You should trail test on my Saturday 3/27/10 trip. Compare your Hundy to mine in the articulation arena. I'll PM you an invite tomorrow. Box Canyon to Arizona Trail and down to Superior.
IronMan suspension VS. Old Man Emu?
- Thread starter sardi55
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
You should trail test on my Saturday 3/27/10 trip. Compare your Hundy to mine in the articulation arena. I'll PM you an invite tomorrow. Box Canyon to Arizona Trail and down to Superior.
Anthony.L
Looking for the end of the road...
How can there be a "spring rate" when there is no spring. In other words can you even compare rates of a straight bar of steel compared to a coiled spring?
re_guderian
SILVER Star
Sure, it's a torsion bar. How much force is required to "twist" the bar a given amount, if you will...
Don't confuse the properties of a spring with the coiled shape...
spring: a metal elastic device that returns to its shape or position when pushed or pulled or pressed;
...or in the case of the t-bar, twisted. Leaf-springs are another example of a spring that is not coiled in shape.
Are there any new opinions here? I think perhaps more 100 owners have gone with OME because of availability.
Well there's the Russian dude with his coil-over design so you can get rid of your T-bars.
I was kinda surprised to see this post from Trunk Monkey since the Russian's coil overs were dismissed in the other thread. Any reason? Bad design?
https://forum.ih8mud.com/100-series-cruisers/373778-cranking-torsion-bars.html#post5680825
Last edited:
You wouldn't have to worry about if the torsion bar was to stiff to allow for full droop since a coil spring would allow full droop on either side.
So has anyone ever come up with the three spring rates?
Don't really need the "numbers". How they compare brand-to-brand can be based on all kinds of trail testing from various people over the years. The T-bar's diameter reflects what we've heard from the trail testing.
OEM...too soft except for stock trucks
next thicker
OME...excellent for loaded truck with bumpers and/or winches. Articulates easily like the OEM bars when loaded.
next thicker
Sway-A-Way...excellent as well just like OME-brand however it takes more force to compress the front wheel. This makes the OME-brand a better choice overall.
next thicker
Ironman...same thing...excellent as well for supporting an aftermarket bumper with or without a winch though the ride is a tad stiffer...a tad. Trouble here though...the rate is too high for the amount of weight that hits our trucks. Articulation/compression suffers compared to SAW and OME.
Bottom line...if OME and SAW have the rate to support the loads experienced on the 100 then they are the better choice because they cycle better. And CYCLE is what we need on the front of our 100's.
Last...OME offers more combo's on the rear and various shock choices...Ironman cannot compete.
Ironman...
By the way...my GUESS is that the Ironman's would be ideal for the very heavy TD trucks though we don't see those in the US and therefore no data.
I have to respectively disagree after having run Old Man Emu, BDS and now Ironman on three Land Cruisers. I think the Ironman is comparable to the OME Heavy but with a slightly better on road ride. My FJC with OME Heavies rode stiff with Demello bumper and 12k winch up front, Warn with swingouts in rear, and until I loaded it down for a weekend in mountains rode very solid.
The BDS in the FJ60 is also very stiff...and a good heavy load in rear makes it ride like a car but otherwise it would rattle you on bumpy roads.
The Ironman on my LX with heavy front and rear bumpers, 12k winch......gives it a solid feel in turns and in handling but does not rattle my teeth. Much of my complaint on ride goes away when I lower my tire pressure to 35psi instead of the 42psi I normally run around town.
I agree the OME gives you many more combinations for fine tuning your needs.....but if you are going to run the steel bumpers, armor, and carry some gear in rear on regular basis I do not think the Ironman is at a disadvantage nor is the ride worse than the OME in my personal opinion. I have about 250lbs on both ends of my truck every day I am guessing with bumper, winch, rear bumper with swingouts and spare tire with Hi-Lift.....and others have thought it rode very good and was not bad at all compared to others they have been in.
Then again it might be the plush leather seats helping....but to discount it totally I think is unfair especially since I have ridden many thousands of miles on the three listed.
