All these consistent IFS breakages for all these years and not a single photo? 20 mechanics for 10 years (200 years total) and none of them took a photo?
A suspension link physically breaking is a big deal. You can see the, frankly terrible, Toyota Tacoma suspension in pieces all over the internet. That's the one where they support the whole corner weight by pulling on a ball-joint.
Yet the 100 series without that terrible design feature hasn't got breakage photos all over the internet. Neither have the utes you claim.
Sure a full-floater rear axle is easier to change bearings and doesn't lose the wheel if you break an axle-shaft. But the tradeoff is more weight which reduces carrying capacity. Are you seeing axle breakages on utes too?
I live in a rural farming area. The only people here driving landcruiser are contractors (baling, cultivation, earthworks etc) because they look cool and the occasional 4wd who has a massive list of modifications. Farmers are driving Rangers, D-Max and Hilux. They're way more nimble offroad, way better to drive everywhere but can carry and tow the same amount as a VDJ79.
The 79 landcruisers were sold everywhere the crash and emissions standards would allow them.
Europe and North America were impossible due to crash standards.
Both those markets again due to fuel consumption.
Can't be sold in Japan with the diesel due to emissions.
Every company sells utes and 4wd's with basic interiors for fleet use. Not sure what you're trying to claim there.
Like I said before. It's perfectly okay to be a fan of something without making up wrong claims about it's competitors.
Kindly go back and read what I've actually written.
I’m sure there’d be heaps of photos, just not necessarily posted on places you can google them, probably fair few on Facebook - I don’t look out for them or search for them as it’s completely normal. Everyone just accepts solid axles break less so it’s no big deal to come across flogged out IFS. I’ll admit that out and out catastrophic breakages aren’t overly common - the ranger breaking its major component and the rodeo engine falling out didn’t happen every day. But relentless ball joint wear, control arm bushes and rod end wear was much more excessive than SFA component wear.
My point is not that they snap all the time - it’s that they constantly need maintenance, where in comparison solid axles don’t. Like I said - it’s very plain to see why: multiple lightweight parts and complex linking geometry versus fewer heavier components in a simple system. That’s a classic engineering scenario for a less robust system vs a more robust system - any other result would be an anomaly.
The decision to make these utes with a road/handling bias and away from an out and out rugged working design is also characterised by the choice to run a semi floating axle (as I said Nissan offered a full floater as the HD upgrade in a patrol). Full floaters offer much more than ease of changing wheel bearing - they’re removing a major force from the axle shaft meaning all it has to do is transmit torque rather than both payload and torque. I’m not seeing a lot of semi floaters breaking axles, probably partly because people don’t load them up as much as a full. There is a reason literally not one single truck (I’m talking 4.5gvm+) I’ve seen let alone heard of, that’s using a semi floater in Australia. The fact the IFS manufacturers use a passenger car design is just another indicator these are light duty vehicles.
You might be seeing more farmers with IFS utes, but like I said New Zealand is a much smaller sample size and much much much smaller land mass so doesn’t have anything like the same fatigue issues. You don’t have experience of these vehicles in relentless Australian conditions so you can’t really compare them. Like I said call up any mechanic in a rugged remote farming area and have a chat, I know how it’ll go. They don’t post pics of a flogged out IFS ute - it’s like them posting a pic of dropping the sump oil out, it’s mundane and every day.
Yet another issue with IFS in a rugged work environment is the frequent ripping of CV boots, which if not rectified immediately results in needing a new CV. Working on quads and side x sides this is the most common repair very quickly followed by control arm bushes, ball joints and rod ends. And also the huge loss of ground clearance with a heavy load when braking down a very steep hill - seen a couple of IFS diffs cracked open from this scenario.
It’s true some of the countries the 79 is available in have less stringent crash testing. Although here the 79 has 5 star ANCAP - same rating say a hilux IFS. However there is a natural link between the level of a country’s ruggedness/remoteness/harsh conditions and level of crash testing. The governments know there is a trade off between high safety features and overall vehicle ruggedness.
I’m not a “fan” of 79s, my relationship with them is purely work related. I don’t and probably wouldn’t have one as a personal vehicle. The people I work for, and everyone I know, buy them because they’re the toughest vehicle on the market with the lowest running cost - in the long term (think 30-40 years working life, something you wouldn’t expect from a ranger) they’re the cheapest option.
I’m not making up wrong claims about anything - I’m simply reporting my experience while working directly in the relevant field. They’re not competitors when they’re the same manufacturer - Toyota offer the Landcruiser and hilux side by side, with the cruiser as the option for extreme conditions. Toyota wouldn’t bother with the cruise if there wasn’t demand. I notice you tried to deny the current suspension wasn’t demand related. Every dealer I’ve spoken to (5 in the last 6 months while looking for another 79) said exactly the same thing - supply had been postponed due to the unprecedented demand for 79s in the last two years. This was to allow the factory to recover from the deficit and probably increase production capabilities
Mudgudgeon raises a perfect point in 105 vs 100. 105 sold as the the tougher rural/mine/contractor option, 100 as the luxury version. 100s are very well known across the board for cracking lower control arms, it’s ludicrous to deny it and you can find online chat about it as it’s a popular world wide model (as opposed to the 79 which mostly resides in Australia). Also known for doing CVs. Why did Toyota offer the 105 at all - would’ve been much simpler and cheaper to stick with one model. But they knew there was a strong Australian and African/Middle East market for a tougher more rugged model which the 100 couldn’t fulfil. They didn’t worry about the 200 as by that time the VDJ76 was introduced in Australia to takeover where the 105 left off. Likewise the 300 now. There was never a full size 70 series wagon here until the VDJ came in (not sure if it was 2007 or later the 76 came)
)
