Swaybar wouldn't your front end be sitting lower and thus suffer more impacts due to less clearance?

The biggest benefit for IFS offroad (Non Baja racing) is the extra front ground clearance, but when you remove the swaybar aren't you significantly reducing this benefit?

Just wanted to throw these thoughts out there and see what others had to say. For now my Swaybar is off but I am not sure if it will stay that way yet.

Regards,
Alphonse

[gearbox]

Just thought I'd provide a higher contrast, brighter image of the above photo :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/gearbox/FJOut.jpg

[ntsqd]

WOW! He really has been moving around, hasn't he? Must be all of the heavily armed illegals manning the pot farms in Humbolt that chased him away.

A sway-bar has no spring rate as long as both tires move together, like when going over a speed bump. It only has a spring rate when one tire is moving relative to the other.
So removing it should have NO effect on ride height. If it did, it usually is because of the friction in the bar's bushings.
Sway-bars limit body roll by reducing articulation. Removing it should increase both body roll and articulation.

Unfortunately traction isn't that simple. On a hard surface it can be that simple, though not always, but each different type of soft surface is unique.

Unless purpose built, most IFS designs have less clearance than a solid axle, not more. I feel that unless you're rock crawling that it's a moot point.

[DaveInDenver]

As you can see the passenger tire is barely stuffed while bearing all the weight.
It's not bearing all that much weight, the way you are angled up like that. On flat ground or point nose down, it would have stuffed more. Or maybe if you had the yeti (that showed up when the contrast was raised) sitting in the passenger's seat... It does look like you are getting some up travel on the right wheel anyway compared to the droop of the left one. I think a solid axle truck would have lifted its left wheel there, too, though.

Unless purpose built, most IFS designs have less clearance than a solid axle, not more. I feel that unless you're rock crawling that it's a moot point.
I think he's right in saying that static, sitting on pavement IFS will have more clearance between the front cross member than a third member of a solid axle. Usually the low point on the front end is a ball joint, though, so depends on where you measure. But obviously as IFS compresses, the cross member dives straight for the ground. My front skid plate proves that, I get to beat dents out of it all the time.

[ntsqd]

Concur, nose high like that has most of the vehicle's weight on the rear tires.

It would be splitting hairs, but I disagree. The reason being that, using our earlier yota's as an example, while the SA has an 8" ring gear it only has the clearance toyota deemed necessary for the lower part of the housing to clear the RG by plus the metal's thickness. While the IFS has the necessarily thicker casting surrounding it's 7.5" RG followed by the various suspension related bits that pass under the diff casting. Whatever skidplate there might be will need to have some air gap btwn it's top and the bottom of the IFS diff housing. The stock angle in the CV's tends to be limited for various design constraints and the engine usually limits upward space so I doubt that the front diff can be moved up enough to gain much clearance.

Still, I don't think it's all that important unless rock crawling or similar.

[Photog]

Science time: With a straight axle suspension, when one tire gets stuffed, and the other (extended) tire is still on the ground, the load is not 50/50 on each tire. It takes a lot of force to compress that spring, and stuff that tire; and it takes a lack of force, to allow the other tire to extend downward. With a vehicle in this position, look at the sidewalls of the tires. The stuffed tire will be compressed, and appear half flat. The extended tire will appear to be fully inflated. This does not happen when both tires are equally loaded.

Now, if the SA suspension had stiff springs, or a sway bar, it would lift the unloaded tire, just like the IFS. Also, the body of the truck would have a much higher tendency to to lean and bounce, as it followed the front suspension. A flexible suspension allows the axles to articulate in opposite directions, and the body can stay somewhere in between. This is a lot easier on the occupants, as they don't get thrashed as much.

Our IFS can act more like a flexible SA, if we remove the swaybar. There are other things that can also be done, and we may get into that; but this thread is about the swaybar. Without the swaybar, the front suspension will be allowed to move as freely as it can, without forcing the body to move with it; thereby reducing the thrashing of the occupants.

[Photog]

I once read an article, where a fellow installed the opposite of a "swaybar". He installed a pair of Air-Shocks from Gabriel, and connected the valves together. When one shock became compressed, it tried to force the other shock to extend.

When going through whoops, both shocks were compressed, adding spring-rate. When articulating, the shocks forced the suspension to move a little further, and unload the forces on the body.

The Toyota XREAS suspension works this way; but from corner to corner, instead of from side to side. Maybe it could be modified for the front only, and remove the rear components for better shocks. Hmmmm.

[Alphonse]

I think the main thing I am considering is now is this, is the possible loss of ground clearance under certain conditions enough of a detriment to keep one from removing the swaybar, or do the benefits of it's removal outweigh this possible negative effect. (Strictly speaking about wheeling and not on road driving.)

