Tube Front Axle

[TurboRay]

Hi, some of y'all know me from TurboFord - but I'm sorta new to this site and I gave up on the search engine. I tried searching "tube front axle" (with quotes) and tube+front+axle - but, NADA. So please edumacate me on the proper use of the search feature.

I have an '87 diseasel Ranger (smog exempt in CA and converted to a short box) with an '86 SVO motor just sitting in it for now. I've gathered up a lot of parts, not the least of which are a Granada C-4, aftermarket 3K converter & 2.3 bell and flexplate, and I'm just now starting to THINK about assembling this POS.

My priorities are, of course, to get it running decent first - but eventually I'd like to drop about 75-100lbs of ugly weight off the front by installing lighter front frame horns with fewer crossmember(s) and a [gasp] tube front axle with dual single-leaf Posie springs and either an aluminum Vega box or a mini rack. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/eek.gif

Hell, just swapping out the steering gear alone will probably account for a 15-20lb reduction, lol. It might not ride quite as smooth as stock (altho it's hard to imagine it any worse), but at least the alignment will always be perfect (can't vouch for bump steer, however). Anyway, just wondering if anyone else is as crazy as me and has either done this or is in the process of doing it. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[D94R]

Ray, I'm wondering how much weight you think you are gonna save going with a dummy axle and leafs over the Ibeams and coils? I don't think you'd save much by changing all the steering components, but you'd lose a tiny bit of weight converting to manual steering on your current setup if you have existing power.

One advantage I can get from this, would be extending your wheel base forward to get the engine behind the front wheels.

To me though, it seems mostly a lot of work for very little gain.

[K G]

You might have better luck looking here.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/
My suspension mods have mostly been for off road. Most off of them are the removel of leaf to coil springs. The chevy guys do a lot of 4x4 irs to solid axle with leaf on the front end. But thats becuse the 4x4 front end is weak. (pre 07)
KG

[Oldmandan]

I have an '87 diseasel Ranger (smog exempt in CA and converted to a short box) with an '86 SVO motor just sitting in it for now. I've gathered up a lot of parts, not the least of which are a Granada C-4, aftermarket 3K converter & 2.3 bell and flexplate, and I'm just now starting to THINK about assembling this POS.

So, just because the truck originally came with a diesel, it's exempt in CA for any engine you put in it? I've never heard of this before, where did you hear about that? that's very interesting... opens up some possibilities

[AJ_Fritz]

that is crazy lol! way to find the loop holes....

[TurboRay]

THANX for the replies, guys!

This tube axle installation won't be something I'll embark on right away, since the truck isn't even running right now - and that's my first priority. Maybe it's just personal prejudice, but I hate the twin I-beams on many fronts: The added weight, the concept, the accelerated tire wear, the geometry of how they move/change thru motion................you get the idea. At some point, I'm definitely gonna do away with 'em - but, the amount of weight savings can only be determined by comparing the weight of the cumulative components, which I will do.

I figure that a 1/4-wall chromoly axle INCLUDING a pair of '37 Ford spindles (which I already have) will weigh the same or less than just ONE of the two I-beams and its spindle - not even taking into account the locating strut(s). And, the massive crossmember that supports 'em can be removed entirely in favor of, say, a 2x2 1/8-wall "dipped" crossmember to support the engine. The weight savings may not be as high as anticipated, but the fixed alignment will certainly work better at the track and probably on the street as well. My 2¢.

FYI - I HAVE both a Posie single-leaf reverse-eye spring (31-1/4 eye-to-eye) AND a pair of Ranger lowering coils. And, using my refrigerant scale, the leaf weighs 7lbs 3-1/2ozs, while the coil weighs 6lbs 4-1/2 ozs........sooooo, fairly similar, altho the leaf will also require a pair of shackles, a mount and spring-eye bushings - possibly another 1-2 lbs per side.

As for the CA smog exemption........short of some kinda mandated inspection, which doesn't currently exist, the VIN is the only way the DMV knows the smog status of ANY vehicle and is what they use to issue mandates for biennial smog inspections. There were two different diseasel engines available for Rangers during the mid-80's. I got mine without an engine, but I THINK it was originally equipped with a Perkins engine. Either way, it/they are exempt from smog forever. :D

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

Why not look at 79 or older ford 4x4. It uses lots of the parts you all ready have. Coil springs and radius arms could be reused. Or you could up grade to coil overs.
KG

[Ron83ranger]

would this happen to be leading up to a gasser type of build? i haven't seen or heard of many with turbo 4's.
on a tube axle setup, the bump steer is pretty easy to cure with the crossover style steering linkage. if you run a regular steering box. but with a rack and pinion im not sure since the pivot points would be in different places between the rack and leaf springs.

[TurboRay]

Not a gasser build - otherwise I'd be using a Pinto or early Ford roadster pickup, rather than a Ranger. This will be 99.99% street driven, with an occasional trip to Sacramento Raceway (drag strip) just to have fun. Remember, virtually all early cars/trucks used solid/beam front axles back in the day. They're bulletproof, simple and relatively light compared to the 2nd-gen double wishbone suspensions that followed. I just think it'll be fun to try...........cuz I like to think outside the box. I also happen to think I can ditch AT LEAST 50 lbs off the front end by doing it.

C'ya - RAY

[Oldmandan]

As for the CA smog exemption........short of some kinda mandated inspection, which doesn't currently exist, the VIN is the only way the DMV knows the smog status of ANY vehicle and is what they use to issue mandates for biennial smog inspections. There were two different diseasel engines available for Rangers during the mid-80's. I got mine without an engine, but I THINK it was originally equipped with a Perkins engine. Either way, it/they are exempt from smog forever. :D

What!:yikes: You've just opened a gigantic freakin' door for me here!

[D94R]

Definitely sounds interesting. Looking forward to seeing this take off.

[TurboRay]

What!:yikes: You've just opened a gigantic freakin' door for me here!

GOOD.........step right thru that door and enjoy the rite of passage! I used a site called "Search Tempest" [LINK] (http://www.searchtempest.com/) which is a sorta clearing house - if you will - of Craigslists around the country, to find mine in Minnesota. Simply type in a search criteria - i.e. "diesel+ranger" - along with your zip and the radius in miles that you wish to search. It'll bring up every Craigslist within that radius, having anything that fits the search criteria.

I'm not admitting to any wrongdoing, mind you (wink, wink, nod, nod), but I didn't buy the whole truck. I bought "parted out" portions that all fit into a very small package sent via the USPS. Let the reader use discernment, lol. :D

However, I'm almost certain there were no diseasel Rangers in '97, Dan (BTW, I bet I'm older). You'd have to "convert" yours to an earlier year! <grin>

C'ya - RAY

[Oldmandan]

GOODHowever, I'm almost certain there were no diseasel Rangers in '97, Dan (BTW, I bet I'm older). You'd have to "convert" yours to an earlier year! <grin>
C'ya - RAY

The engine is a 97, I've been searching for a lightweight pre-75 body to drop it into, leaning towards a 63 comet at 2400lbs or early Capri at 2100lbs? Now I can broaden my search a little though. I'm not real crazy about the suspension on either one of those.

You win the bet, I'm only 35. Oldmandan is a nickname I got 15 years ago (long story) and your prize is .....drum roll please.... grey hair, then no hair, then little blue pills! Just kidding I'm only 35 and just about bald aready. WTF!

[Ryan]

This is way out of my league and what I am about to say is probably one of the dumbest suggestions I have had but I am going to do it anyway...

Ron, since you brought up the Gasser, I have often wondered what it would take to get an old Ford tractor solid axel and flip it? They are solid, strong, possibly even close to the right width, it would drop your truck down... Is this something that could save you a lot of fab work?

Just a wild ass idea. and I have nothing to really back it up to boot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/FormerMarine/Tractor/8N-1-825.jpg

[TurboRay]

WOW - Pretty sure that 8N/9N front axle/spindle assy is about 4 times heavier than the tubular street-rod versions available in the aftermarket. As for ride height, the aftermarket tube axles can be had from several mfrs/suppliers with "drops" ranging from zero (straight axle) to as much as 6 inches (EXAMPLE (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Garage-Sale-Tube-Axle-With-Perch-Holes-Ford-3-Inch-Drop-Plain-Finish,55218.html)).

