The Outlaw has no more body roll than a solid axle quad because it has a nice sway bar setup. Your dad should NOT take the sway bar off  his Rincon, it will make it very unstable.

The Outlaw has no more body roll than a solid axle quad because it has a nice sway bar setup. Your dad should NOT take the sway bar off  his Rincon, it will make it very unstable.

not even undo a couple bolts, tie it out of the way and do some stuff that could use the flex and then bolt it back up for high speed?

I wouldn't!

yea, I probably won't anyway but thanks for the heads up on that

I have quick disconnects on my Sportsman 600's rear sway bar, only certain circumstances do I ever use it though.  Very unstable, and quite prone to rolling on side hills that load one side of the rear suspension..  I will eventually remove the disconnects, and reinstall the sway bar permanantly.


IRS is better  IFS is better,  better is better... once the riders catch up with technology.

Independant suspension with the technological advances being made today is better than old school suspension. It's all about keeping the tires in contact with the ground. Acceleration, Cornering, Braking, etc... all depend on contact patch. If one tire on a solid axle set up hits a rock or rut, it affects the way the tire on the other end of the solid axle is hooking up, and usually it's a negative effect. Independant suspension is all about keeping the rubber planted, by allowing each tire to follow the terrain it's encountering, instead of reacting to the input on another tire, a couple of feet away from it.

 It's racing technology being passed to the every day user. If the racers can go faster with it, odds are, it makes a better recreational vehicle.. not all the time, but most.

Did you read up on the Tire Balls??  Now that is a great concept, take a look at how many of the top riders in GNCC and other races use them.

Sticking my oar in here....

While at the KC Auto Show in March, I crawled under the latest Suzuki production SUVs and discovered that the full-length frame (actually a long heavy-duty "U" shaped stamping with flared "ears" at the open end) is actually spot-welded to the body.  It isn't two subframes, but it isn't something that you can easily apply a body lift to, either.

Oh well...

Now if I could just ask you guys to stop destroying all the good old samurais there might be a few left to try out a IRS setup on if it ever happens...... 

I haven't yet checked out tire balls, need to do that.

I was wondering about how independent gets wider and narrower as it goes up and down. looking at my dad's rincon from behind it you can see the stance widen and narrow allot as he's going through whoops and stuff. I was wondering if that's too big of a deal or not. if 2nd place was made without ever riding that irs quad it must not be too big of a deal

It's funny. There are definitely 2 different schools of thought on suspension setups. One side is die hard solid axle all the way, and the other side is die hard IFS/IRS etc...

It's interesting to note the differences....

here go my 2 cents:

i compared specs from the GV5 and first generation vitara/trackick and in fact the GV5 sits a wee bit higher from the ground (a mm or so).
so basically, putting a 3" calmini kit front and rear on it, longer a-arms, getting rid of the swaty bars and put 31"-ish tires on it, would make it a great offroader.

Immagine mike doing the orange front suspention, on all 4's of the GV, adding lockers and crawl t-case gears... who's going to stop that?

Time wil tell if the diff, axles and CV joits are worth anything.

I'm pretty sure we'll see it on the trail eventually.

When I crawled under a late model GV I saw double wish bones out back. I do not see any reason why you could not lift one aprox 3". There would be the usual CV stuff etc to work through but that applies to any IS mods on any vehicle.
The front looked pretty standard GV.
One thing I did notice was that the guts ( particularly the Transfer box ) hangs pretty damn low.

Lift + guard cutting for bigger rubber = most likely a pretty capable rig.

Me I will just stick with the IFS / beam rear set up. I personaly feel this to be a very good compromise that gives you the best of both worlds.
Example: Hagens Kick. The front worked pretty good with the Calmini stuff. The rear made up for were the front lacked. But flex in the front end is overated, the rear end is where you should concentrate your biggest efforts.

Just my 2c

ZeusZuki 

I agree with pretty much everyone here, especially zeuszuki. with my sway bar off the front end has enough flex to keep the GV pretty level while the back flex keeps all 4 on the ground. without a locker that's pretty important to have all 4 on the ground especially with the crappy tires I have. I think even with the wicked setup mike has on the orange rig you'd be lifting tires a bunch where a solid rear wouldn't but in some cases that wouldn't neccesarely be a problem. with lockers and 4 wheel independent it may very well be far surperior if properly setup.. I guess time will tell

I do really like ifs with solid rear... also solid front and rear... kind of like ifs a bit better so far but haven't wheeled a solid front.. ifs is way better for daily driving that solid front that's for sure