Re: IFS vs.live axle

From: Cale Henry Bargen (vencomatic@ameritech.net)
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 15:38:24 EST


Sorry for the terminology confusion Chris, just hammering on the
independant vs. solid axle design - you win the acronym game today.
Cale

Chris Lang wrote:
>
> Am I confused here or does IFS stand for Independent Front Suspension?? How
> could you have IFS all the way around? Wouldn't it be IFS in the front and
> IRS in the back???
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cale Henry Bargen <vencomatic@ameritech.net>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: DML: IFS vs.live axle
>
> > All right - I'm jumping into this one head-first. If IFS is the best,
> > why do the desert racers continue to run live axles on their 36" travel
> > rear suspensions? I'm a personal advocate of IFS all the way around,
> > but this clinging to live axles on these off-roaders perplexes me.
> > Anyone - please throw in their $0.02!
> >
> > Cale
> > 98cc318sporty, no longer scarred
> >
> >
> > NVMYDakota@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 12/9/99 11:24:00 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> > > ZeNel1eac1@aol.com writes:
> > >
> > > > > These trucks can take a hill straight on at a 72%
> > > > > grade, and are basically the 4 wheeler from hell. You want to
> talk
> > > about
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > > better suspensions ... my vote is on the IFS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron
> > > > > USAF
> > > >
> > > > Yeah as long as the hill is 8 feet wide....
> > > >
> > > > >>Hummers.. HMVVs whatever you wanna call em
> >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:50 EST