Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 1987 - 1996 Ford F-150, F-250, F-350 and larger pickups - including the 1997 heavy-duty F250/F350+ trucks

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:26 AM
401477534 401477534 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 129
401477534 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Chassis flex solution?

I have always noticed that the 80s and 90s era trucks had a lot of frame flex, or frame torsion I should say...I was thinking of a way to fix the problem but I dont know if it would make it better or cause more problems in the future...My thought was that when they do twist its not just one rail sagging more than the other, the one frame rail moves toward the front of the truck while the other moves towards the back...its pretty noticeable if you look at them in a ditch, one corner of the bed will be closer to the cab than the other, like the bed is cocked sideways a bit...Id imagine this is due to the way the cross members are designed. They all just go straight across with no braces on the side to keep the frame rails from sliding opposite each other...I was thinking a simple steel X in the frame right over the axles would help, Im almost positive it would...but I think it would cause more cracking issues in the future...would it be best to let the frames do what they do or make them stiffer?
Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:29 AM
rangergirl94's Avatar
rangergirl94 rangergirl94 is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Geneva,Ohio
Posts: 656
rangergirl94 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I plan on stiffening mine idk I guess I see how it goes
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:31 AM
401477534 401477534 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 129
401477534 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I guess so...I dont have an 80 or 90s truck, but I plan to get a 92 -97 for a work truck some day. I never liked how much they twisted, maybe its not that bad...Another thought I had was to bolt a 1/8 or 3/16 plate along the inside of the frame rail.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:42 AM
ncranchero's Avatar
ncranchero ncranchero is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E.Lincoln County, NC
Posts: 2,814
ncranchero has a good reputation on FTE.ncranchero has a good reputation on FTE.
steve.mckellop
I'd suspect the Ford engineers designed it to flex. Remove that flex and something else may break/crack. Yeah, it looks bad but your truck has held together all these years.
__________________
Steve,
'94 F150 4x4 4.9L/5-speed/3.55(H9) 166K miles
'02 Escape XLT 3.0/auto 165K miles
'14 TRANSIT Connect
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:51 AM
broncoderek's Avatar
broncoderek broncoderek is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 470
broncoderek is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
My thoughts are these:

1) Suspension travel is not great on these trucks, less so with 3/4 and one-tons. I think a VERY stiff frame would be more appropriate for a very flexible suspension.

2) Recalling the Three Stooges plumbing episode, every time they diverted the water with a pipe, it just shot out somewhere else (gas stove etc.).

And similar to a powertrains weakest link, once you install badass u-joints, the axles are next in line, then maybe a ring gear. Point being is that you may just want your u-joints to remain the weakest link because the other alternatives upstream are much more expensive and a bigger PITA.

When flex is elimated successfully, that stress is going to find the next weakest point where ever that may be. It may indeed be the metal itself and cracks will develop at invisible weakpoints along the frame or perhaps a spring mount will tear off.

I'd let the frame flex as it was engineered to do and not worry much about it.
__________________
1994 Bronco Police Pkg. 351, E4OD 200kmi (sold).

1995 F-150 extended cab, flare side 302, E4OD, 3:55's, towing package.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-30-2012, 10:08 AM
Onus's Avatar
Onus Onus is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vernon, CT
Posts: 1,291
Onus is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Frames were originally designed to flex. Some crazy world we live in where frame flex is bad these days? Well according to GM. Now there 3/4ton trucks are boxed. Horrible idea for us New England truck owners. Plus flex isn't bad at all. We all know how the YJ jeep wrangler boxed frames hold up here. They don't they rust from the inside out.
__________________
Tanner - Connecticut Chapter Member.
1983 F-250HD 2wd 300. T18 4speed 4.10s. Base. 170k Hiding in garage for the last 10 years. dead. dads truck. Project truck.
1991 F-250HD 4x4 351w ZF 5speed 4.10s Custom. 165k old plow and landscaping truck. Parts truck.
1990 F-250HD 2wd 7.3idi e4od 3.55s. Custom 360k 'The Carpathia' Daily driver.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:30 AM
jroehl jroehl is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lafayette, IN
Posts: 6,402
jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.jroehl has a spectacular reputation.
I don't think the rails slide in relation to each other. If they did that, your bed and cab would buckle, plus your bumpers would swing in and out on the ends. What you're seeing is the frame twisting, which is good because it distributes the stress among several components, rather than concentrating it at various connection points.

Jason
__________________
-2003 E250 cargo 4.2L V6, 4sp electronic auto, 22 axle (work van)
-1993 F250 XLT xcab LB 351 2wd E4OD 4.10 open (parked, tranny issues)

Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.
Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:48 PM
401477534 401477534 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 129
401477534 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks for all this info, It always looked bad to me, mainly because the 70s and older trucks didn't twist as bad as the 80s is why I was concerned with it.

I always thought it was funny how frame twist wasn't a concern until gm boxed their frame...I just always thought the 80s and 90s trucks flexed a bit too much, but the 70s and 80s chevys were just as bad, and I guess I have never actually hear an issue with it.

I just had to let someone else answer my question, more cross members and triangulation would stiffen it up, but would cause much stress elsewhere... at least with the flexibility it can rest into a non stressful position
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2012, 09:28 PM
Diesel_Brad's Avatar
Diesel_Brad Diesel_Brad is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gilbert, PA
Posts: 13,866
Diesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud ofDiesel_Brad has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncranchero View Post
I'd suspect the Ford engineers designed it to flex. Remove that flex and something else may break/crack. Yeah, it looks bad but your truck has held together all these years.
Agreed.

In my pulling truck, I wanted to loose the flefor obvious reasons). I trussed the frame with 1.5" square tubing from the trans cross member to the rear axle
__________________
Looking for Blue 40-20-40 seats. PM me !!!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 09:28 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UPDATE: Need Ideas for Steering Box, Cross Member & Frame Reinforcemnent clarkbre 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 3 11-15-2014 11:36 PM
72 F-250 4X4 Power Steering - Instructions with Pictures tpdaniels 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 17 10-10-2012 08:22 AM
Fame flex at steering box, crossmember loose ... Thoughts? cadunkle 1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 20 08-09-2010 01:32 PM
F350 Frame Flex pontichev 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 6 03-05-2008 10:50 PM
Boxing the frame on a 67 F100. oughtsix 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 4 10-28-2002 02:06 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks

Tags
250, 96, 97, chassis, duty, f150, f250, flex, ford, forum, frame, remove, spring, stiffen, super, torsional, twist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup