I feel like this is a lot of us right now

[TeocaliMG]

You can bring up Ultra4, or Side by Sides all you wish, but those are completely different beasts in their setups. Ultra4 IFS suspensions have nearly zero in common with any production IFS, except the fact that they are IFS. Hell, their control arms are nearly as big around as the frame on an F-150 (ok, that may be a slight exaggeration, but you get the point). In 99% of use time/cases however, IFS is a better choice for a myriad of reasons. But for the same amount of beefiness (not even costs, just beefiness, same size joints, same thickness axles, same size bearings, etc), the SFA can hold either larger tires, or a more powerful engine, or both at the same time, than an IFS assembly.

I appreciate the input, and I agree, that there is value to be gained using SFA with regard to maximum wheel size for sure! I will say though, that the number of joints is actually not that significantly increased. The control links for an axle have 8 joints (10 if its not triangulated, though that also reduces load), and the knuckle pivots (similar geometry to IFS knuckles afterall) add 4 more. So there's 12 Joints (or 14 if not triangulated), the IFS rig, at least SLA will also have 12, granted the knuckles have to handle another degree of freedom, the inner joints get to lose one degree of freedom. But I grant you that in typical package the loading of the SFA linkages can be straighter, though not in every case (always a but lol). And again I agree that its easier per dollar to make those same joints/linkages tougher on the SFA.

Regarding IFS in Ultra-4 I think the similarity is no more ridonkulous than the SFA counterparts. Stock Wrangler does not have nearly the same size linkages both in length or heft (especially heft) and are also not triangulated. The axle itself which is necessary structure is also severely modified. You can argue that those mods are easier to do to a stock rig, but (again with the but) I think IFS is really not that difficult to swap parts on either. As far as hard points go, I think they can be made very stout in either case.

The harder thing for IFS to do is upgrade driveline and that is purely due to lack of supply. There isn't anything so inherently weak about and IFS diff/axles but right now you cant exactly just grab an upgrade off a bigger truck like you can with SFA.

In short, I think it again boils down to cost. But at the most extreme cases where you are running 40-50" tires SFA is the only way to go. Not because IFS cant but because who is going to jack the cradle down 3 ft just for tires lol.

Sponsored

 

[JimmyDean]

I appreciate the input, and I agree, that there is value to be gained using SFA with regard to maximum wheel size for sure! I will say though, that the number of joints is actually not that significantly increased. The control links for an axle have 8 joints (10 if its not triangulated, though that also reduces load), and the knuckle pivots (similar geometry to IFS knuckles afterall) add 4 more. So there's 12 Joints (or 14 if not triangulated), the IFS rig, at least SLA will also have 12, granted the knuckles have to handle another degree of freedom, the inner joints get to lose one degree of freedom. But I grant you that in typical package the loading of the SFA linkages can be straighter, though not in every case (always a but lol). And again I agree that its easier per dollar to make those same joints/linkages tougher on the SFA.

Regarding IFS in Ultra-4 I think the similarity is no more ridonkulous than the SFA counterparts. Stock Wrangler does not have nearly the same size linkages both in length or heft (especially heft) and are also not triangulated. The axle itself which is necessary structure is also severely modified. You can argue that those mods are easier to do to a stock rig, but (again with the but) I think IFS is really not that difficult to swap parts on either. As far as hard points go, I think they can be made very stout in either case.

The harder thing for IFS to do is upgrade driveline and that is purely due to lack of supply. There isn't anything so inherently weak about and IFS diff/axles but right now you cant exactly just grab an upgrade off a bigger truck like you can with SFA.

In short, I think it again boils down to cost. But at the most extreme cases where you are running 40-50" tires SFA is the only way to go. Not because IFS cant but because who is going to jack the cradle down 3 ft just for tires lol.

When I said joints I was talking more along the lines of CV joints or U-joints, which an IFS will have 2-4 more than a solid axle.

 

[TeocaliMG]

When I said joints I was talking more along the lines of CV joints or U-joints, which an IFS will have 2-4 more than a solid axle.

Ah yes, if we're talking about the front that's 2 more. My dream rig would have portal hubs anyway. Bollinger is building some fairly stout portals for their overpriced EV. They will handle a ton of torque and I would love to snag a pair. Of course then I need to match my rear end, but that's worth the work IMO

 

[JimmyDean]

Ah yes, if we're talking about the front that's 2 more. My dream rig would have portal hubs anyway. Bollinger is building some really stout portals for their overpriced EV. They will handle a ton of torque and I would love to snag a pair. Of course then I need to match my rear end, but that's worth the work IMO

Portals would be nice, especially for something like an EB or Wrangler rig, running a fairly stock motor at least. My 82 I've never seen portals that would be able to hold up to that motor however. I am likely putting 1-tons under that truck if someone would be nice enough to T-bone my F-250, but likely I'll need to go 2.5s eventually. With the 513ci. I think I'll be limited to 44s on 1 tons, but I'd really like 54s on that truck, which would likely need those 2.5 rockwells, and that's a pretty penny that I'm not willing to spend yet.

