Possible to do a SAS without much of a lift?

Is it possible to do a sas with not much of a lift? Like how the Jeep Rubicons and 80 series Landcruisers come from the factory? Or maybe 2-3 inches of lift run 33" inch tires without a huge gap in the fenders? I've read through several threads in this section and the consensus is that the solid axle is more reliable, why not have a solid axle in an overland build for extra reliability in remote areas. A vast majority of the builds in this section are sas that seem lifted sky high and running 35,37 or 40 plus inch tires. I'm not into a hard core rock crawler but I would like to have the reliability of a solid axle in case I may run into some rough stuff here and there or to have it in case of a shit hit the fan scenario and there is a need to go where not everyone can go. I'd like to be able to daily drive and be able to hit 80 mph smooth and straight. I would also like to be able to retain 16-19 mpg is this too tall of an order for a first gen taco? How are the Jeep Rubicon's and Toyota Landcruisers able to accomplish this feet with a solid front axle? I'd like to have the same but in a pickup platform preferably a Tacoma.

 

Everything you described can be done....not sure about the MPG though. There's a guy here that did a SAS on 33"s. His ride is super low.

Personally...I really don't understand why people would go through the expense and headache of a SAS when they are not into hard core wheeling or some sort of rock crawling. It is such an expensive and time consuming modification; meant for serious off road use.

For moderate wheeling....just keep the IFS, install front/rear lockers and get good armor all around. That alone will take you most places.

 

X2

 

I agree its best served in this circumstance to keep the ifs. However to play devils advocate I could ask the similar question of if you wanted to have a hard core rock crawler why would you do an expensive mod like this to a 20-40k dollar Tacoma and render it to being pulled on a trailer for the weekends? If I wanted to build a hard core rock crawler I would just make a buggy or use a mini truck or a jeep.

The advantage of a sas in a Tacoma in my eyes would be to have a rig that could do it all, maybe not the best at any one thing but pretty good at several things. To have a truck that you could drive to any 4wheeling spot in America have fun and drive back home. To be able to cruise at 70-75 mph and be comfortable for the ride to and from.

Another thing to consider is if one is looking at rebuilding their entire ifs front end anyways with oem and quality parts between a steering rack, upper and lower control arms, lower ball joints inner and outer tie end rods, wheel bearings, big brake upgrade, coilovers, cv axles etc you are looking at 5-10k anyway. Why not spend a bit more for a more capable option? They build Jeeps and Landcruisers straight from the factory with solid axles and 90+% of them are not hard core rock crawlers lifted on 37-40's there must be a reason?

 

Many guys have done a SAS on expensive Tacomas that are NOT pulled on trailers. In fact, most are dual-purpose rigs. Hard core wheeling or even rock crawling does not mean you have a trail-only rig.

Are you confusing things with building a long travel suspension? It doesn't take 10K to rebuild an IFS, LOL!

A jeep in factory form with a straight axle is not any stronger than a tacoma in factory form with IFS; and it doesn't have that much more wheel travel either. The land cruiser, on the other hand, yea that's bad ass reliable and capable

Point is that a straight axle in itself does not automatically mean anything.

To each his own really. Nothing wrong with starting a project just for the heck of it. Some guys just to a SAS for the fun of having a project, and that alone is enough to satisfy them...even if they never end up wheeling the rig hard after the SAS.

 

Keep it IFS. However if you go to rock solid toys and look up the build "my pos v2.0" i think it is by azrockbum, he did a 3link on 33s on a 1st gen taco that sat the same height as an ifs truck.

 

I'm currently putting SAS 3-1/3" Lift on my $25,000 2nd Gen Daily Driver

 

The toyota IFS is very reliable with a 33inch tire with a good amount of wheel travel and clearance. You would not be gaining much going with a SAS and for it to preform better then the IFS you would need to be on links and that adds to the cost and complexity of they suspension. Just putting it out there this year the top 3 vehicles at the king of the hammers were IFS cars with a solid axle car in 4th. I don't see a solid axle rig being more reliable then a IFS rig just because its a solid axle you just have different parts that will fail

 

My camry and an f1 car both having independent suspension is the same comparison as a tacoma IFS to a ultra 4 car.

 

That comparison is so off the mark! Have you actually seen an IFS ultra 4 car up close? they use 1 ton parts to build a custom IFS. That should give you and idea

LOL exactly!

 

Thanks for the reference I just checked it out and it's pretty sick however as others have mentioned probably not worth the money unless I had money just to spend money.

 

Cool, I'd like to see some pics when you are done!

 

Hopefully first wave of pics will be posted on my Signature page soon

 

eagerly waiting to see that cantilevel setup. I have only seen one tacoma with it so far - though I suspect there are others. It is a really complex suspension; with links in the rear that is.

 

You and me both..haha The purpose for the cantilever is no Bed cage and no worries about rubbing shock/hoops. Some might say its over kill but I've always wanted this setup on my taco

 

You can't. Honestly most 80 series get around 13 mpg stock, it's a pig of a truck. TJ/JK guys don't do any better either once you are on a bigger tire. Had a TJ on 33's for a while and it only ever would get 15 on a good day.

Honestly...(shit shield up) a mini is probably better for what most are doing when you get into solid axle swaps on second gen's that get towed around. Second gen Tacos are worth a ton and they are expensive to build.

You can typically find a 2wd, straight, mini for $1000 or so and build it with whatever parts you want. Even first gen Tacoma's can be had for pretty cheap now too if you are near a bigger city.

I get the wanting a newer truck for a crawler on a convenience side of things. You aren't worring about basic mechanical components (HG, trans, etc), modern amenities (A/C kicks ass), and they make a ton more power for driving down the road. Just depends on what you value.


TLDR: Keep your truck IFS until you start breaking it the way you wheel now.

 

I posted first wave of pictures Let me know your thoughts as I have been on your truck for some time now..

 

When I finished mine, I was at 22 in frame height on 35s and leaf springs all around. Had about 2.5-3in of up travel. Now I'm around 24 in so I drag the belly less.

 

I think I posted some comments on your build thread. It looks really good! I will be following the development of your rear suspension set up.

That's why this whole idea of "SAS low-riders" has been taken out of proportion far too much. A rig that is too low will present other issues like what those you described.

Obviously, the opposite situation [a rig too tall] will present other issues as well.

Generally speaking, I think you want the rig lower if you have very narrow axles. Not as big of a deal with wider axles.

 

There was nothing wrong with the 22 in frame height. Wheeled great, made it thriugh the rubicon and many local trails. Slapped a 1/4 in skid on it and never worried about it. Just wanted a little height for more uptravel and some other small stuff.

Don't really ever see myself linking this truck, the real flexes great as well as the front. It's no longer my dd so don't really care how it rides but it's decent. Pretty funny when I show up on 35s and leafs. Most people think you need tons and 40s to do "hard" trails but I have yet to find anything I can't do. 37s would help but just makes it more fun on smaller tires and keeps it interesting.