Why are torsion bars so vilified? And were Land Cruisers ever designed for recreational off-roading? (1 Viewer)

[SaturnAscends]

I've seen a lot of complaints on various off road and Land Cruiser forums about the torsion bar set up in the front of the 100 series. I'd be curious to hear from 100 series owners if any of these criticisms are justified?

I don't really have a problem with torsion bars myself - they're simple, durable, and easy to maintain.

I realize they may not be ideal for monster lifts and eye-popping flex, but I'm pretty sure Land Cruiser wagons were never really designed for technical rock-crawling in the North American sense. Sure, the older models had solid front axles, but they had leafs or radius arms in the case of the 80 - designed more for long term durability than for a weekend romp through the Rubicon; otherwise they would've linked it like a Jeep.

I could be wrong here, but do you see people driving their Land Cruisers over r boulders just for the sake of it in Angola or Cambodia? Recreational off-roaders seem like a tiny slice of the market compared to those who drive them for decades along rough unimproved roads that might elicit scoffs fro the typical off-road enthusiast in the US, but still demand a sturdy construction from a vehicle that expects to ply them for an extended period of time.

All in all, it could be argued that the 100 series represents the best ever iteration of the Land Cruiser for the kind of use described above. It may have its downsides - cracking exhaust manifolds and less-than-ideal starter location on the 4.7 and relatively weak front diffs for the size of the vehicle - but it's arguably the most reliable version of the model Toyota has ever produced. It doesn't seem to have as many instances of fluid leaks and gasket failures as previous generations, though some argue it lost that sense of fun and character that made previous generations so endearing.

Sorry for the long-winded post. I'd appreciate any insight.

 

[Bisho]

I have no issues with Torsion bars. Folks are always wishing for things that would make their trucks just a little better, but yet they are mostly still 100 owners, so it’s not bad enough to move to another platform.

For anyone that offroads with the mentality of “I need to drive this home tonight” the 100 is still extremely capable of trails more difficult than most folks are willing to tackle. I love it.

 

[Trapper50cal]

It's a performance argument. I've had solid axle cruisers with leaf springs, solid axle cruisers with coil springs and now an IFS cruiser. The most capable is the solid axle with coil springs and an automatic transmission. It just is. The most fun wheeling in a cruiser I've had was at Cruise Moab in a 94 FZJ80 with a rear locker and an automatic. It has the most articulation and the highest ceiling for modifications that improve wheeling and the two pedal vs three pedal while wheeling just isn't a contest when discussing enjoying the experience as the driver. Having said that though, I've had my crazy rock crawling years and they were great, but do I want to risk my vehicle's condition every time I go out now? No. I'm married, I have an 8 yr. old son, and we want to get out and expose him to nature and all that Colorado and surrounding areas have to offer and I don't have anything to prove other than being able to get out, have fun and get back in a capable, durable and comfortable 4x4. Land Cruisers allow for different models to serve different eras in our lives. It's just a matter of matching the model to the focus. 100's ($-$$) and 200's ($$-$$$) are glamping monsters. And the 100 with its 2UZFE V8 has the ability to be a better 80 with a SAS and locker set-up.

 

[Patassa]

I find no issue with the torsion bar set up for my uses. They're maintenance free, robust, dependable. They seem to have fallen out of favor design wise and so seem dated now. But they work fine.

 

[SaturnAscends]

It's a performance argument. I've had solid axle cruisers with leaf springs, solid axle cruisers with coil springs and now an IFS cruiser. The most capable is the solid axle with coil springs and an automatic transmission. It just is. The most fun wheeling in a cruiser I've had was at Cruise Moab in a 94 FZJ80 with a rear locker and an automatic. It has the most articulation and the highest ceiling for modifications that improve wheeling and the two pedal vs three pedal while wheeling just isn't a contest when discussing enjoying the experience as the driver. Having said that though, I've had my crazy rock crawling years and they were great, but do I want to risk my vehicle's condition every time I go out now? No. I'm married, I have an 8 yr. old son, and we want to get out and expose him to nature and all that Colorado and surrounding areas have to offer and I don't have anything to prove other than being able to get out, have fun and get back in a capable, durable and comfortable 4x4. Land Cruisers allow for different models to serve different eras in our lives. It's just a matter of matching the model to the focus. 100's ($-$$) and 200's ($$-$$$) are glamping monsters. And the 100 with its 2UZFE V8 has the ability to be a better 80 with a SAS and locker set-up.

