All three Broncos have bone stock x-members, and almost stock driveshafts. No modifications to anything other than the 1350 yoke for the rear of the black Bronco. Even that was a simple fix.

IN the case of the F250, the x-member either has to be replaced or modified.
I dont believe this is a huge issue, and I remember seeing many options on this site.
As far as my builds go, these Broncos required minimal effort to complete.

 

I'm going to try and dig up a later model crossmember to put in there, the 90's stuff does have alot more drop in it if memory serves. I may end up building something new, as it won't be notching the crossmember so much as cutting it in two and tying it back together.
It really looks like I'm going to need a dual cardan joint at the case though, the yokes at that end were almost touching sitting at ride height.
This is what I'm dealing with crossmember wise, as you can see it barely cleared bone stock with the TTB still in it:
http://www.bigblocksix.com/f100swb/f...7/exhaust1.jpg

I was going to take some pictures of what I have going on under there now but my stupid camera died on me... LOL

 

I see how that coule be a problem, however, I dont see that as anything that a custom x-member cant fix.
I have seen several solutions for this problem. Anything from a complete custom unit, to a simple piece of tube cut in half and placed where a section of the corssmember has been removed where the driveshaft would hit.

 

I think with the F-250's you can get away with a well placed notch.

Or even better just replace it like you were going to do lol.

 

I'm going to see what I can scrounge up for stock stuff here this week. I'll probably end up fabbing something up, but, the less fabwork the better, using a buddys shop and materials, and only have weekends to work on it, plus it's -30... LOL
If you're getting away without a CV on the front shaft, I guess I'm going to have to flex the thing out and see just what happens. I also need to check my caster angle, pinion angle looks ok, but I haven't checked the caster yet, so, things could get better, or worse.

 

The 350's used a dual cardan joint for the front shaft. How do you plan on making the crossmember. Over or under the shaft?

 

Probably going to go above if I end up fabbing something, probably the best way to do it.

 

I think that is the best way to go if you custom build it. Did alot of looking at my 250 and whenever I get it going again I'm going to build my own. You could also use half the factory crossmember then fab up the rest, if you want to cut down on materials

 

Ok - so I'm a little late to the party (as usual) but I might as well subscribe.

So this seems to be where those leafs I grabbed for you went. Is that also the one that 80's d60 went into?

As usual it's lookin GOOD!

 

Looks like you are keeping busy with your new toy, love looking at your work.
I was wondering what would happen if the spring shackle mount was made to fit through the frame instead of below it, as yours is? Seems like some of the older trucks were like that from the factory. My reason for asking is, if this was done, it would put the axle closer to the stock height while doing the shackle reversal. The front mount could then be shortened also. The body mount may need to be modified some. Any thoughts?

 

I'm not Ed - but maybe I can help.

The shackles going through the frame like on the 70's (60's as well?) trucks are 2 piece shackles.

Like this.



This is what the "hanger" looks like that is rivited to the stock frame and serves as the shackle pivot




Based on this picture of where the rear shackle mounts on Ed's black bronco - I think it could be hard to work.



As for your theory - yes, these type of shackles could work to keep the ride height lower. You'd just have to mess with a different setup for the front hangers as well seeing as it looks like they would head up into the frame.

 

Thanks CT, that's the idea. I thought about doing the SR but don't want to raise the truck any more than needed.

 

3......I can't keep up anymore.....You must have some acreage somewhere to store all these treasures....

 

What did you do about the crumple zone? Is it still trere? Do you see any problems with the shackle reversal and that zone?

 

Interesting question, as this plaqued me for quite a few days prior to tearing into these things.

From a mechanical aspect the crumple zone is designed to crumple or fold when a direct force is placed upon the area in a straigh line. Meaning a direct impact to the frontal area, and not the sides. I understand that this design maintians structural integrity with regards to side loads, and is only affected by frontal impacts.
That being said, I feel comfortable with the placement of the hanger in this area.
I have re-enforced one, and left another alone. Both have had recovery equipment attached to these areas with no damage or any sign of bending.
Notice that the two sides are tied togther, and the idea is to again place a 2" reciever between the two side, to further aid in strength.

I do not believe that these areas are of a terrible concern as far as strength goes, but the crumple zone design no longer works.
This is now a rigid design, and will never work as the original engineers designed it.