Running I.F.S.

[82 HiLux]

that IFS 4runner is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!! HOLY CRAP THATS SOME GOOD IFS

[Snowtoy]

Now that's impressive, not as wide as the other one... what sort of CV's would that truck be running?

The CV's used were a hybrid of Toyota and Porsche, using Toyota outer and the Lubro CV joint as the inner and chrome alloy axles.  There was also an adapter plate used top mount the new inner to the Toyota flange.

[eMOJO]

Do you know if they upgraded the inner stub axles that locates in the diff or were these stock toyota ones? Just wonering because that's where mine failed...

[Rocksurfer]

Most of the time it is the short inner shaft that breaks not the outers, it has no twist or flex. I've never had an issue with the CV's.

[94MtnYote]

the shafts are designed to give in before the cv's

[Snowtoy]

Do you know if they upgraded the inner stub axles that locates in the diff or were these stock toyota ones? Just wonering because that's where mine failed...

No, the diff. axles were left oem as well as the outer(hub shaft), only the center was changed to chromolly one, since it is designed to slide in and out of the Lubro CV.  The lower A-arm ended up failing on the second owner of the lift, and like the first he too went to an SAS.

I have never bothered getting under a T100, I just assumed they used all of the 1st gen IFS, but seeing how Fabtech uses the longer T100 CV's, I am now curious if the T100 A-arms would bolt up in place of the mini.  If they did, you could have a long travel set-up(longer than oem) pretty cheap, and through the T100 rear under for matching track width.

[beyondlogic]

i was told the drivetrain was the same on the pickup and the t100.  i just assumed that the CVs were longer cause the front diff housing was narrower.

[Snowtoy]

After posting I started thinking about it more and had Toyota made longer A-arms for the T-100, the swap would have likely already been done.  Also it does seem like the cheapest route would have been to make the CV's longer than widening the axles off of the front diff., or running the same width frame and making longer A-arms to go w/the longer CV's.

[beyondlogic]

anyone have a t100 handy?  if so measure the front width of the frame and the a-arms, then post the numbers so we can answer this question.

[Rocksurfer]

I would think that if Toyota in their infinite wisdom to make a whole lot of parts interchangeable if they put mini parts straight across to the T100 they would have a wider frame and just attached the mini 4x4 framing to it. on the actual axle they may have done it several ways, a longer shaft on the short inner, longer CV's or maybe just some sort of spacer. I've never inspected a 4x4 T100 to see what they did.

[94MtnYote]

probably easier for engineers to make a whole new design rather than adapt older technology to it.

[Rocksurfer]

Not if there is no change in the suspension, as an example of not much change my 1st. gen IFS truck ran from 86 through 88 with very little change if any, I have swapped in IFS oem and aftermarket parts with no trouble. the next run was the same until they went to the Tacoma coil sprung rack and pinion where there were major changes. Even the second generation of IFS was interchangeable with the 1st generation for the most part until the Taco. Currently my 86 has 91 upper A-arms that I recently rebuilt and put on my truck.

[Snowtoy]

IIRC, the A-arm IFS is the same on all mini and 4-runners from 86-95(Non Tacoma's).

It is likely Toyota used the first gen IFS on the T100, and only lengthened the CV's, everything else could have been left the same to keep costs down. 

[94MtnYote]

Not if there is no change in the suspension, as an example of not much change my 1st. gen IFS truck ran from 86 through 88 with very little change if any, I have swapped in IFS oem and aftermarket parts with no trouble. the next run was the same until they went to the Tacoma coil sprung rack and pinion where there were major changes. Even the second generation of IFS was interchangeable with the 1st generation for the most part until the Taco. Currently my 86 has 91 upper A-arms that I recently rebuilt and put on my truck.

IIRC, the A-arm IFS is the same on all mini and 4-runners from 86-95(Non Tacoma's).

Yes this is common knowledge for anyone that like s yotas, also the frames were virtually the same for 86-95 p/u's and runners

However adding mini truck suspension to a T-100 frame does not seem  worth the trouble, if it was, Toyota would have done it

[93tonkatoy]

The only difference between the pickup and the t-100 was that it was wider. There was not any problem with the suspension design of the mini, nor with it's load carrying capacity. The T-100 was still rated as a 1/2 ton pickup, just that it was a mid-sized package (fit 3 adults across - Toyota's attempt to compete with the Dakota and similar trucks). The interior design was the same as the mini's, just wider. The body design was the same, as was the choices of engines (which should have been changed).

However adding mini truck suspension to a T-100 frame does not seem  worth the trouble, if it was, Toyota would have done it

So, what would be the trouble? Because I do believe they did exactly that. It is far more cost effective to use parts that are already in production, than to have to re-tool a plant to make a re-designed part.

[beyondlogic]

so what everyone is saying is that the frame is wider which made the cvs wider but that is the only difference.

[beyondlogic]

# 79-85 front axle~ 55.5", rear axle~ 55"
# '86-95 front IFS~ 59", rear axle~ 58.5"
# Tacoma 4x4, '96-up 4runner front IFS~ , rear axle- 60"
# T100 front IFS~ 65", rear axle~ 66.75"
# Tundra front/rear~ ??
# '90-97 Landcruiser FJ-80/FZJ-80 front axle~ 63.5"