C'ya - RAY

[Ryan]

And they are a lot cheaper than i thought... I'm 0 for 2 today. Back to just reading. Told ya it was a wild ass idea.

[Foolee]

And they are a lot cheaper than i thought... I'm 0 for 2 today. Back to just reading. Told ya it was a wild ass idea.

Screw putting it on a ranger, drop the tractor. :cheers2:

[K G]

What about a old VW beetle king link front end? I'v seen them on drag cars. They are cheap, you can weld or clamp them on. Large after market. Light? I can carry one with the wheels off ez. Or you can build your own with 2" dom.
Hear is a diy link http://blindchickenracing.com/How_to/widenedkingpinbeam/widened_kingpin_beam.htm

[TurboRay]

While I appreciate your thinking "outside the box", I don't think such a VW front suspension would fit on a front-motored car or truck - since I'm pretty sure the torsion-bar tubes would need to pass under the engine, but DUNNO! http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

That the beauty of the you can custom them. Make them wider or narrow. Pull the torsion out and go coil over shocks. Just need 1/2 threaded rod to convert them. 3" lift ot drop spindles are off the shelf part. The top tube could be cut and welded to the frame, or become the the cross member. The one I have on my rail is all custom, no vw parts. The front is only 350# with me in it. The bug is apx 1000# on the front and bus is 1500# Not to strong. A custom built one could be made stronger. If it can do the Baja 1000. Just a lot can be done with it for cheap, if you can build it.

Also the 2 wheel drive front axle off a Jeep Cheroke might wook weel too.
KG

[TurboRay]

I don't think we're on the same page, KG. Only the lower tube could serve as a crossmember (the upper one is WAY too high) and, according to the views I've seen, it would either be too far forward to double as an engine crossmember OR it would be too high to pass under the pan without a "droop" in the center.

If you could come up with a way to support the front of the two parallel trailing arms - where they pivot - WITHOUT the cross tubes, then I might be convinced that such a setup could work in a front-motored vehicle with coilovers. But with all the "superstructure" that would be required to locate and support those pivot points, I'm not seeing any reduction in weight over a simple tube axle and a pair of 7lbs each single-leaf springs. My 2¢......http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

A:Dlways more than one way to skin a cat. I'm just not a fan of leaf springs.
KG

[TurboRay]

I understand your sentiments, KG.....leaf springs front and back DOES seem a little backwards compared to modern suspension systems. But, I'm not a fan of the too-heavy twin I-beams and their inherent accelerated tire wear. I got an answer back from Speedway Motors saying that the axle I linked above weighs 21lbs. Does anyone know how that compares with just ONE I-beam/radius-arm combo? http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

I'm also looking at doing away with three relatively-heavy crossmembers and spring/shock towers, in favor of one fabbed .120x2x2 "dipped" engine crossmember and 2 comparatively-light shock mounts. :thumbsup: Just sayin'........

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

I'm also looking at doing away with three relatively-heavy crossmembers and spring/shock towers, in favor of one fabbed .120x2x2 "dipped" engine crossmember and 2 comparatively-light shock mounts. :thumbsup: Just sayin'........

C'ya - RAY

Just Ideas That I had, and tossed out. I've been thinking of doing a ranger with mid eng and vw suspenion up front.
When you say .120x2x2 are you talking square tube? If so .120 x 2 DOM round tube is all most 2x as strong for the same weight. It will cost more for DOM 2 or 3x's.
KG

[TurboRay]

If and when I ever do this, I'll probably fab the frame horns and crossmember myself, KG.......cuz I'm a cheap SOB. That said - I can miter-cut and weld square tubing with my trusty little Chinese band saw and Lincoln MIG welder, but I'd have to pay a good chunk of change to have someone else bend up a drooped .120x2-inch DOM crossmember. But, THANX for the info. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

[boost23]

What about a 2wd jeep Cherokee front axle assembly? and it has the same lug pattern as a ranger.

[TurboRay]

Like THIS (http://www.ebay.com/itm/01-JEEP-CHEROKEE-LIMITED-FRONT-AXLE-ASSEMBLY-2WD-4-0-/380266531238?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item5889a6c9a6)? (future readers, search eBay for "2wd Cherokee axle") THANX for sharing the idea, boost23.

