The Dana 50 TTB and getting it under my E350 van.

[philos]

Don't know if this needs a quantitative measurement, but I'm a bit worried about the angle where the tie rod ends mount to the knuckle. The mounting surface on the knuckle in my mockup points downward at a pretty large angle. Perhaps this doesn't matter, or the drop pitman arm is also angled down to match so the planes swept by the pitman arm and knuckle mounting surfaces are both declined an equal amount below vertical. My "level" is based on the idea that the previous leaf springs would have mounted on a flat surface, so keep that surface level. Doing so angles the steering as described. So if you're out there that's all I'm wondering presently.

I think that's part of the design. I remember making a mental note that they had an angle to them, but what do I know?

I like your jig idea with the wheels welded to the tubing.

 

[philos]

What ride height was it at when you took these measurements? They'll change as the axle moves as it's split.

Lowering the axle pivots isn't necessary. I'd look into the high zoot ranger kits (97 and earlier of course) with modified beams for inspiration.

Axle was flat at that time, but I get your point (still looking for that piece of paper!)
Any links to the ranger kit? "High zoot" doesn't yield much via google... well, not much that's relevant to what we're doing here.

 

[simple]

They still eat tires.

Camber changes as the suspension cycles.

So where do you set your alignment? Rig loaded, or empty?

'Cause it matters! Especially with a full size that may gain 1500 lbs when loaded for a trip.
Food, water, gear, people....

I would think that if someone set up this suspension it would be because they were doing the majority of their driving off road and it wouldn't matter. Would be cool though to have coil preload adjusters like on a rear motorcycle suspension. Maybe even something on a gear motor so you could adjust on the fly.

 

[justcuz]

Gofastbroncos.com, racedezert.com and dezertrangers.com have tons of info on setting up TTB stuff.
It's all been done before lots of times.
I would grab that TTB entire front frame section, or at least the beams and all the brackets. The center to center on the front spring mounts is 36.5 inches I believe.
The bottom of the coil spring does not have to be perfectly flat.
Radius arm mounts to the beams will have to be modified as I think the Dana 44 beams are not as tall.
BajaF250 has a build on gofastbroncos with tons of pictures. He is running coilovers but he has a lot of mount pictures and radius arm mounting to the beams for ideas.

 

[philos]

Awesome, thanks!


Sent via flux capacitor

 

[Mwilliamshs]

Day late. -$1

Gofastbroncos and dezertrangers is the top 2 IMO. Lots of TTB tech on the rangerstation too.

 

[4x4junkie]

Been watching this thread for a bit, figured I'd comment on a few items here:

I would stay away from beam drop brackets. They transfer stress to the chassis and cause cracks.
If you need to reset the camber, you can move the lower ball joint out further on the beam.
The springs ending up closer to the tire is a good thing, your dampeners are right out close to were the force is being generated on them.

Drop brackets are fine if they are designed well... A well-designed drop (lift) bracket will be wider than a stock bracket to distribute the leverage over a wider part of the frame. This should avert issues of cracking (indeed, this was a very common occurrence on F-150s with kits that retained the footprint of the stock brackets). Another consideration is handling... drop bracket setups tend to handle a little better, with improved stability on steep and/or off-camber climbs (the higher pivots of modified beams increases the jacking rate of the suspension which can provoke instability under certain circumstances).

Where modified beams show their true benefits is at speed (and is why they're so popular on the go-fast scene). They have a lot more clearance, making it less likely you'll strike something during a launch/landing or hitting a dip in the road (an embedded rock sticking up, for example). However the center axle u-joint being at a constant angle can cause a vibration while driving in a straight line while in 4x4.
If speed-running is in your future, then the argument for modified beams is indeed very strong, however I would suggest sticking with drop brackets (keeping the axle geometry stock) if this is to be the more-typical expo type rig.

Don't know if this needs a quantitative measurement, but I'm a bit worried about the angle where the tie rod ends mount to the knuckle. The mounting surface on the knuckle in my mockup points downward at a pretty large angle. Perhaps this doesn't matter, or the drop pitman arm is also angled down to match so the planes swept by the pitman arm and knuckle mounting surfaces are both declined an equal amount below vertical. My "level" is based on the idea that the previous leaf springs would have mounted on a flat surface, so keep that surface level. Doing so angles the steering as described. So if you're out there that's all I'm wondering presently.

Hopefully I understand your concern correctly...
When it comes to the steering, what you want to aim for is having the steering linkage's movement be "in phase" with the suspension's (axle beam's) movement at static ride height. This provides the least amount of toe change (bump-steer) with changes in suspension movement/suspension loading ("In-phase" means the steering link (tierod) is aligned (parallel) with a straight line that runs between the beam pivot point to the knuckle where the tierod attaches, suspension at static ride height... In other words, the end of the tie rod will "point" directly to the beam pivot when at ride height).

