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

[Arkansas_SR5]

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.

 

[pcstockton]

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.

Ummmmmmm what? Most reliable LC ever? How about any 70 series? LCs ended with the 80 series IMHO.

 

[smritte]

Their smooth and they dissipate energy well.
The only down side to a torsion is modifications. Vehicles with torsions should be left close to stock height. I have yet to see an off-road torsion lift kit that doesn't make me cringe.

If I want to mod and lift an off road vehicle, its on coils. If I want to keep it close to stock height and keep a smooth ride, I have no issue with torsions.

Also, I would have no issues driving a 100 series. The over all vehicle is designed around modern commuting as well as moderate off road.

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

Ummmmmmm what? Most reliable LC ever? How about any 70 series? LCs ended with the 80 series IMHO.

So the solid axle is the only thing that makes a Land Cruiser a Land Cruiser; or is that not what you mean by the Land Cruiser "ending" after the 80?

Also, what makes a 70 series so much more reliable?

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

Their smooth and they dissipate energy well.
The only down side to a torsion is modifications. Vehicles with torsions should be left close to stock height. I have yet to see an off-road torsion lift kit that doesn't make me cringe.

If I want to mod and lift an off road vehicle, its on coils. If I want to keep it close to stock height and keep a smooth ride, I have no issue with torsions.

Also, I would have no issues driving a 100 series. The over all vehicle is designed around modern commuting as well as moderate off road.

I just wish they didn't have the annoying issue with the exhaust manifolds cracking. That and the starter job just about make up for the improvement in head gasket reliability and less common leaks with the 100 series platform.

 

[smritte]

Agreed.

 

[pluton]

I had a '91 Toyota 4WD truck that had torsion bars. At 22 years old, when I sold it, they still hadn't sagged.
The Land Cruiser 70 series is designed to be reliable transportation anywhere in the world as it comes from the factory. They have solid front axles for clearance and durability reasons. In my mind, they are the "real" Land Cruisers.
The luxury series' are intended to be sold to well-to-do people ...or, in the case of the Prado, moderately well-to-do people... of the developed world and mainly exist---as far as I can tell---as aspirational or fantasy vehicles for commuters.They can and are used for remote unpaved road travel but statistically rarely are.
Neither series are designed for entertainment, merely for transportation.

 

[MidOH]

Torsion bars are handy for sports cars. But even most of them quit using them. If you have a ton of unnecessary weight and mandated BS safety features, they serve no purpose.

The point of torsion bars was low CG and lightweight (racecars), easy to package (trailers), and cheap and easy (consumer grade trucks).

On an Suv, they're simply lazy engineering. Whether or not they worked out OK, is beside the point.

I also recommend that IFS suspensions be kept within an inch of stock. Losing down travel to gain a little tire size isn't acceptable. If you love IFS rigs, simply add some MT's and rock on. If my Cummins Ram DRW can get it done on stock size tires, so can you. Every vehicle has a practical limit, accept it.

If my point is Adventure or Overlanding, then only a Rubicon, Ram 2500+, or Ford F250-F550, will do for me. Locker ready solid axles are a must have. I'll accept nothing less. Lockers are my first mod everytime, and make travel more fun and carefree everywhere.

Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, was the most fun for us, when mildly built and prepped. For mild trails and parks, with top shelf tires, at least one locker, and a winch. Beyond that, they become a headache with depreciating results as more money was poured into them.

[Let's do square wheel wells next]

 

[MOAK]

That’s an interesting question- were Landcruisers ever designed for recreational off roading? I don’t think any vehicle platform was ever designed for recreational off roading. Even the original Civilian Jeep’s CJ2a, were marketed as a tool. It wasn’t until the 70s that the Jeep brand became synonymous with go annywhere, off roading fun, which was stumbled upon by American Motors, in response to consumer tastes.

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

That’s an interesting question- were Landcruisers ever designed for recreational off roading? I don’t think any vehicle platform was ever designed for recreational off roading. Even the original Civilian Jeep’s CJ2a, were marketed as a tool. It wasn’t until the 70s that the Jeep brand became synonymous with go annywhere, off roading fun, which was stumbled upon by American Motors, in response to consumer tastes.

Maybe the Wrangler Rubicons or Suzuki Samurais/Jimnies?

 

[MOAK]

Maybe the Wrangler Rubicons or Suzuki Samurais/Jimnies?

I guess that would depend on the definition of design. All 4x4 recreational vehicles are direct descendants of the Bantam, then the CJ2a, and or, the original Power Wagons, which were designed as a work vehicle for war, farming, logging and other heavy industrialized work. That original design hasn't been changed much, only modified a bit to suit modern tastes. Even built rock crawlers find their origins in the farming industrial sector :

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

Torsion bars are handy for sports cars. But even most of them quit using them. If you have a ton of unnecessary weight and mandated BS safety features, they serve no purpose.