A lot of people seem to prefer autos for an off-road oriented vehicle. Personally, I prefer the feel of a manual, at least the older 5 speeds like the R150 in my 96 Tacoma. The A343f in my 97 Cruiser was a strong unit, but it always seemed to be "between gears" in 4 lo, and would often upshift in inopportune moments, such as just at the crest of a rock step, thereby killing momentum. Engine compression was also subpar for steep downhill descents. I think I would've enjoyed it far more with an H151 that you can just put in gear and go, especially with reduction gears in the transfer case.

 

[jLB]

There are some limitations (primarily in modification) of the IFS design of the 100 series. From my perspective it has more to do with the 100 series being a relatively low production numbers platform, and not sharing parts with any other Toyota product, than the actual format of the spring. That being said, I’ve owned both 80 & 100 series, and for my use case, the on road improvements of the 100 series outweigh the loss in off road performance compared to the 80 series.

 

[Live to Ski]

Plus, 99% or our 100 series road time is on pavement here in usa ('cept patch) where tbs excell for comfort & handeling. though I would be interested in trying the 200.

 

[uHu]

Torsion Bar or Torsion Coil doesn't matter. Both are torsion springs made out of spring steel. That the common coil spring is "rolled up" in a coil shape doesn't change the fact that it is still a torsion spring, just as the torsion bar. It's a question about what kind of spring shape fits best into the suspension design. That the bar shaped spring is adjustable is a big bonus, and they have proven to be very reliable. A bit more work to change, but it's easier to adjust than to change (until reindexing is required). The IFS limitations of the LC100 stem from the short A-arm/control arms, not from the choice of spring shape.

Since auto vs manual was mentioned here as well: There is nothing better for offroading or towing than this kind of automatic gearbox with a converter.
The important issue is that the auto has a Torque Converter. The benefit is that you get a much higher torque at the wheels than with a manual. The term torque converter describes the function, that it converts rpm and hp to torque. However good a manual box is, it can never double your torque, but it does have a lower first gear, which goes a bit of the way to achieve the same.

 

[Tango Golf]

It's a performance argument. I've had solid axle cruisers with leaf springs, solid axle cruisers with coil springs and now an IFS cruiser. The most capable is the solid axle with coil springs and an automatic transmission. It just is. The most fun wheeling in a cruiser I've had was at Cruise Moab in a 94 FZJ80 with a rear locker and an automatic. It has the most articulation and the highest ceiling for modifications that improve wheeling and the two pedal vs three pedal while wheeling just isn't a contest when discussing enjoying the experience as the driver. Having said that though, I've had my crazy rock crawling years and they were great, but do I want to risk my vehicle's condition every time I go out now? No. I'm married, I have an 8 yr. old son, and we want to get out and expose him to nature and all that Colorado and surrounding areas have to offer and I don't have anything to prove other than being able to get out, have fun and get back in a capable, durable and comfortable 4x4. Land Cruisers allow for different models to serve different eras in our lives. It's just a matter of matching the model to the focus. 100's ($-$$) and 200's ($$-$$$) are glamping monsters. And the 100 with its 2UZFE V8 has the ability to be a better 80 with a SAS and locker set-up.

I second that the capability prize goes to solid axle w/coil springs (a la FJ80). That being said, I'm not "knockin' " the 100 (IMHO IFS is close second). I've been wheeling in solid axle leaf spring trucks, IFS front/solid axle rear trucks, and my FJ80. MY LC has gone up some some pretty rugged paths here in the Rockies (Colorado) with the only mods being 2" lift w/ 33" tires.

 

[SaturnAscends]

Torsion Bar or Torsion Coil doesn't matter. Both are torsion springs made out of spring steel. That the common coil spring is "rolled up" in a coil shape doesn't change the fact that it is still a torsion spring, just as the torsion bar. It's a question about what kind of spring shape fits best into the suspension design. That the bar shaped spring is adjustable is a big bonus, and they have proven to be very reliable. A bit more work to change, but it's easier to adjust than to change (until reindexing is required). The IFS limitations of the LC100 stem from the short A-arm/control arms, not from the choice of spring shape.

Since auto vs manual was mentioned here as well: There is nothing better for offroading or towing than this kind of automatic gearbox with a converter.
The important issue is that the auto has a Torque Converter. The benefit is that you get a much higher torque at the wheels than with a manual. The term torque converter describes the function, that it converts rpm and hp to torque. However good a manual box is, it can never double your torque, but it does have a lower first gear, which goes a bit of the way to achieve the same.

Are there longer A-arms on the aftermarket to increase flex for the 100 then?

Also, I see your point about the torque converter. Even so, I felt like the slushbox in my FZJ80 wasn't good for keeping up momentum in technical terrain - it always felt like it was searching for a gear ot about to upshift at an awkward moment. I'd much rather be able to stick it in 2nd gear low and just punch it, or crawl up an obstacle in 1st/lo and keep up the steady momentum by staying gently on the throttle. For full on comp trucks and rock-crawlers, it might be a different story.

 

[jLB]

Are there longer A-arms on the aftermarket to increase flex for the 100 then?

Not any that are mass produced. A few people have played with homebrew one offs. Again, a limitation of being a low production vehicle, that doesn’t share parts with anything else (along with fender interference, and CV axle issues, for a unique platform, that doesn’t justify fiberglass fenders and one off CV axles).

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I don't know what forums you're frequenting that you're seeing "dozens of complaints" about torsion bars. Vilified? Heavy wording. Were they designed for recreational off-roading? Designed for I have no idea, but are they capable of it, yes.

Not sure where you're going with the thread, are you shopping for a 100 or ?

 

[jLB]

I don't know what forums you're frequenting that you're seeing "dozens of complaints" about torsion bars. Vilified? Heavy wording. Were they designed for recreational off-roading? Designed for I have no idea, but are they capable of it, yes.

Not sure where you're going with the thread, are you shopping for a 100 or ?

I suspect that someone has had the “unique idea”, that a long travel IFS 100 series, on 37” tires, with off the shelf parts, would be “cool” (again).

 

[krice118]

Go wheel a 100 and you’ll soon find the limits of the torsion bar setup.

Thankfully, most 100s had either a Rear Locker or ATRAC to kick in and assist.

Pointless thread?

 

[saucebox]

I suspect that someone has had the “unique idea”, that a long travel IFS 100 series, on 37” tires, with off the shelf parts, would be “cool” (again).

That someone would be totally correct. But also SOL.

 

[jLB]

That someone would be totally correct. But also SOL.

That their idea is unique, 25 (almost 26) years after the first IFS 100 series?

That something like the Marlin Crawler RCLT kit, for the 100 series, would be nice?

That a picture of 37” tires on 0 offset wheels, would look cool, in a mall parking lot, on instagram, as long as you don’t have to turn?

 

[saucebox]

That their idea is unique, 25 (almost 26) years after the first IFS 100 series?

That something like the Marlin Crawler RCLT kit, for the 100 series, would be nice?

That a picture of 37” tires on 0 offset wheels, would look cool, in a mall parking lot, on instagram, as long as you don’t have to turn?

B, and partly C . If something like an RCLT was available, I'd probably have done that over the solid axle.

 

[jLB]

If something like an RCLT was available, I'd probably have done that over the solid axle.

It might have saved me from 3 revisions of IFS updates, across 3 100 series too…

3x SAS might’ve been cheaper.

 

[SNLC]

Opinions would be vastly different had we got the 105 in the USA.

I drove my 100 down to Panama and back over six months. Now I have two 80-series.

Cheers

 

[jLB]

Opinions would be vastly different had we got the 105 in the USA.

I drove my 100 down to Panama and back over six months. Now I have two 80-series.

Cheers

I don’t know. I suspect that a 105 with the 1FZ-FE wouldn’t have been compelling enough to get me out of an 80 series.