 

[Cybrrstarr]

Hey don't be making fun of my 57 Ford tractor and the axle being bolted onto the engine.

Teo, I agree with a lot of what you say, and respect the knowledge you have about this program and certain experiences.

However, (there's always a however, or a but, or a butt), size for size (not pound for pound) the solid axle is physically stronger than the IFS, the simple reason is the lower number of joints, and the straight angles. Those two things are what weakens and axle. For certain uses, that extra strength is very important, more important than the plethora of benefits of IFS, namely, in Rock Crawling, Mudding, extreme towing, and fording in your Ford (Ha, Ha, Ha, I made a joke, and SFA isn't all that important for fording anyways). For these uses, the loss of camber when flexing is not nearly as important as being able to increase to the absolute maximum tire size. These are also generally not high speed activities so the unsprung mass increases if the SFA are generally acceptable.

You can bring up Ultra4, or Side by Sides all you wish, but those are completely different beasts in their setups. Ultra4 IFS suspensions have nearly zero in common with any production IFS, except the fact that they are IFS. Hell, their control arms are nearly as big around as the frame on an F-150 (ok, that may be a slight exaggeration, but you get the point). In 99% of use time/cases however, IFS is a better choice for a myriad of reasons. But for the same amount of beefiness (not even costs, just beefiness, same size joints, same thickness axles, same size bearings, etc), the SFA can hold either larger tires, or a more powerful engine, or both at the same time, than an IFS assembly.

now this guy know what he’s talking about.

let’s be serious, Ford isn’t building an Ultra 4 vehicle. By looking at the current “R” version of the Bronco, how wide do you think the arms are on it? Wms of the axle (width) looks like it’s over 80 inches. Yes it has longer arms but try fitting it though tight areas.

it’s a give and take with IFS. You can get the articulation but the length of the arms would have to be the compromise. And unless they have a really compact engine, the center front differential will be the issue on how narrow they can make the center cradle.

I really wish ford luck if they can reinvent the IFS that is the “Norm” on Mass Production vehicle.

 

[TeocaliMG]

Jimmy Dean it sounds like you have a pretty sick rig, I think there is a good representation of hardcore guys here, certainly more than the general market. and that's a good thing! I am not one of those guys to simply dismiss an architecture on that alone, I think we all agree that Bronco needs to be more capable than the vast majority of its buyers will ever use.

I want to point out that I have some big plans for the Bronco, and as much as I defend aspects of either IFS or SFA, I am eventually gutting everything. I want to build a long travel, IFS/IRS rig stout enough for the rocks and swift enough for the desert. There is no way that Ford could remotely accommodate my end goal, which is a do all rig, literally do everything and do it well. Sure I will enjoy a few years with light mods to the Bronco, like tires and maybe a lift. But it wont be long before I am using it simply for the retro styling, modern interior and most importantly the VIN to allow my homemade KOH/Madmax hybrid death machine to be street legal. I say this to point out that you guys are not alone in wanting to go all out. And at least in my case there is no OEM in existence that can do anything for me but offer the donor body and VIN that I need. It will also be a Bronco "pickup" too, custom body or not. With 39's, 20+ inches of travel and portals I'm not worried about the break over. Oh and my favorite part, a built diesel powertrain, like really built. mid engine, with coolers in the front, and over 200 bar PCP. (By the time I finish there will probably be a regulation that doesn't let me insure it as a Bronco despite the VIN, but here's to hoping)

Also yes, I realize my "truck bed" will only be half useful with the mid engine set up, but hey, I save some space in the front behind the coolers.

 

[OX1]

Portals would be nice, especially for something like an EB or Wrangler rig, running a fairly stock motor at least. My 82 I've never seen portals that would be able to hold up to that motor however.

406's were designed for a 12000 lb GVWR Unimog and rated 4 ton. Not sure what is all in your motor, but
those might have a good shot. My plan on a 74 bronc I was building was full 406 axles, but I do also have
9" housings with 406, C's and kingpins ready to use. Anyway, this is 406's compared to 404 boxes
(I think 404's were rated right around Rockwells). 406 is a bit better for road usage too,overall gear
being 6.50 (vs 7.56 for 404's)

A full front was not nearly as bad weight wise as I thought. (add 53 lbs for only having one
hub and brake rotor on). Still not ridiculous compared to a heavy housing 60.

 

[JimmyDean]

Jimmy Dean it sounds like you have a pretty sick rig, I think there is a good representation of hardcore guys here, certainly more than the general market. and that's a good thing! I am not one of those guys to simply dismiss an architecture on that alone, I think we all agree that Bronco needs to be more capable than the vast majority of its buyers will ever use.

