[Bonanza]

These suspension systems always intrigued me. Supposedly created as a hybrid of solid axle and IFS, they were mostly seen on the front of late 80s, early 90s trucks and SUVs. Is this the rotary engine of suspensions (a neat gimmick but overall not entirely effective?)

Also, has there ever been a car outfitted with suspension like this?

 

[patrickvr6]

What makes you say they aren't effective?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I put "Dream Beams" on my '96 Ranger back in the day, and they haven't updated their website since. I am suddenly horrified for the current owner of my truck.

http://www.djmsuspension.com/products/dream beams.html

 

[adrew]

Ford Econoline still has it.

 

[Bonanza]

What makes you say they aren't effective?

Aside from non-existent modern use, I would say the biggest complaints are uneven and rapid tire wear. Your questions essentially hints at the overall question-- why they aren't around anymore.

 

[rpmk4]

i had a ranger with it as well. seems like it could be a little cheaper to maintain than control arms by using less bushing but how often does someone have to replace bushings?

 

[Gitcha Sum]

TTB check in. Didn't we just have a favorite Ford truck thread? Holy half shafts batman.

Ford Econoline still has it.

:laugh: Exactly...

 

[ssaffioti]

My understanding of twin I-beam suspension is that it can sustain a direct artillery blast without damage, but it's hard on the outside edges of the tires.

Also, for what it's worth, it contributed to the Explorer rollovers because it requires the engine being mounted higher up in the engine bay. This raised the center of gravity and roll center.

 

[Shomegrown]

I had it on my Ranger and wasn't overwhelmed, though it was durable. The suspension action leads to funky camber changes which can screw with tire wear, handling, and make lifting a huge pain.

I would prefer a solid axle though on a truck, no question.

 

[WRXGuy]

Its wonderful when it's new and fresh, but let it wear out, and you'll enjoy the constantly changing camber on railroad tracks, potholes, etc. And the 6" of play.

 

[Air and water do mix]

Ford pickups had them for decades and decades. (I didn't know the new Econoline still had them, though!)

Yes, they wear tires when the suspension gets old, yes it's a pain in the ass to change the bushings, but they're tough as nails and those bushings are cheap. It's like extra-long swing axles in it's handling, though. (This is not a good thing, but it's fine for a 40 year old truck.)

 

[GTE77]

WTF is that

 

[Mooosman]

they were mostly seen on the front of late 80s, early 90s trucks and SUVs.



Is this the rotary engine of suspensions (a neat gimmick but overall not entirely effective?)

Late 80s?! No. They were around looong before that. Ford introduced the twin I-beam front suspension in 1965. They used it from 65-97 in pickups, and longer in vans and chassis-cabs.


As for it being a 'gimmick', I'd have to say no; Ford used the same basic design for over 30 years in their trucks, and over 40 years in their vans. The early I-beam systems used really heavy duty, forged steel beams and radius arms, making them pretty bulletproof. One of the upsides to the design was that it used only 4 bushings in the whole front suspension, and required very little maintenance (just grease the kingpins and steering parts once in a while). The downside was that once the bushings started to wear, the truck would fall out of alignment and eat front tires rapidly. The design also changed camber over bumps over a large range, making handling interesting in some situations.


The design had its negatives, but overall it was very rugged and simple. The best trucks were the 65-79 F-series and E-series, with the forged steel beams and radius arms. In the 80s Ford switched to stamped steel radius arms, and I-beams with ball joints in them instead of kingpins. This later design isn't as rugged, and seems to wear out faster and eat tires, more so than the early trucks.

 

[OptimusGlen]

Volvo 850 has a similar design for the rear suspension.

 

[Bonanza]

Neat info, thanks :thumbup:

 

[patrickvr6]

WTF is that

That is a Ford Twin Traction Beam front end on a 4x4. It is just the driven version of the Twin I Beam. That one has had the shocks and springs removed so it is drooping further than it would in normal use.

These were used in Explorers, Rangers, and Bronco IIs. Despite the goofy looks they work pretty well off road and offer more suspension travel than a double wishbone IFS setup. Caster angles do change as the suspension moves through it's travel but when they are stock the changes are minimal.

Here is a good FAQ on the TTB (driven version)
http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showthread.php?t=9287

 

[Air and water do mix]

Volvo 850 has a similar design for the rear suspension.

That's interesting. I hadn't realized there was much similarity there.

That looks like a cross between I-Beam and semi-trailing arm suspension. One other key difference is that the radius arm of the Ford suspension is a leading arm. When the bushing is gone, it pushes the wheel back pretty far and it rattles around pretty good. Another key difference is the fact that it's the rear suspension on the Volvo. That's enough differentiation that it's say that it's an interesting footnote, but little more than that. :beer:

I thought that twin I-Beams came out before '65, though. Were they all straight axles before that?

 

[adrew]

That is a Ford Twin Traction Beam front end on a 4x4. It is just the driven version of the Twin I Beam. That one has had the shocks and springs removed so it is drooping further than it would in normal use.

Is there a picture of how the passenger side driveshaft attaches to the diff? I'm having trouble visualizing it.

 

[Aonarch]

Pretty cool design.

 

[patrickvr6]

Is there a picture of how the passenger side driveshaft attaches to the diff? I'm having trouble visualizing it.

These are most definitely not Ranger hubs as they look like 8 lug. I forgot that they used these in full size Broncos, F-150s, and it seems F-250s.