To accomplish this, there are several different pitman arm drop heights available, along with the possibility of flipping the tie rods to the top of the steering knuckles.

I personally know of four different pitman arm heights that exist, each in 2" increments (from lowest to tallest):

• OEM 2WD Ranger/F-150/250/350 (this arm is almost completely flat, with no drop)
• OEM 4WD Ranger/Explorer
• Standard-issue aftermarket dropped arm (Skyjacker pt# FA400, Superlift #1109, etc.)
• Skyjacker "Extreme" drop arm (pt# FA600)

I'm not sure which OEM arm the E-series vans use, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same as the F-150 arm (they should all be interchangeable, being the same steering gear). If so, that would give you three increasing height levels for aligning your steering up with the TTB axle.

Also, you want the D50 axle beam pivots to be at the same height as your wheel hub centerline (this again at static ride height), which can affect the placement of your steering as well.

I wrote this article awhile back for Ranger/Explorer guys that were having steering issues after putting lifts on their rigs. The principles apply just the same to a F-150/F-250 setup, so maybe you & the OP can find some use out of it as well:
http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/winter2008/steering_tech.htm

They still eat tires.

Camber changes as the suspension cycles.

So where do you set your alignment? Rig loaded, or empty?

'Cause it matters! Especially with a full size that may gain 1500 lbs when loaded for a trip.
Food, water, gear, people....

If the steering is set up correctly, suspension loading shouldn't have an appreciable impact on tire wear (as was said, a change in camber has FAR less impact on tire wear than, say, a change in toe alignment, which is a much more common reason for a TTB to eat tires, especially one that's been lifted).
Of course this doesn't entirely invalidate the question of aligning the rig loaded vs. empty... I'd probably go with a medium load unless you know ahead of time what the vehicle's loaded weight will be and that it won't be varied a lot.
Another option might be to put air springs (bags) in the front coils to allow changing of the ride height.

There are lots of different ways to tackle stuff like this.
Anyway, hope that helps. Indeed it's great to see others putting TTB suspensions to good use. Solid axles do have their place, but no doubt ride quality isn't one of their hallmarks.

 

[IdaSHO]

If the steering is set up correctly, suspension loading shouldn't have an appreciable impact on tire wear (as was said, a change in camber has FAR less impact on tire wear than, say, a change in toe alignment, which is a much more common reason for a TTB to eat tires, especially one that's been lifted).
Of course this doesn't entirely invalidate the question of aligning the rig loaded vs. empty... I'd probably go with a medium load unless you know ahead of time what the vehicle's loaded weight will be and that it won't be varied a lot.
Another option might be to put air springs (bags) in the front coils to allow changing of the ride height.

Ill agree to one thing... that TOE has a more significant impact on tire wear than CAMBER.

However, with a heavy full size, camber problems are a problem. You will NEVER be able to wear out tires before you destroy them with cupping.

I know, Ive been there. Even with a truck that was within factory alignment specs, even with rotations every oil change, I could not get even 50% life out of my tires before they were cupped to hell.

Stock truck, stock ride height, aligned to spec, good name brand load E tires, + 2500lb camper. Truck was (is) a 1996 F250 Powerstroke 4x4. Now sporting a KP D60 and wearing tires STRAIGHT.


With a stock suspension, and adding a heavy camper, ride height in the front lowered nearly 2"
That is more than enough to provide some serious negative camber, when camber is set to spec at empty ride height.


Ride quality?

Its a full size, designed to run heavy. Deal with it. :sombrero:

 

[IdaSHO]

I would think that if someone set up this suspension it would be because they were doing the majority of their driving off road and it wouldn't matter. Would be cool though to have coil preload adjusters like on a rear motorcycle suspension. Maybe even something on a gear motor so you could adjust on the fly.

I totally agree.

The problem is that most rigs with a swapped TTB are FAR from a "majority of their driving off road" type of rig/driver.

The more likely case is more likely to be something like 80/20. Being 80% pavement, 20% odd pavement. But I feel even that is generous.

 

[4x4junkie]

Ill agree to one thing... that TOE has a more significant impact on tire wear than CAMBER.

However, with a heavy full size, camber problems are a problem. You will NEVER be able to wear out tires before you destroy them with cupping.

I know, Ive been there. Even with a truck that was within factory alignment specs, even with rotations every oil change, I could not get even 50% life out of my tires before they were cupped to hell.

Stock truck, stock ride height, aligned to spec, good name brand load E tires, + 2500lb camper. Truck was (is) a 1996 F250 Powerstroke 4x4. Now sporting a KP D60 and wearing tires STRAIGHT.


With a stock suspension, and adding a heavy camper, ride height in the front lowered nearly 2"
That is more than enough to provide some serious negative camber, when camber is set to spec at empty ride height.

That's quite the extreme difference comparing a pickup with and without (what I assume to be) a big cabover camper, to the loading of a self-contained expo camper van with camping gear... I can see a 700 or more lb difference in front axle loading with that (plus the crappy leaf-spring TTB already having enough issues on it's own)

Simply loading a camper van with camping gear (gear that isn't already fixed within the van) puts far less of a load to the front suspension.
The tires on our motorhome (E-450) are a good example... We very frequently throw ~300lbs of gear up in the cabover bunk area when going on long road trips. The front tires indeed do end up with some amount of a /---\ look when viewed from the front when loaded like this, yet they seem to be doing fine (maybe 20,000 miles on them and no hint at all of cupping or anything else unusual).

Again I say as long as the toe remains in check, you'll be fine.

 

[IdaSHO]

That's quite the extreme difference comparing a pickup with and without (what I assume to be) a big cabover camper, to the loading of a self-contained expo camper van with camping gear... I can see a 700 or more lb difference in front axle loading with that (plus the crappy leaf-spring TTB already having enough issues on it's own)

Simply loading a camper van with camping gear (gear that isn't already fixed within the van) puts far less of a load to the front suspension.
The tires on our motorhome (E-450) are a good example... We very frequently throw ~300lbs of gear up in the cabover bunk area when going on long road trips. The front tires indeed do end up with some amount of a /---\ look when viewed from the front when loaded like this, yet they seem to be doing fine (maybe 20,000 miles on them and no hint at all of cupping or anything else unusual).

Again I say as long as the toe remains in check, you'll be fine.

If its working for you, great, run with it. But running heavy with negative camber has a slew of downsides.

Does your E450 have a dually rear?

Have you weighed the rig, front and rear axles loaded and wet?




To assume that an up-fitted E-series isnt anything close to a truck and camper with regards to weight is silly.

Most upfitted E-series Ive seen or encountered are running at or near max GVWR dry.

Add water, food, gear, and people and you will be over it, and very close to the loaded and wet weight of a truck and camper.



Sure you can add heavier coils (or leafs) up front and leafs out back, just to support that weight and keep the alignment in check,
but when you go that far you have pretty well negated any suspension "benefits" you may have gained going TTB over a solid axle.

 

[justcuz]

Junkie,

Good points on the TTB pivots. Thanks for the information. I suspect the pivot from the factory is set up with the axle centerline in mind.
Another thought I had was the backside of a van crossmember is going to have to be clearanced for the left side beam with the differential in it. Since the van frame is wider I believe and they never built a 4x4 van, some cutting and renforcement will be needed there.
Looking at Agile Off Road videos of their van clarifies and shows how the steering arms travel in the same arc as the individual beams. Even though the drivers side is shorter than the beam, you can see it travels in the same arc as the beam does.
I'd like to see better pictures of his beam pivot mounts for TTB in a van. That and his radius arms are the 2 biggest pieces of the puzzle. I heard he was looking to retire, maybe he could supplement his retirement by building a kit!
Using TTB provides a nicer ride and keeps your CG lower than a solid axle. The design of a good suspension is to keep the tires in contact with the road surface as much as possible. IFS has less unspring weight than a solid axle.
TTB is a compromise of both but in this application I believe it is a good choice.

 

[philos]

Can we keep the discussion away from a pissing match between axle types, and stick to the topic of installing a TTB axle in a van?
Thanks.


Sent via flux capacitor

 

[philos]

I'm also still searching for info on making the D50 work with my ABS system.


Sent via flux capacitor

 

[justcuz]

Looking at the Pirate thread about installing Dana 60 outers on a Dodge to eliminate the unit bearing, I know you cannot use the Dana 60 knuckle on the Dana 50 TTB.
As I recall the TTB spindle may be shorter too, which would require you to use the Dana 60 stub axle along with the spindle, hub and caliper bracket. Chances are good that the calipers and maybe even the rotors are interchangeable.
It is a 21 page thread so it may take me a while to find the info.
Do the Dana 50 solid axles used in the early F250 Super Duty 4x4 and Excursion have the ABS reluctor ring mounted in the unit bearing like a Chevy or do they have the ring on the inner part of the hub and rotor with a bolt on sensor to the knuckle?