In other words, if I had no swaybar in that pic above then the passenger tire would be stuffed more, and if thats the case then the front end of the FJ (under the skid) would be closer to the ground (in that pic).

Like if I imagine a tree stump or rock in the center of that crest I could see where the swaybar which keeps the passenger tire from stuffing and thus lifts the front might be a benefit in such a case.

[ntsqd]

Several to many threads on that air shock trick on the 4xwire forum. I think in the Toyota specific forum with regards to the pre-Tacoma IFS.

Sonny Honiger (sp?) used a design that the Toyota is patterned after on his "Scorpion" many years ago. Their effects are the same though the methods employed are different.

[Photog]

Several to many threads on that air shock trick on the 4xwire forum. I think in the Toyota specific forum with regards to the pre-Tacoma IFS.

Sonny Honiger (sp?) used a design that the Toyota is patterned after on his "Scorpion" many years ago. Their effects are the same though the methods employed are different.

I remember seeing that suspension on the Scorpion. It was very interesting. The whole rig was interesting.


As for the "Stump" scenario, that is what skid plates are for. It is a very specific situation, and one that isn't a huge problem, even if it happens. Being thrashed by your front suspension, on every trail you drive, becomes very fatiguing. Trail fatigue causes many folks to make "rookie" errors by the end of the day. I think a few scratches on my skid plate is a better deal.:)

Another problem we get, with the IFS, when we install lift springs is, we loose down-travel, and the up-travel is much stiffer. So it becomes much more difficult to use the available articulation in the supension. On the trail, this has a similar effect to a soft suspension, with a stiff sway-bar, except in the whoops.

[tacollie]

If traction is a simple factor of force/area then wouldn't 1 tire receiving 100% weight = 2 tires receiving 50% weight? So one of the No Swaybar benefits is really an imagined benefit?/QUOTE]

You have to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils. Ground clearnce changes on an IFS truck. Which means you drive accordingly. I would rather sacrifice that and have all four tires on the ground more. With my sway bar off I get better traction and can keep my wheels on the ground a lot more. I also get less body role. My buddy has an FJ60 that is essentially stock except for some aal in the rear. My truck is more stable off road without the sway bar than his 60. With my sway bar on the 60 embarrasses my truck all day long.

[QUOTE]If traction is a simple factor of force/area then wouldn't 1 tire receiving 100% weight = 2 tires receiving 50% weight? So one of the No Swaybar benefits is really an imagined benefit?

This isn't really true. Your back two tires are going to have great traction in that picture while the front two are not doing much. A disconnected sway bar will help with traction a little, but more importantly to me is the vehicle is more stable.

I get better offroad performance in both slow an fast conditions without a sway bar. The only time on road I notice a loss of performance is at 75mph on the interstate. Most my driving is off the interstate so I don't mind the times I do go that fast. I drive accordingly. These are the reasons I took mine off and have not looked back.

[Photog]

These photos were posted earlier, and they show the problem perfectly.
Notice in the front view, the tire is up on a rock; but the body is being forced to lean heavily, and the tire on the rock is not being stuffed into the wheel well.

Then look at the view from the rear. The rear suspension is being forced to do all the work.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p53/bsp3122/queervalleysept107122.jpg http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p53/bsp3122/queervalleysept207125.jpg


The rear is on level ground, and the rock is forcing the right front tire and the body over to the side. This is what wears out the driver. The front suspension is too stiff; either from a swaybar or stiff springs. This suspension is tall; but it is NOT working well, and the driver takes a beating.

[DaveInDenver]

It would be splitting hairs, but I disagree.
It's really a pretty unimportant difference and I would agree that there's probably not much difference on stock trucks. On my truck there is a less clearance under the middle my rear diff than at the middle of the front cross member, but I have torsion lift and that pushes the A-arms down, cross member up. The lower ball joints are way low. But yeah, no matter the configuration, it's splitting hairs since any additional clearance is quickly eaten up as the cross member heads south.

13206


Still, I don't think it's all that important unless rock crawling or similar.
This is definitely true. Even in rock crawling I think people get too worked up over SAS this and that. I've seen guys in very stock trucks do fantastic and having all the right bits and pieces does not guarantee you'll make it cleanly.

[Alphonse]

Good info, thanks guys. You have addressed my concerns and answered my questions thoroughly as expected.

My swaybar is off and is staying that way. My commute is only about 5 miles and in traffic at 60mph tops, and after driving without the swaybar for 2 days I am finding the slight increase in body roll manageable and the ride is actually less harsh as well. (Not that donahoe coilovers are harsh, but you know what I mean.)

From a quick excursion yesterday offroad I also definitely feel the rig is sitting more level on uneven terrain as well.

I think for my rig set up the way it is the tradeoff is well worth it.

