Independent rear suspension pros/cons??

FIVEPOINTSEVEN · #1 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 01:26 AM

With all the issues of bed bounce that all of us have on a daily basis and people wanting a better ride on the highway as well as off road why didn't Toyota just go with an independent suspension setup in the rear? Seems like that might help the ride a lot and also probably eliminate "bed bounce"...It has been proven to work in many heavy duty applications including the H1 Hummer and it looks like the new Dodge Ram will have the independent rear suspension and Toyota is also using the independent rear suspension on the new Sequoia and other models...The Sequoia also has our 5.7 and tows 9100lbs which aint too bad for a 6000lb SUV. So whats the deal with independent rear suspension?? Why do you guys/girls suspect Toyota didn't use it for the Tundra when it looks like it could have eliminated several of the issues some of us have with our Tundras...? Have a good one.

mike202 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 01:46 AM

[quote=the new Dodge Ram will have the independent rear suspension [/quote]

The new Ram has coils springs, but still has a solid axle (nothing new, both Ford & Chevy has coils on p/u's in the 60's).

The biggest reason for not doing a IRS on a pick-up is cost. The parts count is up there, with driveshafts, control arms, etc. Also there is more mass. On SUV's, consumers are willing to pay for this, and to be competitive, you need IRS (they just about all have them now). But in a p/u truck market, it is hard to justify the cost, and even in the 21st century, pu's seem to be getting by just fine with solid axles.

Another issue is mantaining wheel alignment goemetry. The large difference of unloaded vs. loaded ride height is dificult to design for with an IRS. This is less of an issue with an SUV, as the GAWR (gross axle weight rating) is less. You can optimize the design for one extreme or the other, but it is difficult to have a design the works well for the entire spectrum.

PA 4WD · #3 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 02:39 AM

I'd love to see an independent rear suspension, coupled with a great AWD system that includes a real limited slip rear differential, and a center limited slip differential. I know that most truck buyers wouldn't be interested, but some of us would be. Maybe it could be an optional package for a Sport Tundra...

fire_mike · #4 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 02:58 AM

I think the only off road vehicle I'd drive with independant suspension is the origional Hummer. Those things kick *** off road.

YukonTundra · #5 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 03:09 AM

The best off road rigs really tend to be solid axle front and rear. The Austrailian market land cruisers can come that way, and having spent a year with one down there driving it off road, its a better off road rig than anything stock in north america. Its a harder setup to break and its simple to build and fix.

Hummers are not bad off road, but they are not the be all end all either. They are chain driven to my knowledge and that fact can be a real pain in the *** for maintenance and durability.

I think that the dodges may end up having an excellent ride with coils, I think leaf springs are just the standard because of cost and simplicity. As far as wanting the tundra with IRS like a sequoia, count me out, toyota is on record saying its not an off road vehicle, IRS hurts its trailability, not something I want with my truck, If I could have gotten a solid front axle in my tundra i would have, ride quality is not a top priority for me.

asianflava · #6 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 06:40 AM

From what I've heard/read IRS doesn't have the payload capacity as a straight axle. Probably why the Tundra has more payload capacity than the Sequoia. Does anyone know the GCWR for the Sequoia?

FIVEPOINTSEVEN · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asianflava

From what I've heard/read IRS doesn't have the payload capacity as a straight axle. Probably why the Tundra has more payload capacity than the Sequoia. Does anyone know the GCWR for the Sequoia?

Toyota website says 7300lbs for the new Sequoia. So thats basically 1300lbs over the 6000lb curb weight....Not too bad for a big SUV IMO.

I hear what you guys are saying though. I understand front and rear solid axles are the best hands down for serious offroading...Jeeps have them, many trucks have them, etc. It also makes sense that solid rear axle keeps costs and maintenance down. I like what PA 4WD said about having an optional independent rear for a sport tundra...An RCSB 5.7 with independent front and rear would be pretty fun to drive.

ttman · #8 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 03:13 PM

a solid axle is also stronger than IRS setup.

jacksprat · #9 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 03:20 PM

$$$$$$$$...is the average consumer willing to pay more? how much more? those are the considerations the tundra design team had to account for

Sequoia2003 · #10 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 04:58 PM

IFS is for city people who do trips to Yosemite Park for a weekend camping trips.

Solid Axles is for us hard core folks. There is already a few folks out there who have upgraded their craptastic IFS to Solid Axle. I love my Solid Front axle in my Dodge and would have paid up to $2k to have it in my Toyota. But since 90% of the people out there use their 4x4 for getting groceries and taking the kids to soccer games they use IFS for comfort.

I wish Toyota built a TRD Moab Edition Tundra with the following...

Solid Front and Rear Axles with optional Locking Diffs
4 inch lift, Blistein shocks
33x12.5x18 Mud Terrain Tires
Snorkel Kit - Optional
Warn 12k lb Winch - Optional
Optima Battery
PIAA lights

Now if Toyota built a Tundra like that I would have bought one today!!!

TUNDRA786 · #11 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sequoia2003

IFS is for city people who do trips to Yosemite Park for a weekend camping trips.

Solid Axles is for us hard core folks. There is already a few folks out there who have upgraded their craptastic IFS to Solid Axle. I love my Solid Front axle in my Dodge and would have paid up to $2k to have it in my Toyota. But since 90% of the people out there use their 4x4 for getting groceries and taking the kids to soccer games they use IFS for comfort.

I wish Toyota built a TRD Moab Edition Tundra with the following...

Solid Front and Rear Axles with optional Locking Diffs
4 inch lift, Blistein shocks
33x12.5x18 Mud Terrain Tires
Snorkel Kit - Optional
Warn 12k lb Winch - Optional
Optima Battery
PIAA lights

Now if Toyota built a Tundra like that I would have bought one today!!!

I would have bought that without thinking twice. I wouldnt need the snorkel though b/c the hell if im taking a 40k truck in deep water.

Sequoia2003 · #12 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUNDRA786

I would have bought that without thinking twice. I wouldnt need the snorkel though b/c the hell if im taking a 40k truck in deep water.

Yeah me either!!!

I was on a 4x4 run here in Washington State outside Tahuya ORV Guide and there was a guy in a 2006 Toyota Land Cruiser with a 3inch lift, ARB Bumpers, Lockers front and rear wheeling the $hit out of his rig. Some guys in a Jeep asked him why he would take a $60k rig in the woods and pound the crap out of it. He replied, "It's a 4x4 and this is what's designed to do". It's also his only transportation and is his daily driver. Dude has balls!!!