The point of torsion bars was low CG and lightweight (racecars), easy to package (trailers), and cheap and easy (consumer grade trucks).

On an Suv, they're simply lazy engineering. Whether or not they worked out OK, is beside the point.

I also recommend that IFS suspensions be kept within an inch of stock. Losing down travel to gain a little tire size isn't acceptable. If you love IFS rigs, simply add some MT's and rock on. If my Cummins Ram DRW can get it done on stock size tires, so can you. Every vehicle has a practical limit, accept it.

If my point is Adventure or Overlanding, then only a Rubicon, Ram 2500+, or Ford F250-F550, will do for me. Locker ready solid axles are a must have. I'll accept nothing less. Lockers are my first mod everytime, and make travel more fun and carefree everywhere.

Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, was the most fun for us, when mildly built and prepped. For mild trails and parks, with top shelf tires, at least one locker, and a winch. Beyond that, they become a headache with depreciating results as more money was poured into them.

[Let's do square wheel wells next]

I totally agree with this sentiment. A 3" lift is almost obligatory on most off-road forums, and many people insist they need a front locker as well, then they complain when they break a CV on every trail.

 

[rgallant]

@Arkansas_SR5 it is really both a lack of offroad driving skills and a case of doing what everyone else is doing. I see it all the time on youtube and when offroading, big lift, lockers and big tires, But they never drive on much more than a heavily rutted FSR, and even the "difficult" trail is stuff I do in my Discovery II with a 2 inch lift and skinny tires with no effort.

But to the OP's question, yes they were but when they were designed recreational off-roading was largely fishing and hunting. Mudding and rock crawling were specialty or regional things and I would argue still are.

Look at the old M38 military jeeps, I drove those things everywhere. Little engine, skinny crappy tires, no lockers, no great ground clearance, 3 guys, a weeks worth of food, big ass radio, belt feed 7.62 mg water gas etc. We drove where there were no roads, did we have to go around or bypass stuff sure but we were rarely stuck because drive training was paramount.

 

[bgenlvtex]

Perceived necessity doesn't equal actual necessity.
You can drive a car/coss over/sport ute to 80% of the places you might want to go and bring it home under its own power. If you want the other 20% some suspension and drive line modifications are going to be required and torsion bar suspensions are a poor foundation for modification.

Like anything else, pick the right tool for the job and carry on. If you need a hammer bring a hammer.

 

[MidOH]

Just keep in mind, that 20% hits you really quick when you slide off the road into a ditch.

Which is why I still put full lockers on a truck that'll never see a hardcore trail.

Every park road is an easy road, until it isnt.

 

[Alanymarce]

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?

Angola: I've never seen anyone driving LCs over boulders for the h**l of it - we used them for getting from A to B, on what could be tough roads, but (land mines permitting) would always take the easiest route. In that part of the world breaking something by pushing the vehicle too hard is to be avoided at all costs.

Cambodia: ditto; with the additional comment that most of the LCs I've seen in Cambodia were in Phnom Penh - outside the city people were driving Corollas.

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

Angola: I've never seen anyone driving LCs over boulders for the h**l of it - we used them for getting from A to B, on what could be tough roads, but (land mines permitting) would always take the easiest route. In that part of the world breaking something by pushing the vehicle too hard is to be avoided at all costs.

Cambodia: ditto; with the additional comment that most of the LCs I've seen in Cambodia were in Phnom Penh - outside the city people were driving Corollas.

Funnily enough I have seen some people doing pretty silly things with FZJ80s in Colombia for fun, although most Land Cruisers I saw there were being used to traverse rural unimproved roads as well.

 

[MOAK]

Funnily enough I have seen some people doing pretty silly things with FZJ80s in Colombia for fun, although most Land Cruisers I saw there were being used to traverse rural unimproved roads as well.

Sent you a PM, thanks

 

[Alanymarce]

Funnily enough I have seen some people doing pretty silly things with FZJ80s in Colombia for fun, although most Land Cruisers I saw there were being used to traverse rural unimproved roads as well.

Lots of "burbujas" in Colombia, as you say used primarily to take people from A to B; there are a few enthusiasts who do silly things as well : )

 

[Arkansas_SR5]

Lots of "burbujas" in Colombia, as you say used primarily to take people from A to B; there are a few enthusiasts who do silly things as well : )

Venezualans are in love with them as well. Funnily enough you see hardly ant Land Cruisers once you get south of Ecuador down in the southern cone. They seem to prefer Hiluxes down there for some reason.