[TBranco]

These photos were posted earlier, and they show the problem perfectly.
Notice in the front view, the tire is up on a rock; but the body is being forced to lean heavily, and the tire on the rock is not being stuffed into the wheel well.

Then look at the view from the rear. The rear suspension is being forced to do all the work.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p53/bsp3122/queervalleysept107122.jpg http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p53/bsp3122/queervalleysept207125.jpg


The rear is on level ground, and the rock is forcing the right front tire and the body over to the side. This is what wears out the driver. The front suspension is too stiff; either from a swaybar or stiff springs. This suspension is tall; but it is NOT working well, and the driver takes a beating.

That truck looks familiar! With or without the swaybar, the IFS is still going to be the same. Maybe a little more flex but not much! An LT kit would allow more travel and flex and allow the CV angles to go further! Personally, I'm over my drop bracket kit! No regrets though...it has taken me many places a 3" lift wouldn't have. I left the sway bar on in those pics to keep the CV's from flexing too far since that trail is pretty rocky! I will be doing an SAS and before I cut out the IFS I'm going to test the CV angle without the sway bar. I'm curious now to see how well they hold up!

[Photog]

I must say, that is a nice looking truck.

When discussing IFS & flex, CV joints are always a concern. Most of the lifted IFS trucks don't get all the flex that the CV joints will allow. A sway bar should have no effect on the life of a CV joint; because it does not control suspension travel.

Example: If you drive fast, into a dip, the left and right suspension will rise an fall together, and the swaybar will not be involved. The suspension may go to full compression, and as you come out of the dip, the suspension may go to full extension. If this compression or extension is more than the CVs can take, then something is missing; but it has nothing to do with the swaybar.

If anyone wants to keep their CV joints healthy, they need to have proper suspension travel stops installed; typically limiting straps and/or bump stops.

From the factory, IFS has a fair amount of flexability. Then we install stiffer springs, to get some lift, and much of the flexability goes away. A straight axle will have the same problem, if it has stiff springs. The point is, we need to install springs that add lift, and not a lot more spring rate. We will loose downtravel, but we should still have access to the uptravel.

When flexing on the trail, you want one tire to be able to move up, while the other can move down. This is what a swaybar will prevent, on IFS or straight axle.

[TBranco]

I must say, that is a nice looking truck.

When discussing IFS & flex, CV joints are always a concern. Most of the lifted IFS trucks don't get all the flex that the CV joints will allow. A sway bar should have no effect on the life of a CV joint; because it does not control suspension travel.

Example: If you drive fast, into a dip, the left and right suspension will rise an fall together, and the swaybar will not be involved. The suspension may go to full compression, and as you come out of the dip, the suspension may go to full extension. If this compression or extension is more than the CVs can take, then something is missing; but it has nothing to do with the swaybar.

If anyone wants to keep their CV joints healthy, they need to have proper suspension travel stops installed; typically limiting straps and/or bump stops.

From the factory, IFS has a fair amount of flexability. Then we install stiffer springs, to get some lift, and much of the flexability goes away. A straight axle will have the same problem, if it has stiff springs. The point is, we need to install springs that add lift, and not a lot more spring rate. We will loose downtravel, but we should still have access to the uptravel.

When flexing on the trail, you want one tire to be able to move up, while the other can move down. This is what a swaybar will prevent, on IFS or straight axle.

Great points! This is why I prefer a solid front axle...one tire goes up, and the other is forced down which gives you 4WD instead of just 3. I think a quick disconnect sway bar would be the best way to go. Too bad they dont make them for all 4WD vehicles to begin with!

[ntsqd]

snippage.......

When flexing on the trail, you want one tire to be able to move up, while the other can move down. This is what a swaybar will prevent, on IFS or straight axle.
I think you've hit on the cause. One tire on a live axle influences the other tire. This (& the high unsprung weight) is the root of why LA's classically do not ride as nicely as do IFS'. To the limit of the travel range an IFS truck should be more compliant than a LA truck on any type of surface because the extending tire isn't being interfered with by the compressing tire's spring & vice versa.

Roger Brown's technique of using diagonally opposite car ramps in the driveway is a great way to evaluate the status of a truck's suspension. Which ever 'axle' the body favors (leans with) is the less compliant suspension. If both suspensions are equally compliant then the body will be level to the driveway.
He goes on to use blocks to raise the ramps, thereby increasing the "articulation" all while sitting on flat ground. This is also a great way to check for binding, tire rub, and other potential problems at the travel extremes.


I've previously stated what I think the solution is. A longer, lower rate spring installed with more pre-load. A 200 lbs-in spring installed with 2" of compression carries the same load as a 400 lbs-in spring installed with 1" of compression, only requires a further 200 lbs loading to compress another inch vs. the 400 lbs-in spring needing twice that.

