Improving Front Suspension Travel (1 Viewer)

[GTV]

I admit, I lurk in the 200 section. A fair amount of their mods are applicable to the 100 series but this thread got me thinking.

Long Travel AHC

Probably no surprise, but I've been a big proponent oh AHC. Damping always dialed in regardless of load. Large fluid volumes and remote accumulator damper that stays cool with extended off-road travels. Actively pressurized for long term performance and durability. Combined with unique...

forum.ih8mud.com

I understand the 200’s suspension design is very different. But surely there is a way to increase front travel on our 100’s, even minimally? I can’t find any threads on the subject, maybe there is a reason why. Do our torsion bars really suck that bad??

For those who have tested it, what are the first, second, etc. limiting suspension components?

 

[JunkCrzr89]

I can’t find any threads on the subject, maybe there is a reason why. Do our torsion bars really suck that bad??

Yes. Torsion bars don’t spin, they twist, and only so much, so travel is confined.

 

[GTV]

Yes. Torsion bars don’t spin, they twist, and only so much, so travel is confined.

So the torsion bars themselves are the limiting factor(?). Then the only way to increase travel would be to increase the length of the “arm” by the way of more offset, correct?

 

[FlammableFishie]

So the torsion bars themselves are the limiting factor(?). Then the only way to increase travel would be to increase the length of the “arm” by the way of more offset, correct?

Yeah, that's typically how long travel IFS is done. Widen the track width with longer arms to increase the radius of travel, meaning increased arc length over the same change in angle. Perhaps you've seen the thread @Bamacruiser2019 made about his long travel IFS.

 

[PilotCons01]

Torsion bars don't inherently suck, they suck if you're using them to rock crawl. That's not what the 100 was built for. Torsion bars are stronger than coilovers, at the expense of less travel.

 

[saucebox]

Torsion bars don't inherently suck, they suck if you're using them to rock crawl. That's not what the 100 was built for. Torsion bars are stronger than coilovers, at the expense of less travel.

Let's agree to disagree

 

[Hulsty]

Torsion bars dont limit the travel, Upper A arm hitting the shock/chassis limits the travel in my current setup.

 

[JunkCrzr89]

Torsion bars dont limit the travel, Upper A arm hitting the shock/chassis limits the travel in my current setup.

Remove the knuckle and see how far the lower UCA will go down. It’s laughable…Most mountain bikes have more travel these days. The torsion bars can only twist so much.

 

[Bamacruiser2019]

So the torsion bars themselves are the limiting factor(?). Then the only way to increase travel would be to increase the length of the “arm” by the way of more offset, correct?

Torsion bars suck, the #1 disadvantage of the 100 series. SAS is a much better option or v8 swap a 80 series.

 

[pili]

Torsion bars dont limit the travel, Upper A arm hitting the shock/chassis limits the travel in my current setup.

Yes this is correct for a setup with extended front shocks. My UCA contacts the frame at full droop (just barely). You could clearance this but not worth it with angle the cv is already at.

I’m relatively happy with the front travel after putting in the extended shocks, but I’m not seeking out the super crawly trails. I’m at about 24.25” hub to fender at full droop which is about ~1” improvement over the tough dogs I had in there.

 

[krice118]

Torsion bars have never stopped me before..... been all over Idaho, CO, NM, WY, Moab, etc. I just know i am going to lift a front tire and wheel accordingly.... Torsion bars make us better wheelers

 

[SaturnAscends]

Torsion bars don't inherently suck, they suck if you're using them to rock crawl. That's not what the 100 was built for. Torsion bars are stronger than coilovers, at the expense of less travel.

Agreed. Not to mention - stock for stock, the much-lauded solid front axle on the 80 series only has marginally more travel than the much-maligned torsion var front end on the 100 - I think about 8" vs 7.5" IIRC; while travel on the rear axle actually improved in the 100. I know that the 80 series has more potential for long travel set ups and the like, but the point is that none of the Land Cruisers were ever really designed with "rock-crawling" in mind.