Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
I am so confused by this sentence.
It goes back to this:
...TTB and Ibeam suspension...had terrible alignment problems, poor handling characteristics with terrible camber change through the suspension cycle.

...a true IFS (A arms), that is built correctly.
If you've designed a better IFS, tell us about it.
The topic of this thread, and what I'm talking about, is a suspension that would be an improvement on the TTB under a turbo-diesel in a 3/4-ton working, street-legal fullsize truck chassis.
My point is: your race toys aren't specifically relevant to the OP's issue. That's not his goal. He doesn't (and I don't) have a 1000hp engine, and probably doesn't want one. And my opinion is that, whatever problems you perceive with the leaf TTB, it's still the best solution for the truck's designed purpose.
I'm obviously not going to convince you...this is all just simply my opinion.
And that's all I'm posting. I don't see this as a forum to convince anyone of anything - it's just a forum to discuss things. The OP can do what he wants to with his trucks; you can do what you want with yours; I'll do what I want with mine; everyone else will do with theirs... But discussing the options, experiments, attempts, results, & alternatives benefits us all.

All of my TTBs/TIBs are aligned perfectly, and have been for many miles. My overweight heavily-modified 4.9L stickshift Bronco handles so well that I can drift it easily around a dry or wet clover leaf without leaving my lane. IDK how you're judging the camber change, but IMO, it's perfect. Both steering tires' inner tread shoulders bite in, just like you'd want them to. Yes, the travel is supposed to be limited, because these trucks weren't designed to go ballistic. If you keep all 4 wheels on the ground, the leaf packs allow plenty enough travel, while bearing all that weight. I can't imagine any way to improve it FOR ALL DESIGNED APPLICATIONS. And I don't consider reverting to an antique solid axle to be an improvement, because it sacrifices too many actual improvements within the TTB. Based on your pics, you don't consider solid front axles better, either. :unsure:
 

·
Project Shamu
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
It goes back to this:
My point is: your race toys aren't specifically relevant to the OP's issue. That's not his goal. He doesn't (and I don't) have a 1000hp engine, and probably doesn't want one. And my opinion is that, whatever problems you perceive with the leaf TTB, it's still the best solution for the truck's designed purpose.

And that's all I'm posting. I don't see this as a forum to convince anyone of anything - it's just a forum to discuss things. The OP can do what he wants to with his trucks; you can do what you want with yours; I'll do what I want with mine; everyone else will do with theirs... But discussing the options, experiments, attempts, results, & alternatives benefits us all.

All of my TTBs/TIBs are aligned perfectly, and have been for many miles. My overweight heavily-modified 4.9L stickshift Bronco handles so well that I can drift it easily around a dry or wet clover leaf without leaving my lane. IDK how you're judging the camber change, but IMO, it's perfect. Both steering tires' inner tread shoulders bite in, just like you'd want them to. Yes, the travel is supposed to be limited, because these trucks weren't designed to go ballistic. If you keep all 4 wheels on the ground, the leaf packs allow plenty enough travel, while bearing all that weight. I can't imagine any way to improve it FOR ALL DESIGNED APPLICATIONS. And I don't consider reverting to an antique solid axle to be an improvement, because it sacrifices too many actual improvements within the TTB. Based on your pics, you don't consider solid front axles better, either. :unsure:
Just to avoid beating a dead horse, I'm just going to say that I do not think solid axles are better, but if I was on a budget (like I am with my '96) then I would much rather do the SAS, as getting a "nicely setup IFS", like i said, is completely impractical and very expensive. These customers of mine spent tens of thousands on shocks alone.

A good way to improve Ford's design would be;
1) Scrap leafs, go to coils (like the 2wd I beam trucks have)
2) Longer radius arms, prevent negative caster while the suspension is drooping.
3) Stronger u-joints (1480's and chromo axles)
4) Stronger Snouts
5) Limit straps to prevent too much droop

Granted Ford most likely pushed all these suggestions to the side at the time of designing because it was not cost effective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
You're describing the D44IFSHD.