At some point in lowering the spring rate & increasing the free length dynamic stability will be calling for the sway-bar to be re-installed. Any off road resulting harshness of ride means that the swaybar's spring rate is too great for the application. Enter products like Currie's "Anti-Rock."

[Cackalak Han]

I had some quick disconnect sway bar endlinks from www.wabfab.org and they worked great (for my 3rd Gen 4Runner). They are 20 times more stout than the flimsy factory endlinks. I don't see that they have the 4th Gen 4Runner/5th Gen Tacoma endlinks on there, but I'm sure he'd be willing to fab some up. Might be worth looking into.

Broken stock endlinks...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/shinpaul/IMG_0634.jpg

WabFab endlinks on my 4Runner:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/shinpaul/IMG_0660.jpg

When my OEM endlink broke(on the driver's side), I could definitely feel the sway on the road. Left turns vs. right turns really showed how much the sway bar limited body roll. Like others have said, off-road wasn't a dramatic difference, but I believe the benefit was there. Photog makes some great points.

[Photog]

This is SOAZ's 4Runner. It is flexing as well as an IFS can flex. Full stuff & full extension, without making the body lean or lifting a tire. He said it rides much more comfortable off road, than his previous setup.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i190/soaz/4runner/IFSflex-1.jpg

[Alphonse]

This is SOAZ's 4Runner. It is flexing as well as an IFS can flex. Full stuff & full extension, without making the body lean or lifting a tire. He said it rides much more comfortable off road, than his previous setup.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i190/soaz/4runner/IFSflex-1.jpg

That is outstanding! What is the set up on this 4 runner?

[techGary]

The pic above is the true benefit of a non sway bar truck, both sides of the suspension can move without effecting the other side, less sketchy leaning on the trail, more on the road. Search around tons of disconnect setup available and they dont need to be purpose built for the tacoma, just have to fit through the holes and be within an inch in length of the stockers.
Added bonus it looks really cool when you come around an uphill corner by your house, throttle pinned and a front tire 4" off the ground!

[Photog]

That is outstanding! What is the set up on this 4 runner?

He said he reduced the preload on the DR coilover springs, and removed the swaybar. He left in the rear sway bar, to transfer some of the twisting load to the front, and help highway manners.

This thread started asking about swaybars on the latest gen of Tacomas. So far, I do not know of any good quick disconnects for the new Tacoma/4Runners. But; if you have installed some lift springs that are stiffer than stock, you can certainly do without the swaybar.

If one of the spring manufacturers would make a front spring, with the factory spring rate, in a series of extra lengths, we could have the flex we want, the lift we need, and a need for quick disconnects for the swaybar.

[ntsqd]

On the drive to work this morning I got to wondering how the aftermarket spring rate(s) compare in generating the desired undamped 3-5 Hz natural freq in the suspension. I'd have to look up the math, and even then I'm not sure it's something I'd want to tackle, but I'm curious all the same.

[Spikepretorius]

That articulation is blerrie marvelous for an IFS http://emoticons4u.com/fingers/fing02.gif

[slooowr6]

If one of the spring manufacturers would make a front spring, with the factory spring rate, in a series of extra lengths, we could have the flex we want, the lift we need, and a need for quick disconnects for the swaybar.

Can't find info on the OEM spring rate for 05+ tacoma. Anybody has this info?

OME 886 has 660 lb/in
OME 885/884 has 590 lb/in
DR come with 650 lb/in

[Jacket]

IIRC it's around 550 lb (at least that's what my memory tells me)

[Photog]

These are the numbers for the latest generation of 4Runners.

V6: 16mm x 340mm - 7.75 coils - 3.7kg - 580lb/in
V8: 16mm x 345mm - 7.75 coils - 3.7kg - 580lb/in

The V8 coil is 5mm longer than the V6 coil.

OME specs:
Front:
883 - 17mm x 375mm - 10.6 coils - 5.7kg - 590lb/in
884 - 17mm x 385mm - 10.6 coils - 5.7kg - 590lb/in
885 - 17mm x 395mm - 10.6 coils - 5.7kg - 590lb/in
886 - 18mm x 402mm - 12.5 coils - x.xkg - 660lb/in

The 884 gives a 4Runner a 3" lift, but feels quite a bit stiffer.
There are 3 more coils added in, and it is 45mm taller than stock.

[daverami]

Still pondering the sway bar question, thought I would revisit this thread to add a comment/question.

I was looking through some of the completed trips the other day and came across a thread by Lost Canadian, I believe.

He stated that during his trip, a seal blew out on one of his DR coilovers. I was wondering what would be any handling implications, if any, with the sway bar removed? Has a problem like this happened to anyone?

Just curious.

[ntsqd]

I doubt the presence or lack of a sway-bar will have much noticeable effect on handling if a damper were to go bad. Their jobs are inter-related, but separate.