Interesting, but it looks heavy - even after trimming off all the unnecessary trailing-arm brackets, etc. in prep for the leaf-spring pads. Also, it's straight and I doubt that the ride height would be low enough for a non-lifted 2WD Ranger. Interesting that the spindles are front steer, however, since all the aftermarket and early Ford stuff is rear steer. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

Like THIS (http://www.ebay.com/itm/01-JEEP-CHEROKEE-LIMITED-FRONT-AXLE-ASSEMBLY-2WD-4-0-/380266531238?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item5889a6c9a6)? (future readers, search eBay for "2wd Cherokee axle") THANX for sharing the idea, boost23.

Interesting, but it looks heavy - even after trimming off all the unnecessary trailing-arm brackets, etc. in prep for the leaf-spring pads. Also, it's straight and I doubt that the ride height would be low enough for a non-lifted 2WD Ranger. Interesting that the spindles are front steer, however, since all the aftermarket and early Ford stuff is rear steer. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

This is kinda what I was try to say befor, but use the ranger coil springs and radial arms.(cheap) To change the ride hight just change springs. You can also cut the spindal off at the end of the tube and reweld it on higher or lower. Or toss the tube and make your own. Could make own tube radial arm too. But your old hot rod idea is growing on me too. May be do you idea with coil over shock and custom tube extended radial arms?

KG

[K G]

Or this front end http://www.rodsandchoppers.com/gallery_sub.php?id=706&category=hotrods

with no springs and just shocks like this http://www.offroad-engineering.com/980-99-013-a.html

[TurboRay]

THANX for the links, KG.........nice roadster!! :thumbsup:

But when I said, "I doubt that the ride height would be low enough for a non-lifted 2WD Ranger", I was referring to the fact that the axle can only move upward (to lower the truck) 'til it hits the frame. And, I'm reasonably sure that - even with the straight axle hitting - the front of the truck would still be unacceptably high (at least it would for me).

Besides, even if I were to weld in a dropped tube between the spindle hangers (requiring a special jig), I think the whole shebang would easily weigh twice as much as the 21lb aftermarket tube axle (linked earlier) and '37 Ford spindles (which I already have).

I also already have ONE of the Posie reverse-eye single-leaf springs. As an added bonus, disc-brake conversion kits for the '37 spindles - using cheap and readily-available boneyard calipers and rotors - are a dime a dozen. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

[QUOTE=TurboRay;49108]THANX for the links, KG.........nice roadster!! :thumbsup:

But when I said, "I doubt that the ride height would be low enough for a non-lifted 2WD Ranger", I was referring to the fact that the axle can only move upward (to lower the truck)

If you cut the tube at the ends, cut the nuckle/spidle off. Reweld it back on off center, you would be pushing the axle down and the spindle up. In that way you could save the 200 for the bent drop axle and you could use stright dom tube to cut weight. It's done for off road all the time for cheap lift on none drive axles. Kinda like this http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/zz260/kgman62/new-2.jpg

But I think this is what you are thinking http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Front-End-Assembly-for-Model-A-Frame-I-Beam-Axle,7768.html

[TurboRay]

Offsetting the spindle hangers upward might gain an inch or two, but would require a special jig and mad welding skills to ensure the proper strength/safety. I don't have those skills. Furthermore, in order to leave sufficient vertical travel to actually have suspension without the straight axle hitting the frame or oil pan, I STILL think it would ride too high - at least for my tastes.

I appreciate your desire to find a JY axle that will work, but in the long run, I think the Cherokee axle or anything else OEM is likely to weigh and cost a lot more than a dropped aftermarket tube axle and parallel single-leaf springs. The Speedway beam axle you linked, with its transverse leaf and hairpins, is what that roadster has (that you also linked). It looks good/nostalgic under the roadster, but requires either hairpins or wishbones AND a relatively-strong crossmember to mount the spring that add to the overall weight.

