"Why would you want the twin I beam back, other than travel length advantange. You have better steering radius with independent suspension. I have driven both and don't really see any other difference between the two. "
Quite simply because the twin ibeam suspension is bullet proof in comparison to the weak designed of IFS. The 4x4 system in the IFS (having CV axels) in comparison to the solid axel set-up on TTB trucks - the TTB truck again is a much more durable design. IFS for lack of better words - pussified the ranger but it sure rides nice.
"Why would you want the twin I beam back, other than travel length advantange. You have better steering radius with independent suspension. I have driven both and don't really see any other difference between the two. "
Quite simply because the twin ibeam suspension is bullet proof in comparison to the weak designed of IFS. The 4x4 system in the IFS (having CV axels) in comparison to the solid axel set-up on TTB trucks - the TTB truck again is a much more durable design. IFS for lack of better words - pussified the ranger but it sure rides nice.
Just so you know, Twin I-Beam and TTB suspensions are themselves IFS.
"Just so you know, Twin I-Beam and TTB suspensions are themselves IFS.
People curse the TTB also..... "
Understand - but also know the diference between the two. New IFS is weak crap but sure rides like a car if thats what you like. TTB was a solid, rugged, proven design and Fords replacing it with a weaker, inferior system continues to boggle my mind.
I could understand it if it was a stronger, superior, more dependable system all the way around - but the truth is it's not, and it greatly weakend the 4x's. But it passified this rediculous quest for trucks with a car like ride......go figure.
Just to make you feel better, my '98 4x4 has the new SLA IFS. While I have never off-roaded it, and have used 4x4 only a few times, I have have no trouble with that part of the vehicle in 11 years an 86,000 or so miles. In addition, it has always had poor ride quality.
Reliable with a poor ride...who knew?
I think my '86 4x2 Twin I-beam Ranger rode better.
I'm in my 5th ranger right now. All I can say is my 93's 4x compared to my 2001 - zero comparison as far as the diference in the durability of the front end/suspension and 4x system. The CV axel 4x system is junk, pure junk. If you compare the two systems the old system is superior in ever aspect - there was no good reason to switch other than it's what everyone else was using, and even then Ford has done so little to change the Ranger of all things they do to change it they do so and replace a good, solid system with an inferior system.
So according to this article, Ford is going to discontinue the ranger in 2009, but in the fall of 2010 bring out and F-100 to replace the sport trac and compete with the bigger mid size trucks, and also a new Bronco!!! Then in 2012 they will bring back the ranger, will either be the same size or smaller.
All I do know for sure is that the two Rangers I owned (a '91 STX club cab and a '99 stepside club cab) were great trucks and I'd LOVE to have either of them again (and I'm kind of in the market looking for one as a project truck). V-6's coupled with 5-speeds, 4x4 (the '91 was manual hubs, the '99 auto hubs) were good on gas with nice power. Even had good ride for a truck.
Seems the newer they get, the more crazy they get with them. Don't mess with it if it's not broken. I wonder what they'll be like in 2012....
One can only hope that they go retro. At least it seems to be working okay for everyone else. Probably wouldn't hurt to "update" certain parts of this truck from the days it was "bullet-proof" to further seal the deal on sales of a *NEW* model. No one seems to like to buy 1st year model vehicles.
Should go to a solid front axel like the supper dutys. Those ride pretty good now and have fewer u joints then the ttb front ends and you don't need to worry about camber change as the front end comes off the ground due to heavy loads in the back. Put the 3.5 direct injected engine in with a 6 speed, maybe even with a turbo, that would be a fun truck.
__________________
Jim-1996 F250 CC Shorty 4X4 E4OD 7.3L Diesel
Mods: 6637 air filter,203 F t-stat from Diesel Site-finally heat! HPX line, Tymar 3-4 dp to 4" exhaust, E4OD "The Cure" 30K mod for now, 140IDM mod, ISSPRO ev1 egt, trans temp, boost
Powerstroke - IF your not being blown, your just sucking.
You said it wildstang. a solid axled ranger would be nice but i don't think the ttb deserves all the bad credit it gets(not necessarily here, but im sure youve all heard it) the truth is it was a simple and rugged way to get a smoother ride out of a truck
i like my TTB. i dont like all the extra crap like the P.A.T.S. ignition, air bags,tire monoriting& im not a big fan of a.b.s. brakes either. more crap to go wrong. i'll keep rebuilding my '93 as it needs it. someday i may even go with a carberated 302 with breaker-point ignition. if i could find a restored early 70's bronco, that would be ideal.
While breaker point ignition may be cheap and simple, I really doubt that it is more reliable then electronic ignition. Just going by my experience with small engines, and what other people tell me about old breaker point ignition systems in cars - it was less then ideal.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
about old cars ignition.... Lead Head! Did you forget dirrty terminals under distributor cap ore like someone fogot truck with ing. on and next morning coil was toasted....
Ore how difficult was to ajust clearance of contacts...
And weak spark dissapeared somewhere and many of us used to find a mistery place where this mistery spark disappeared....
Not sure that breaker point ignition was better....
__________________
_____________________________________
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
A breaker point system was not more reliable, but. If it died out there in the middle of nowhere, you can use gum and aluminum foil, or hairpins and rubber bands to make it work long enough to get you home. You don't need any test equipment, you can see all the parts as they are not embedded in plastic, nor hidden inside a box.
I had one breaker system fail me in the middle of Chicago rush hour, in the third lane over from the right. The engine just quit, but I was able to coast over to the side. Found a broken primary wire, at where it attached to the points block. Stripped the wire and re-connected it. Started up and drove off. Scared stiff as we were stopped at the narrow point where another freeway merged so there was traffic on both sides.
Point [get it?] is that I was able to fix it right then and there and get out of a dangerous situation with a car full of people.
But an electronic ignition wouldn't have failed. Ummhmmm, maybe. I've had them fail where they worked when I pulled into the parking lot, but failed when I came out with all the groceries, and, of course, ice cream... in July. Couldn't fix that one, but waited long enough that it finally fired up.
So it happens to all...
tom
__________________
It's not how hard you work, it's how much you get done. Simplificate and add lightness
I have a 74' F-100 with the orig 302 and I have been looking for some factory hp and tq #s for it and have been unable to find them.
The truck 302 and car 302 are different. I only have EGR and an Evap tank on my truck where as emissions on the cars were much tighter. I'm shure my trucks 302 is making more than 120hp.
1974 F100 302: 130 Net HP @ 3800 RPM.
122 ft. lbs. Net Torque @ 2200 RPM.
------------------------------------
1974 Passenger Car 302: 140 Net HP @ 3800 RPM.
__________________ Bill / Retired Ford Partsman (1962/97) / Part number research: Trucks: 1928/2000 // Cars: 1928/79.
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.
