ya i see what you are saying in one breath ....but in the other i am contradicting myself and yet if you have been offroading you know that i am not really.

the tank on wheels is what makes them great mudders unless the pit has no bottom. they are extremely stable because of there low center of gravity. like you said there are advantages to both. but i think my point is the average truck is a lot more likely to see snow and mud than big rock crawling. trucks are not really great rock crawlers unless they are super high you will never really take advantage of the long wheel base.

i guess this is where i am heading with my side.

maybe i am all wet here but snow and mud is a lot more prevalent than the rocks. this would tend to give the IFS the advantage i think over the SFA.

the hummer really is a great offroad vehicle but on the rocks and bottomless pits it will never shine. it is also sucks in tight spots. these are all spots where the jeep shines. but for offroad like the military does, it has to be built heavy for water, so it doesn't up and wash down stream. they also say they do great in the sand. idk about the jeep. the hummer is just set up for more extreme service i think like taking blows from weapons.

why does the straight axil vs IFS ALWAYS come up. it never fails.

BTW we have a suzuki samurai. ours does great on regular tires off road.

 

Great point duramaximizer. Driving through mud and snow is common. Crawling up refridgerator sized rocks is not. This is just as true in a war in a distant land as it is somewhere in suburban America. On the eastern front conflict of ww2 both the germans and russians had to deal with the immobilizing effects of heavy freezing snows during winter and bottomless quagmires of mud during spring, I can't say I ever read or heard of any problems that army group commanders had of having Tiger tanks or T34's being high centered on giant rocks though.

Come to think of it all those MBT's had independent suspensions and torsion springs, much like a GM front end. Seems this is a more practical set up for the average working guy who's truck is subject to the more common elements of snow and mud.
Seems most people who complain about "weak" IFS, are guys who like showboating in trucks with 50" tires and use them strictly as boulder climbing off road toys.

 

I can't say I ever read or heard of any problems that army group commanders had of having Tiger tanks or T34's being high centered on giant rocks though.

The Swiss still have some of the boulders and concrete barriers they put up as alpine tank traps during WWII.

 

Theres a cute little curiosity polarbear, but honestly, if the German high command wanted Switzerland, which they did'int for their own reasons, a few rocks and concrete bunkers werent going to keep them out. We're talking of an army that bypassed the French heavily fortified maginot line by breeching "impassable terrain" to the south of it while creating a simultaneous diversion in Belgium. They then went on to completely route the French army, which was superior in both numbers of men and equipment, and also supported by a British army and air force. The whole job of taking Belgium, Luxemborg, Denmark, Holland, France, and driving the British out of mainland Europe took less than 5 weeks. The Swiss would have been cheese.

The german weapons designers knew what the army needed to fight battles in natural terrain. They chose independent suspensions for the vehicles which provided the spearhead of their mobile fighting forces - the MBT. Rocks could be moved or destroyed. Unsuitable mountainous ground could be bypassed. Mud and snow could not be avoided on a large scale. This ain't entirely relevent to the IFS or SFA arguement, and tanks are tracked vehicles, but all the same they use IS, and the fact is it offers better handling in natures two most common elements which turn normally paved roads into off road type situations.

 

All of what you wrote is true- it's just an interesting bit of trivia. The Swiss figured the Alps would at least forestall any invasion- or make it pretty darned expensive, in terms of lives.

 

Where I drive - the rocky mountains - its rocks and narrow trails. Mud is not much of a factor. Snow yes but usually not that deep. Mud is for flat landers.

 

had them all,02 duramax nice truck love the allison great ride 12 to 14 mpg towing 10,000 lbs.
03 excurison with 7.3 love the truck gas mileage sucked 8 towing,I complained to the dealer,to ford many times no help.traded with 29000,lost 5 grand,bad feeling about ford. 04.5 dodge lot of power,great tow,10 to 13 not broke in,rides like buck board on rough roads.cummins is awsome,never had a 6.0 hope its better.

 

Come to the Pacific Nwst- we've got lots of mud, and we certainly aren't flatlanders.

 

Nothing bud muddy hillsides here!

 

Anyone see the vid of an H2 breaking its IFS while trying to go over a couple of rocks? It was in a previous thread.

 

Both are good trucks, however, I think the you should give the Dodge a try. They make a good solid truck IMO. Don't let anybody tell you Dodge is junk, because it isn't. Sure, they have had problems in the past, but I've heard about several '05 Ford SD's blowing trannys at 900 miles and again at 3000 miles, not to mention having engine problems with the 6.0 PSD. Dodge shouldn't be ruled out because of what other people say. Ask this same question in a Dodge forum and the responses will be much different. Give the Dodge a chance!

 

does the double (D) in your name stand for dodge dealer?

BTW gm's tie rods are known to be weak on both the H2's and the gm pickups stock they are normally fine, but in true off road situations esp with bigger tires or wheels, they are the weak link and they make upgradable ones for a reason.

 

I thought they swepted across the north of that line, because it stopped in the Ardennes forest, then blitzkreiged. i dont know world history class was 3 years ago.

o well way way way off topic

 

Shur did- right through Belgium. We aren't that far off- the discussion was rock-crawling vs. mud.

 

They broke through an extension of the maginot line also. The bunkers were not set up close enough together to protect one another. I think it was mostly diversionary though.

Ill take a sfa any day of the week but like most things its personal preference.