The BDS in the FJ60 is also very stiff...and a good heavy load in rear makes it ride like a car but otherwise it would rattle you on bumpy roads.
The Ironman on my LX with heavy front and rear bumpers, 12k winch......gives it a solid feel in turns and in handling but does not rattle my teeth. Much of my complaint on ride goes away when I lower my tire pressure to 35psi instead of the 42psi I normally run around town.
I agree the OME gives you many more combinations for fine tuning your needs.....but if you are going to run the steel bumpers, armor, and carry some gear in rear on regular basis I do not think the Ironman is at a disadvantage nor is the ride worse than the OME in my personal opinion. I have about 250lbs on both ends of my truck every day I am guessing with bumper, winch, rear bumper with swingouts and spare tire with Hi-Lift.....and others have thought it rode very good and was not bad at all compared to others they have been in.
Then again it might be the plush leather seats helping....but to discount it totally I think is unfair especially since I have ridden many thousands of miles on the three listed.
Ive seen none, but a lot of guesses based on their current setup and how they guess it might compare to the other setup.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but first you state you don't need the numbers of the rates, then spend three paragraphs guessing how the rates compare to each other. The torsion bar IFS front was used by GM, Ford, Nissan, etc for decades and isn't exactly a new frontier. The rates matter very much when making comparisions.
http://www.ironman4x4.com/pdfs/2009_suspension_brochure.pdf
I'm trying to find the spring rates for the different suspensions.
I'm trying to find the spring rates for the different suspensions.
You missed my point.
First off it's the front end I was discussing. That's the key factor on the 100. I'm not talking about "Heavy" suspensions as that applies ONLY to the rear.
I mentioned the ride was a TAD stiffer...and it is. A tad is just that. Very little difference.
The main point is that the Ironman front end does NOT cycle easily whatsoever compared to the others, especially OME. That's a BIG factor when out wheeling the 100. The Ironman will be the wheel lifter way in advance of the OME. Compressing the front tire is almost impossible with the Ironman T-bars.
You don't need to know the "numbers" to know what is stiffer and what flexes/cycles and what does not.. That is all that I'm saying.
You missed my point.
First off it's the front end I was discussing. That's the key factor on the 100. I'm not talking about "Heavy" suspensions as that applies ONLY to the rear.
I mentioned the ride was a TAD stiffer...and it is. A tad is just that. Very little difference.
The main point is that the Ironman front end does NOT cycle easily whatsoever compared to the others, especially OME. That's a BIG factor when out wheeling the 100. The Ironman will be the wheel lifter way in advance of the OME. Compressing the front tire is almost impossible with the Ironman T-bars.
What is your basis for this? bar thickness and spring rate are two different things and you seem to be basing your guess on thickness alone.
There is very limited drop inherent to this type of IFS system anyway.How do you know this?
What is your basis for this? bar thickness and spring rate are two different things and you seem to be basing your guess on thickness alone.
How do you know this?
Guess? No guesses. In person, real-life trail testing.
Ahhh....drop....you mean droop? Droop has NOTHING to do with my comments on either front T-bar. Gravity-alone droops the wheel to it's limit.
What matters is the COMPRESSION (up) travel. The larger diameter (stiffer) bars will not let that wheel compress as well unless the WEIGHT at that part of the truck is proportionate with the strength of the T-bar. You can only load our 100's so much up front and the OME rate works best. Stronger bars are not needed and only hinder compression travel.
Drop a TD in or carry a quad on your hood and the Ironman's are game.
OTherwise they work poorer.
sleeoffroad
Supporting Vendor
Actually not. The torsion bar pushes the A-Arm down.
No kidding. But the suspension will cycle to FULL DROOP with any of the T-bars because of gravity alone.
Ahhh...so tell me that the diameter/spring rate/strength between T-bars does NOT effect how easily the suspension compresses/stuffs? Exactly...you know the same thing I do...it varies and if the rate is too stiff compared to the weight then it makes it MORE difficult for the wheel to stuff and therefore you lift a wheel when you shouldn't.
