I just purchased a '92 F250 frame,trans and axles.
I'm not concerened about swapping in the rear D60, It's the front I'm worried about! Has anyone done this yet?
Will I need to change the crossmember as well?
Any ideas?
Almost forgot, I want to put the 92 3/4 ton axles under my '91 Bronco.

 

I'm sure someone has done it but the F-250 front was a leaf-sprung TTB D50. Its a lousy setup to begin with since the leaf springs do not move in the same manner as the axle halves. Their articulation is perpendicular to the articulation of the leaf springs. There is ZERO provision for leaf springs under the front of any Bronco simply because NONE were ever equipped that way. To make it work you are going to have to do the fabrication work. Personally, I wouldn't do it. I don't even have much respect for SAS. But thats another story.

 

Am planning on some fabrication and agree with the leaf spring scenario. Was thinking of a hybrid of sorts using the bronco springs and modifying the F250 axles. Im guessing the easiest way will be to get an F150/bronco frame and do a side by side, then fab the needed parts before taking the front out of the bronco.

 

The rear axle in the f250 is a sterling 10.25 not a dana 60. I would look for a 78 or 79 bronco and use those axles. Or at least put a dana 60 in the front instead of the ttb.

 

Eh, I still like the idea of modifying the D50 TTB for coils. Still better articulation than solid axle out of the box and just as many pivot/bushing points. And unlike a broken track bar mounting, the TTB stays centered under the truck if an axle pivot breaks.

 

Hey hit up FTE member Bro_J he did a 78/79 d60 swap in his 96 bronco which is a much better option hands down and I think most will agree... These axles are the best if you are gonna swap axles. JMO

I guess it depends on what you are wanting to acheive...?

 

Funny that you mentioned this, I was playing around w/ the idea last year, I even started a thread about it, which got quickly derailed into complete uselessness by the keyboard mechanics. I went as far as getting hard measurements and drawing it out in CATIA ( 3D aerospace design software) I had it working in the design software, then the hard drive w/ the files crashed, I was never able to retrieve the files and it was too much work to do over again.

It was a completely do-able idea, I'm just not 100% sold on it being a great idea. You still have all of the TTB shortcomings to deal with, the design is just a more HD version of what Bronco or F150 came with from the factory.

 

If, by "TTB shortcomings" you mean alignment difficulties, you can always gain caster and camber alignment flexibility at the radius arms (which you would need with coils springs) and axle pivot points. you just need to fabricate a method of using the same or similar offset cam that the upper ball joints use in the OEM TTB setup. Tuff Country does this with their lift components and it provides not only additional caster and camber alignment capacity but the adjustments are independent of each other unlike the OEM ball joint stud cams.

 

In my experience a solid axle articulates better. I used an 89 F350 for a doner. If you want a high speed desert racer I suggest a modified TTB if you're going to off road in any other terrain or haul/tow with it I suggest a D60 leaf or coil, leaf is easiest and more affordable.

 

It was more about the inconstant camber angles as the suspension cycles, there's no way to compensate for it with the TTB suspension.

 

Nor is there a way to compensate for changes in camber angles in a solid axle. When you are deliberately putting the vehicle into off-camber situations, you will reach a point where you can no longer compensate for it. And leaves articulate perpendicular to their mounting/bushings which crushes and distorts them...

This is an age old discussion that has no right or wrong answers but preferences based upon experience and application. The only things that limit articulation in either setup are the geometric limitations dictated by the components. The ONLY significant difference between TTB and solid axles is the extra u-joint. I have just as many TTB photographs (modified and stock) depicting just as much articulation.

 

The camber angle is set on a solid axle, it doesn't change w/ suspension movement. My comments about the TTB are aimed at the on-road manners, off-road it doesn't really matter since most people aren't going very fast over the terrain. Since most guys are driving on pavement a lot more than they drive off road, this is where the TTB's show all of their bad traits. If you put a load in the bed of a F150/Bronco, or hook up a heavy trailer, the front end of the vehicle rises putting more positive camber into the front end and increases the toe-in which makes the edge of the front tires point 'not exactly' straight down the road, it effects the handling. This happens with both the TTB dana 44 and the TTB dana 50 front ends.

Like I said, off -road all of this is moot and this is where I think a hybrid TTB dana 50 front end could be helpful for some HD components for bigger tires, it's the on-road manners that I personally don't like.

 

Like firewood, if you're going to haul or tow I suggest a solid axle.
For high speed bumps I suggest a TTB.
When wheeling the straight axle will get more traction in rocks as one tire goes up the other is forced down producing traction.
Let's see them TTB pics. I have a few, I'll dig them up.

 

Do a search for the 1 ton Bronco. Can't remember exactly the name of the thread, but there is one here.

 

Camber angle changes on ANY axle as soon as the suspension articulates. Ford light trucks came from the factory with the rear riding higher than the front so that when loaded, the truck leveled off (bringing the camber angle into true). If one truly believes Ford didn't think of this when they engineered the trucks, perhaps someone missed their calling as an engineer.
Furthermore, if the load put into the bed (or on the hitch) of a 1/2-ton truck causes enough suspension differential to cause the kind of issues you referred to given the facts already stated about the way Ford engineered the truck, one should reconsider the load being borne by a 1/2-ton truck.