Re: 94 F-250 Front Camber question
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:09:14 GMT, SnoMan <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>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
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
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.
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4