 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / September 200594 F-250 Front Camber question
Posting a question for my father, about his 1994 diesel F-250 that he's owned since new. This has always been something he's noticed. He has mentioned it to the dealership several times over the years, and they've told him it is normal for the truck. While driving in reverse, there is a "major" negative camber on his front wheels. As soon as he drives forward, the camber returns to zero. Most recently, he's been parking in the back of the house, and has had to backup down the 100' concrete driveway for the past 2 months. He's now noticed a slight uneven tire wear on the insides of the front tires, and thinks its due to him backing up everyday. Any ideas or suggestions if he's got a suspension problem? Or, is this all normal? Thanks That is the IFS 3/4 ton right? (Independent Front Suspension) It is normal for the IFS trucks to camber in at the top like that when backing up. 1/2 tons too. Inside tire wear COULD be negative camber, or could be too much toe out. Negative camber COULD be caused by weakening front springs, or worn upper ball joints. Spring condition can be determined by checking proper ride height, a good shop can do this. Take it to an alignment shop that can do 4WD alignments, and don't pay for a 4 wheel alignment, there is no alignment adjustments to be made on the back. Have them do a thrust angle alignment. Good luck, Spdloader > Posting a question for my father, about his 1994 diesel F-250 that he's > owned since new. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Thanks > That is the IFS 3/4 ton right? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Spdloader There is no cure other than replace the truck and swapping in solid front axle. Its very design is flawed from the start wnat camber will change with are articulation and load change in the truck. Worst front end design ever put on a 4x4 truck. ----------------- www.thesnoman.com Umm, snowman, you're an idiot. When a subject in here arises that I don't know about, and that's often, I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. You should take the same advice. Spdloader >> That is the IFS 3/4 ton right? >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com > Umm, snowman, you're an idiot. > > When a subject in here arises that I don't know about, and that's often, I > have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. You should take the same advice. > > Spdloader I think that who is in error here is apparent and it is not me. The TTB is a very poor design for a off road vehical, worst front end ever built and if it had been built by a smaller player than Ford it would have died long ago. It is only by the nubers of them out there because that was the only way ford built them that some are still in use. not because it is a good design. Anybody with any engineering background or understanding at all can see the design limitations from day one. They can handle funny and eat tires regulalry too. Wishing will not change its limitations or design flaws. It was meant as a cheap front end with a fairly good ride and it does that will but jack it up with big tires and use it for hard core off road and it does poorly there and eats those big expensive tires very quickly too. ----------------- www.thesnoman.com SnoMan, You are unable to separate opinion from fact, speaking on subjects you don't have any experience with, so I'll not carry this debate any further with you. Have a good day. Spdloader >> Umm, snowman, you're an idiot. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com > SnoMan, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Spdloader You have that backwards, you are in error because I have worked on few of them for friend that got stuck with them and it is a poor design. And of course you cannot debate it further because you do not understand the engineering dynamics and limitations of its design. Any day you want to talk mechcanical engineering design nuts and bolts "I" am up to it. ----------------- www.thesnoman.com lol Spdloader >> SnoMan, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com >> SnoMan, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >engineering dynamics and limitations of its design. Any day you want to >talk mechcanical engineering design nuts and bolts "I" am up to it. Everybody has an opinion I guess. I've owned two 4x4 Rangers with the baby version of the TTB and was quite happy with it. (Ranger #1 had 33" tires and Ranger #2 had 31"s.) I know some have tire wear issues with this type of front end, but I never did. I would guess those that do have obvious front end problems to begin with and while it may be due to weak factory springs, a properly set up TTB will wear tires reasonably well. From a technical point of view, I can understand why the TTB would have handling issues due to constant camber change, but in reality, my experience was it was no more ill handling or numb than any of the other 4x4s I've owned (72 Bronco, 83 Ramcharger, 88 Samari, 99 Super Duty). And although it has limitations, I think this design offers a pretty decent compromise in ride, strength, ground clearance and the ability to lift. No, it doesn't excel in any one catagory, but if it did, it would certainly be limited in others. I would rather own a TTB set-up over any current IFS system and only a coil-equipped straight axle would be higher on MY list. Matt 99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 Where in the OP's message did it indicate this was a 4wd TTB front axle? I had an e-150 van with the twin-I-beam, first set of tires lasted almost 70K miles, no problem with uneven wear. >> Umm, snowman, you're an idiot. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ----------------- > www.thesnoman.com The OP didn't, that's why I started my reply with a question. Solid axle doesn't do that when backed, TTB does it worst when it's a 4WD. Spdloader > Where in the OP's message did it indicate this was a 4wd TTB front axle? