I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done much serious off roading but I've done a pile of other stuff and I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone seems to want rid of the IFS on the Kicks.
   I see the IFS being an advantage
-  Better ride on and off road
-  Should be able to power down better when the going
  gets tough
-  Should be able to take extreme angles better without
  upsetting the vehicle

    For the minimal extremish off roading I do I would never consider getting rid of the IFS.

    But I would really like to understand what I'm missing
cause I figure I must be missing something, right?

Zag

zaggy
I am thinking that it is a matter of strength vs price and of course opinion. the tracker has one downfall as with most rigs of the forign nature, they wanted to make them light to ship easier. this means that they designed them to handle mild 4 wheelin but nothing like some of these guys do. so you have to build it stronger witch costs lots of $ (for someone who dosent have the recources to build the stuff from scratch).
you can p/u a set of toy axels for less than you would pay for a anvil. so there is your logic. it does make sense but it doesent mean it iis the option that i would necessarily go with. I like the sidekick for what it is, a great driving, economical, capible 4 wheel drive  
my .02

jason

 ;DGood Question;D

I'm with you on the IFS. I personally love being able to jump in my Kick, drive it anywhere I wheel, trail ride all week and than drive it home(holding 70 comfortable on the interstate).

I personally think the cost would be the same or a little less to beef up the IFS than buy an axle, build it, make a suspension, new steering, etc......  I remember a thread a while back about comparing the beefed up IFS VS doing s solid axle swap in a Kick. If you do a search for Tundra it will probably lead you to the thread (I posted a new Tundra my friend did a SAS swap to in that thread) maybe give you an idea.

Plus it's realy fun freaking out the super flexy SAS guys on the trail as you lift a wheel 2-3 feet in the air as you do an obsticle

Zig

A solid axle will stay on the ground better.  The up force on one side will push the other side down hopefully keeping both tires on the ground.  

With independent suspension, when one side goes up, it will compress the spring on that side with no effect on the other side.  It makes for a sooth ride but not for articulation.

Cwkick  

Well Im going to attempt a toyota axle swap on my Tracker, but doing the Toyota IFS swap. I've been researching the Total Chaos super articulation kit for the toyota and its pretty much longer a-arms with T-100 axles. So once I get the axles and regear them I will begin with the installation. Since I would have to fab up new a-arms anyway I'm going to play with the T-100 CV's and see what kind of articulation I can achieve but I'm expecting about the same, 12 inch of movement in the front.  

i can fit a 35 inch tire doing a simpile, cheap SAS

trying to fit a 35 inch tire on IFS and make it hold up... well i'm sure Hagen will be here soon enough.

stu

the only thing that I personally don't like about most SAS is the use of leaf springs......( I am not knocking anyone ) the the use of coils would seem to be a better choice as you want articulation and some ride quality just drive a YJ and a TJ and you will wee the difference.
on a kick I like the IFS alot for the ride quality but the weakness of the CV is the biggest issue. I think it is a matter of resource and wheeling extremes more than anything else..some are crazy and some are more crazy...you can make a long travel IFS Toyota pre runners and baja guys know this....$$$$$ tho

   I always thought you got better ground clearance with a SAS on some obstacles because the entire axle moves up with the wheel.  

I used to Race RC trucks, gass Baja, stadium and prerunner,
The trucks were 18 to 24" wheel bases, and some ran solid axels and some ran IFS and solid rear, i Liked the four wheel wishbone indipendant suspention, and used to build my own custom A-Arms and shock towers, better controll and traction,
NOW for thoes that dont know you ahve the same things to think about in RC racing that you have in full size, power to weight, traction chasis suspension, and these are not the $30 rc cars you buy at radio shack, these are fourwheel drive, geared cars taht range from a $300 STARTER chasis all the way to champion trucks with titanium chasis runing 1k+ for the chasis alone  without the suspension., but in gass RC your motor and fuel weigh 2times more then the rest of the truck constructed

I liked the FWIS because of the clearance, we ran the diferintials up inside the chasis, and ran longer Arms , with controll rods, and a dogbone drive axel, "similar to a CV axel" down to the wheel, and then a hub and wheel, disk breaks, mounted on the drive axels instead of the wheels, thoes things are spendy and to lose a wheel going 40 -50 REAL MPH not scale mph.  the disks last longer inside the chasis.  

And we came up with a IS that let the RC at 3IN ground cleariance put the fron wheel 10IN  off the ground while haveing the other 3 wheels on the ground and accomplish
6IN of travel on each tire , while keeping the chasis of the truck almost level.

ew called it a floating indipendant suspension, i have been workin on blueprints for a few years for aplication to Off road Vehicles,  was set back when the RC trucks burned in a garage fire, and all the sketches i hade and working model, but its diffrent on a bigger vehicle, lot of strength issues to figure out and a LOT of math  i would go into more detail, but it will be a while befor i have the resources to build and test a model, but i have been looking at the zuk as a good place to start.  we could also adjust hight with servos, from 1IN ground clearince to 3 in and mantain all flex throught the hight adjustments.

Once i get a perlimenary set of plans that work in auto cad, I will seek help from some of the skilled patrons I know and Read about here

any way i think IS is MUCH better then solid axel.

A zuke that could put the front tire up higher then its hood and still sit level, that would be EXTREME, but the ability to put one front tier up higher then its hood, and the opisite back tire at the same height, and keep the other 2 on the ground, whithout twisting the chasis, that would be AWSOME

However this would probably not be street legal, and would coast probably coast 5 to 6 k + the cost of a starter rig.

Man nobudy gona respond to my post?

I am not FOS, and it is possible, a little chalenging respons of some sort would be intresting, oh well.

I'm with Zaggy and Mythose, I like
the IFS and I have thought about
doing the unspeakable, IRS  

Give you more rear ground clearance
and way better departure angle, but
then again, I'm a nut  

Hello, my name is Wild, and I'm a Zookaholic

FIS = Fully indipentant suspention, then you get in to 4wheel stearing, DROLL wish i had 20K laying around would make somthing just out there.

Ah com on Wild, I'd go with eccentric, not nut.

    I keep thinkin that a properly set up IFS combined with a similar IRS is the route to go....

    Years ago when I was running sprints everyone ran
beam axles front and rear. Along came a guy in the World of outlaws (Sammy Swindel) and he ran an IFS 1 year..worked great. Next year he comes back with an IRS. Beat tar out of everyone, came out the corners like the Space Shuttle. The solution, they banned it.
    The Hummer uses 4WIS and can go almost anywhere
and Lamborgini had it on the LM400 with amazing results.

    I think that if I ever get into the extreme thing I'm going to look into it...wheel travel, traction, operating angles...it just looks like a winner.

Zag

Zagy when your there let me know, put some things into motion show the off road world what ground clearance is., distance from the ground to pumpkin, or distance from the ground to the chasis, i would prefer distance to the chasis!