I want to point out that I have some big plans for the Bronco, and as much as I defend aspects of either IFS or SFA, I am eventually gutting everything. I want to build a long travel, IFS/IRS rig stout enough for the rocks and swift enough for the desert. There is no way that Ford could remotely accommodate my end goal, which is a do all rig, literally do everything and do it well. Sure I will enjoy a few years with light mods to the Bronco, like tires and maybe a lift. But it wont be long before I am using it simply for the retro styling, modern interior and most importantly the VIN to allow my homemade KOH/Madmax hybrid death machine to be street legal. I say this to point out that you guys are not alone in wanting to go all out. And at least in my case there is no OEM in existence that can do anything for me but offer the donor body and VIN that I need. It will also be a Bronco "pickup" too, custom body or not. With 39's, 20+ inches of travel and portals I'm not worried about the break over. Oh and my favorite part, a built diesel powertrain, like really built. mid engine, with coolers in the front, and over 200 bar PCP. (By the time I finish there will probably be a regulation that doesn't let me insure it as a Bronco despite the VIN, but here's to hoping)

Yes, if you go to the extremes, or even remotely close, there is very little that the manufacturers can do that will remain. Body and frame is about it. drivetrain, suspension, all that will need major work. Even jeep, if you are going big, you swap axles, and at that point even if it came with IFS it would make little difference for the most part.

It sounds like that you are going to be wanting to essentially put an Ultra4 IFS under your rig, which could go awesome if done right, and I hope we all get to see that in a few years from you.

My rig isn't awesome. It is broke. Because I can't afford the axle swap it needs. So it has been sitting for a couple of years now, so long I may have to pull the engine apart.

 

[OX1]

. With 39's, 20+ inches of travel and portals I

I'm leaning more and more towards a wrecked rig and using a different chassis also.
I'd be interested to see how portals hold up to high speed pounding.

 

[JimmyDean]

406's were designed for a 12000 lb GVWR Unimog and rated 4 ton. Not sure what is all in your motor, but
those might have a good shot. My plan on a 74 bronc I was building was full 406 axles, but I do also have
9" housings with 406, C's and kingpins ready to use. Anyway, this is 406's compared to 404 boxes
(I think 404's were rated right around Rockwells). 406 is a bit better for road usage too,overall gear
being 6.50 (vs 7.56 for 404's)

A full front was not nearly as bad weight wise as I thought. (add 53 lbs for only having one
hub and brake rotor on). Still not ridiculous compared to a heavy housing 60.

My 82 has a 460 bored/stroked to 513, 11.5:1 comp, and built heads. she should be pushing the 550hp and 600+tq realm as she sits with all of the lightened internals to reduce rotating weight.

https://www.460ford.com/forum/40-en...3-460-horsepower-chart-revised-1-24-09-a.html

 

[TeocaliMG]

I'm leaning more and more towards a wrecked rig and using a different chassis also.
I'd be interested to see how portals hold up to high speed pounding.

Yes, it will not be easy. Also I have a clever idea for the IFS/IRS that lets it get a lot more "twist" for given travel but Ford gets first dibs on the patent (which I still have to write a disclosure) even though there is practically zero OEM application for this.

Also, one of my favorite quotes from Henry Ford, "Whereever you see a bolt, perhaps two things should be one" Apply this with some of the advancements in additive manufacturing and compliant mechanisms and you can come up with some really cool stuff that is lighter, stiffer, and way more robust over time.

 

[JimmyDean]

Yes, it will not be easy. Also I have a clever idea for the IFS/IRS that lets it get a lot more "twist" for given travel but Ford gets first dibs on the patent (which I still have to write a disclosure) even though there is practically zero OEM application for this.

Also, one of my favorite quotes from Henry Ford, "Whereever you see a bolt, perhaps two things should be one" Apply this with some of the advancements in additive manufacturing and compliant mechanisms and you can come up with some really cool stuff that is lighter, stiffer, and way more robust over time.

it is unfortunate that we are now at this point with additive manufacturing while the IC engine is on it's way out within the next couple of decades. Additive manufacturing provides so many possibilities in things like engine design but it would be nearly pointless to pursue those things now.

 

[Carolina Jim]

.

while the IC engine is on it's way out within the next couple of decades

As I recall we were supposed to be flying to work on personal jetpacks by now. Like the old quote, "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"... the will for alternative energy exists, but the arithmetic isn't anywhere close. With the unfortunate juxtaposition of energy/climate + politics, it's pretty difficult to know what's what - much less what WILL BE

 

[OX1]

it is unfortunate that we are now at this point with additive manufacturing while the IC engine is on it's way out within the next couple of decades. Additive manufacturing provides so many possibilities in things like engine design but it would be nearly pointless to pursue those things now.

IC not dead quite yet. Bloomberg estimate of 50% electric car sales, not until 2039.
Add to that average life expectancy in US of 15.36 years, IC going to be around along time yet.

https://www.thestar.com/autos/opini...y-a-testament-to-research-and-technology.html

 

[JimmyDean]

IC not dead quite yet. Bloomberg estimate of 50% electric car sales, not until 2039.
Add to that average life expectancy in US of 15.36 years, IC going to be around along time yet.

https://www.thestar.com/autos/opini...y-a-testament-to-research-and-technology.html

yeah, I should have said a few, likely 50 years or so, and some ICE's will always be around, classics, certain work vehicles, etc. but I could see the majority of new, residential vehicles sales being electric within about 20-30 years.

Sponsored