I just read a post saying that the twin-I beam set up was weak compared to a-arms, I disagree. How do you think they compare?

 

Twin I beam has the strenght of a solid axle with the ride of a A arm front end. The only problem is the alignments with the TTB can be a pain. I like the TTB because they still use Ujoints and lockouts unlike A arms that use CV axles and they are always turning.

 

IMO twin I beams seem to be much better. They ride nice, and are stronger. like c_ross said, the Ujointed front axles are also stronger than the CV joints.

 

twin i beam's all the way. Boo to FORD on doing away with them for a carlike truck. C V joints belong on a front wheel drive.

 

Ford got rid of the TTB because people couldn't keep tires on the front of their trucks. It would wear a set out twice as fast as the A-arm setup. I had one, and it was a pain. Had to rotate tires twice a month seemed like. Then I bought a GM with the A-arm setup. Even though the truck was GM junk, the A-arm setup immediately got my attention. Smoother ride, easier on tires, helped in braking, and I tortured it off-road and never had a minutes trouble. Suspension is definitely one area that GM had a HUGE advantage in for almost a decade.

 

I was asking about the 2wd, Twin I-beam front suspension. But the 4x4 comments are usable as well.

 

I like the 2WD better because the arms are longer and get less camber change during wheel travel. Ford used this starting in the mid 60's and used until 96 on F150's and 97 on F250's. It was around along time.

 

the twin I beam is a favorite for desert racers and is easier to lift then the tradional A-arm set up. as for the TTB comments, i keep my tires regularly rotated and i haven't had a lick of trouble keeping tires on mine. even now with it out of allignment the tires are wearing good and i thrash it off-road.

 

In 2000 I completely redid the TTB front end on my 84 4wd: coil springs, shocks, bushings, balljoints, tierod ends, the whole deal. I put a brand new set of 31x10.50s on a year ago, rotated them once since then; and tire wear has not been a problem. While it cost me nearly 1000 dollars to redo the frontend, it has payed for its self many times over already. I beat on it pretty hard off road and still have no serious alignment problems. I love the TTB it seems to have a lot more travel than the A arm set up, and the strength is not even comparable. U-joints versus CVs? I'll take strength over smoothness any day of the week. Not only that A arm frontends don't allow the installation of lockout hubs.

 

can,t say as i,ve ever had a problem with my front tires wearing out, cant keep rear tires on my f-150... surprise surprise it's a 5.0
as for the other trucks my friend had a 2001 dacota, mind you he thrashed it, but the whole front differential fell out on the ground while off roading. completely disconnected. Took the truck to dodge, 1 year old, 20000k and they said he overtorked it. with a 3.9 and cancelled his warrenty

 

Not getting on your case here, but, I disagree. The old GM's (and current ones) Eat more front end parts like ball joints, idler arms, and toe rod ends than any other vehicle I work on. I never so much as rotated the front tires on my 92 f150 in the year and a half I owned it, they wore perfectly even, and the truck tracked straight down the road. ALso, the ride of my truc was a lot less harsh than any Chevy truck I have ever riddenin or worked on. The Twin I/ tracton beam is the best, independant suspencion that is out there IMO. Probably the main factor I bought an F250 SD vs. the 150 is due to the front suspension. I absolutely did not want the much weaker front end.

 

I'll second that on the A arm frontends eating tires and breaking parts. Even the HMMWVs I drive and work on every day (USMC) have that problem. We have them coming in the shop all the time for broken or worn out front and rear suspension parts (4 wheel independent suspension) They go though pitman arms, idler arms, tie rod ends, steering boxes, and ball joints like its cool. They occasionally eat a CV joint sometimes, but not too often ( they don't have enough power to break driveline components, what can you expect from GM diesels!). One of my buddies back home had a 90 SDime Blazer and he killed that frontend after one weekend of 4 wheeling.

 

Whenever this debate comes up I read about how weak the a-arm setup is, then a bunch of examples of broken chevy's and dodges. Everybody says the CV joints are weak, but I don't remember reading about any breaking. Also I don't read about much tire eating trouble with the a-arms and I never read about an a-arm (or frame connection points) actually breaking. I think both designs are pretty good and have some pros and cons. I really like the Twin I-Beam 2wd's, I have an econoline and a pal of mine has a 150 and the front ends on them are great. But I think the handling with the a-arm is better. And everytime this comes up and people say the a-arm is weak, they use chevy's or dodges as the examples. For heavy off-roading I'd want a solid axle over either of them. anybody who knows of a FORD a-arm that ripped loose, let's see some pics...

 

I've owned 3 Rangers with 2wd and the twin I beam. I liked it, really tough suspension, and hard to knock out of alignment. Didn't chew up tires too bad, except for the last Ranger. For some reason, that truck was really tough on tires, both front and rear, so I can't blame the twin I beams. Maybe I should have rotated them more often, but it's too much trouble sometimes! My '03 F150 2wd has the A-arms, seems to be good too. But for off road, can't beat the solid front axle!

 

I will agree that I also dont see any a arm suspension breaking in any of the big 3. I see GM ones excessively wearing front end parts, I have seen the f150 ford break tie rod ends, and I very rarely see any IFS mopar truck wear any front end part The ball joints are pretty big in the older ones.
But,
The aluminum front differential housing is weak compared to cast iron, and really have no place in a full size truck. The dodge 1500 4X4 has only been IFS since the 2002 model, and really haven' t been around long enough to tell if they will last.