If I was to try and convert an IFS Bronco to SFA I would use wat is already available to me That would make most people happy and would not be a huge expense in R&D.I like where you're headed with this. Tell me more about how one would do the swap.
Been a while since I visited this, good to see we have a dedicated thread!
Anyway, for any new guys who are remotely interested in the discussion (old timers too I guess) The next time the glories of SFA come to mind, or the woes of IFS I want you to think about why, exactly why, and if you can put it into words, try it here. I will make no claim that a typical IFS (in stock form) will out perform SFA (in stock form) in HARDCORE rock crawling. My claim is that IFS (yes even a stock offering) can be made way more competent off-road than it is given credit for, and yes I am not talking about high speed desert running where the results are obvious. Regardless of what we get with the Bronco, SFA, IFS, or both, this is true.
So with that said, why is SFA absolutely mandatory to you guys? I don't mean that rhetorically, I mean specifically, what technical reason exists that requires this? I know there are some, but I want to hear you say them, think through it, there may not be as many as you think. That is what I am trying to gauge here. There is no way that IFS can be the cost efficient solution for everyone (meaning 100%) but my guess is we disagree on whether the opportunity lost is 25% or less than 5% or maybe less than 1%
Something I would like you guys to consider: If your vision for your Bronco is tires significantly bigger than 37", those puppies better be on some serious axles, and those axles better be pinned down by some serious joints, links, mounts. You get the picture. When you think of your dream Bronco vs your Dream Jeep, what even is stock anymore? -I bet you the answer is a lot closer than you might think, and whatever stock remains, the Bronco will have no issue delivering on.
Also for those who would like to entertain a conversion anyway, I have an interesting idea about a pseudo SFA conversion which would let you keep a ton of stock IFS architecture (ironic I know)
To add, all suspension travels are limited by the length of the arms (on all suspensions) and driveshaft angles on solid axles and CV angles on IFS. on IFS, the arms are from center out, which means that the arms can be no more than less than half the width of the vehicle in a perfect setup. Youcannot achieve a perfect setup on a street vehicle as it has frame rails which are going to be 2' - 3' apart. that is also space taken up the arms can't be longer than. So, on a narrow frame vehicle, with 72" width, you are looking at arms that can be no more than 16" or so in length. this gives a travel range of around 10" when you run the angles. There is zero possibility to increase this travel/articulation any. Maybe you can squeeze it up to 12" or so. Most factory setups are going to be running A-arms closer to 10-12" because the frame rails are further apart for crash safety reasons, limiting travel more.I saw this at work today and had to wait till I got home to tackle it, but I want to first say, this is not easy to do without typing a mile long explanation and I tend to get off track explaining my perspective (why I see it the way I do). so bear with me and I will give a try. This is all just my opinion and comes from me doing dumb stuff when I young, dumb, and full of cum. No college grad, just a simple guy who loved fast cars and off-roading. Drag racing will teach one a lot about how a suspension reacts to power input and traction. Had a guy tell me one time that Detroit lockers were junk because he had one in his CJ and when confronted on a gravel road with a driver in his lane he ended up over the bank. But I enlightened him on what happens when you "snap on" or "snap off" the gas when having a "locker" in the rear vs. having a limited slip. but here again that is for another day. As I have stated before I will buy a Bronco IFS or SFA just because I'm a Ford guy who bleeds Ford blue and it is cooler than my Explorer and more capable. The question for me is will it have a SFA as an option. Another point is that one always has to consider Murphy's Law and physics when looking at this they have an effect that is hard to explain.
the following is in not particular order and not defined by stock vs. modified juts general statements.( we can get specific later)
Basic design, inexpensive/easily lifted or modified/upgraded
Better turning radius due to A-arms not being in the way and not to mention that U-joint tech has raised the bar by creating a new u-joint that has increased the turning radius by 3 degrees.
more articulation …… this is difficult to explain by typing, the motion of one side affects the other side this doesn't happen in the same manor as with IFS. Yes I know both wheels are still connected by the diff but one moves independent(IFS) and one moves because the other one is telling it to(SFA). It is like a giant lever.( my drawing elsewhere in this forum does a good job at showing what I mean)
eh, you highlighted t he key and most important points tbh. My background is engineering, so I tend to go too far in depth of things like this.AWESOME points,you are better at this than I am !
I posted this before I was done to see if it looked right on the screen so I added some from when you saw it first. HAHA sorry I'm not computer savvy and I didn't want it to look like shit !!
eh, you highlighted t he key and most important points tbh. My background is engineering, so I tend to go too far in depth of things like this.
I DO NOT want anyone to think I do not like IFS, or think that I think IFS is incapable. It is simply that each is better it certain enviroments, and the (imho) enviroment that the Bronco is designed for, SFA is the better option. heavy trail use and mud and large tires. SFA is also good in heavy duty service, ala heavy towing. anything over about 10 mph outside of mud and heavy payloads and towing, IFS is the better choice most of the time.