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> ----------------- >> www.thesnoman.com Thanks guys, I think everything is normal then, albeit odd. BTW, it is a 4x4, forgot to mention that...have no idea about TTB, or what that even means. I think the whole issue has come up in conversation with me because he's shopping around for a new truck again. He showed me the other day what he was talking about...I just found it strange to look at myself, with no weight other than the engine overtop the front end. Thanks again. > Where in the OP's message did it indicate this was a 4wd TTB front axle? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ----------------- > > www.thesnoman.com TTB or (Twin Traction Beam) is a trade name used by Ford to describe their version of first generation independent front suspension (IFS). Spdloader > Thanks guys, I think everything is normal then, albeit odd. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> > ----------------- >> > www.thesnoman.com > TTB or (Twin Traction Beam) is a trade name used by Ford to describe their > version of first generation independent front suspension (IFS). > > Spdloader Too call a TTB a first gen IFS is a poor use of terms as it is a very poor choice of words to describe it. "Swing Axle" is a more proper term because with a true IFS the wheels do not use the cheap swing axle design because a TTB is nothing more than a D44 with a hinge in the middle of it. Its design causes a lot of issues with camber and track width. If you say put 36's on it and allow for a 12 inch travel (6 up and 6 down) you will see a variance of 14.5 degrees in camber angle plus at full compression (wheels up as far as they go) the wheel track at center line of tread contact will be about 5 inches wider and at full extension the front track will be 6 inches narrower than level or a total track width variance range of 11 inches!!! (besed on the the physics of the geometery of its primative design) So, while your front end is articulating the front track and camber is constantly changes effecting traction, handling and is in effect erasing the front tires too. Even driving down the road commuting, the track is constantly changing and wearing the tires with side forces (this is why TTB's eat front tires because of constanly changing camber and track width) A straight axle does not do this nor does a truck like a GM with true IFS because the camber is far more constant and the track changes an lot less too because it is not aggrevated by large changes in camber angle as the suspension articulates. The TTB was a design that should have never been used in a consumer vehicle and it added to the Explorers well known tendance to roll over and Ford quietly dumped the TTB when they redesigned the Explorer because no vehicle should be so unstable that the loss of a tire is a one way ticket to a rollover because the front end could tuck under in the right conditions and accelerate the roll over which the Explorers were known for in past models. Firestone got to much blame for that whole thing too because Ford was even under inflating the tires too with their suggested tire pressures.  Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com Exactly how did you help the OP Snojob? Crawl back into your hole. Spdloader >> TTB or (Twin Traction Beam) is a trade name used by Ford to describe >> their version of first generation independent front suspension (IFS). [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > much blame for that whole thing too because Ford was even under inflating > the tires too with their suggested tire pressures. He must be awfully important, he has his own forum...wait, he's the only one who posts to it, never mind. :-) > Exactly how did you help the OP Snojob? > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> thing too because Ford was even under inflating the tires too with their >> suggested tire pressures. > He must be awfully important, he has his own forum...wait, he's the only one > who posts to it, never mind. > > :-) John Stan PO Box 205 Donnelsville, Ohio 45319 US jrstan@earthlink.net 937-882-1336 >> Exactly how did you help the OP Snojob? >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >>> thing too because Ford was even under inflating the tires too with their >>> suggested tire pressures. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 25 min 1 user >He must be awfully important, he has his own forum...wait, he's the only one >who posts to it, never mind. > >:-) Awww, that's just sad...... Matt 99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4 lol Spdloader > He must be awfully important, he has his own forum...wait, he's the only > one who posts to it, never mind. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> much blame for that whole thing too because Ford was even under >>> inflating the tires too with their suggested tire pressures. Well, the Fords don't use the TTB anymore. TTB stands for (Twin Traction Beam, the 4wd equivalent of the Twin I-Beam that is still used in new E-series and Superduty 4x2's. F-150's use a double A-arm front suspension, and the Superduty 4x4's use a solid axle...leaf springs up to MY 2004, 2005 brought back coils. > Thanks guys, I think everything is normal then, albeit odd. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> > ----------------- >> > www.thesnoman.com >That is the IFS 3/4 ton right? > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> Thanks It is not a IFS truck, it is a TTB truck and the primative design its use or swing axles allow for drastic camber changes when ever the usupension articulates. There is no fix or cure and it is not to be confussed with a real IFS front end like GM’s which does not have this problem by design. I never liked the TTB. THe only "fix" is to swap it out for a solid front axle which is not cheap too do. Shorten tire life and strange wear is a TTB trade mark too.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.