(phone app link)


But it can't carry the weight that a D50IFS can. And the coils that could, would either be too long to fit under the shock towers (which would change the design of the truck), or they'd be too thick to have any travel (which would make it ride worse than a solid). And I don't follow your logic of 2 & 5. At normal ride, the suspension's main links (the axle beams & radius arms, in the case of a TTB) should be horizontal (from their pivot points on the frame, to the ball joints). For a passenger/highway/cargo vehicle, there's no reason for the suspension to droop much below that. So the caster never goes negative when there's enough traction for caster to matter. And since your list didn't include anything to increase downtravel, 5 seems moot. The design of the RA bushings limits droop, even if the shocks are removed.

So I don't think those were dismissed because of cost - I think it's because they don't meet the design goals of the trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I’m just really confused by this discussion all together. Not saying the D50 is a bad set up but for someone looking for a nice riding, easy maintenance, and convenient lift changes for their front end, a D60 is the way to go. I have a D50 in my 96 F250 SCLB and it rides decent but wears on my tires unevenly and I can’t find anyone to get it aligned correctly. Also I am going to be lifting the truck with 350 rear blocks and a D60. D50s are great platforms if you know how to work on them, just like the Detroit 6.5 turbo diesels. Never seen someone so passionate about the TTB though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I’m just really confused by this discussion all together. Not saying the D50 is a bad set up but for someone looking for a nice riding, easy maintenance, and convenient lift changes for their front end, a D60 is the way to go. I have a D50 in my 96 F250 SCLB and it rides decent but wears on my tires unevenly and I can’t find anyone to get it aligned correctly. Also I am going to be lifting the truck with 350 rear blocks and a D60. D50s are great platforms if you know how to work on them, just like the Detroit 6.5 turbo diesels. Never seen someone so passionate about the TTB though.
It boils down to preference. I've met a lot of people passionate about the TTB, but I spent a lot of time with people that like building and driving pre-runners, and that where the TTB really shines. I've met even more people that completely hate it though lol. Mostly because of its downsides, like tire wear, PITA to work on/maintain, etc.

And even though I prefer the TTB, I completely agree that the D60 (or any solid front axle) is the way to go if you are looking for nice riding, easy maintenance, and convenient lift changes for the front end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
If you're talking about me being passionate - I'm not. I'm just discussing it. And I agree with Ford & every other manufacturer that the ride is better on an independent suspension. I think most people hate the TTB because they don't understand it, and neglect it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,346 Posts
not here. i feel ttb/ ifs is great..........for a car.
but for a 4X4 truck that gets the snot beat out of it doing what a 4X4 truck was meant to do the only way to go is solid axle.
i replaced way too many ifs/ttb setups back when i ran the mechanical end of the body shop because they fell apart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
for a 4X4 truck that gets the snot beat out of it doing what a 4X4 truck was meant to do the only way to go is solid axle.
I've managed to beat quite a bit of snot with the D44IFS under my Bronco, and it stays aligned when I get it up over 100mph. So I disagree that a solid is the ONLY way to go. I bet a lot of HMMWV drivers would disagree with you, too, since they have 4WIS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I've managed to beat quite a bit of snot with the D44IFS under my Bronco, and it stays aligned when I get it up over 100mph. So I disagree that a solid is the ONLY way to go. I bet a lot of HMMWV drivers would disagree with you, too, since they have 4WIS.
Not just the HMMWVs, pretty much all wheeled military vehicles are going or have gone to 4WIS. The new JLTV is a fine example of that, same with the HEMTTs, MaxPros, MATVs, etc. They have no issues with those systems either. The JLTV is very fast through rough terrain and rides like a Cadillac; can't get that kind of ride quality with solid axles. They most certainly take a beating too, without falling apart. My D50 has taken a brutal beating, and does so just about every time I take it out. The D35s and D44s that I have had in the past also took brutal beatings (high speed desert kinda stuff), never had a failure. Just wear and tear like ball joints and bushings, but nothing premature. They certainly never 'fell apart.' I still say it is a matter of preference and the solid axle is an easier setup to maintain and work on, but strongly disagree that the solid axle is the only way to go for hard off-roading.

Although, the HMMWV rides like a brick without a full payload lol (or fully up armored)
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top