94 F-250 Front Camber question - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.trucks.ford
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2005, 19:01   #1 (permalink)
Popeye Jones
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
94 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


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-19-2005, 20:01   #2 (permalink)
Spdloader
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

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




"Popeye Jones" <abuse@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Q2JXe.520362$5V4.457691@pd7tw3no...
> 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
>
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 08:01   #3 (permalink)
TheSnoMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

Spdloader wrote:
> 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



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
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 08:01   #4 (permalink)
Spdloader
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

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


"TheSnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:7FUXe.1158$vw6.929@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Spdloader wrote:
>> 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

>
>
> 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



  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 09:01   #5 (permalink)
SnoMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

Spdloader wrote:
> 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
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 09:01   #6 (permalink)
Spdloader
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

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



"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:HFVXe.1696$q1.697@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Spdloader wrote:
>> 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



  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 10:01   #7 (permalink)
SnoMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

Spdloader wrote:
> 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



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
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 10:01   #8 (permalink)
Spdloader
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

lol

Spdloader

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:KuWXe.1205$vw6.597@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Spdloader wrote:
>> 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

>
>
> 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



  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 18:01   #9 (permalink)
Matt Macchiarolo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question


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.

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:HFVXe.1696$q1.697@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Spdloader wrote:
>> 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



  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2005, 19:01   #10 (permalink)
Matt Mead
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:09:14 GMT, SnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote:

>Spdloader wrote:
>> 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

>
>
>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.



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
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.trucks.ford



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.