Do you have something against the tube-axle/twin-spring setup I originally proposed, KG? The reason I posted this thread was in hopes that someone here had done it "gasser style" and could offer some insight. Apparently no one has. And, while I appreciate all the helpful alternative suggestions, I still haven't seen anything else that's even close to being as cheap, light, safe or simple (which actually describes ME, except for the "light" part, lol). http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

I think this is what you are thinking.
http://www.truckpartsystem.com/partImages/394310_1_f.jpg

[TurboRay]

LOL, that's the general layout, KG - THANX for that link! What is that, a Kenworth, Peterbilt or some other 18-wheeler diseasel tractor? The steering linkage and gear placement on that behemoth gives me a great idea! It just so happens that the '37 Ford spindles I have are set up for a fore/aft steering link, with a second arm extending from the top of the L/H spindle that juts to the right, parallel with the axle - just like that tractor you linked.

Notice how the end of the pitman arm is right in line with the end of the front (non-shacked) leaf eye? That's done intentionally to prevent bump steer. I'm gonna try to set up my steering as close to that arrangement as possible. I'll just need to take inventory of the available gear boxes that can be mounted to provide a horizontal pitman shaft. Hmmmmmm (Vega? Corvair?)......gonna have to go on the HAMB (Hokey Ass Message Board) and search "cowl steering". :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

Worked on them in the early 80's when I turned wrenchs in the army. Forgot all about them. Basic strong, and simple. If you get the shakle mounts right the rest should be ez.
I don't know what that pic is from , but I did have pete in K/P the search. That is a fairly new truck too. Next to the fuel filter is a pc plug end.
KG

[Orange Alpine]

There is a solid axle thread on the Locostusa site. Bunch of smart, friendly guys. Heavy on design. Might get some ideas.
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=9417

Bill

[Cutlass327]

It's a Peterbilt (Look on the bump-stop ;) ), but almost all OTR Tractors are set up the same way. Some only have a single main leaf spring but with a 2nd "half-spring" with a "military wrap" around the front spring mount eye in case the main spring breaks. This is a newer one, from the ECU connector like K G pointed out, but I've seen them back into the 80's using the same design. There are some newer ones with rack/pinion steering out there now - some Freightliner Coronados and I think some Cascadias.

[Ryan]

I was close with "Tractors"... Ha.

Crap I said I wasn't going to talk...

[gumby]

Ray, you will easily meet your weight loss goal. I weighed a stock beam, assembled with radius arm, spindle, and brake rotor, at 65lbs today.

I dont understand the claim of "inherent tire wear" from Ibeams however. I have owned 6 Rangers; 4 with beams, 2 with SLA. My beam trucks ALWAYS had better tire wear than my SLA trucks. My current daily is a 93. Beams, turbo swap, lowered, etc. I did the alignment in my driveway with a tape measure and a carpenters bubble level. It just finished off a set of tires I bought for it three years ago. Poor routine rotations, and still wore all 4 tires flat and even thru the wear indicators before I replaced them.

[TurboRay]

THANX for confirming my suspicions about the potential for significant weight reduction, gumby. In addition to the lighter axle and unnecessary radius arms. I'll also be able to eliminate 3 relatively-heavy crossmembers (frt steering-protection CM, twin-beam support CM and radius-arm CM) in favor of a lightweight version to support the engine and a 1" square "spreader" at the front. Also, lightweight shock mounts can be installed in place of the heavy outboard coil-spring perches.

As for the tire wear "issue", I yield to your much greater experience with Rangers. I've only owned one and it hasn't even hit the road yet - so I was talkin' outta my ass (again), based on pure conjecture about the way the camber changes as the beams move up and down. Whereas a single tube axle would maintain perfect alignment thru any type of suspension travel......as long as both wheels remain on the ground, lol. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

[K G]

This might come in handy for tuning.
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Clamp-On-Spring-Pad-For-3-Axle-Tubes,35921.html
Some new sping and shakle bushings will help too.
KG

[AirBender]

hey ray,,, arent the older mail jeeps leafspring straight axles frontends?????? and if you really wanted to mess with everyone you could do the rightand drive ....... :D you did say you were gonna go automatic so that would be easy to get the pedal setup workable.....

[D94R]

How old you talking about?

The "old" mail jeeps around here are XJ Cherokees. Coil sprung solid axle dana 30's.

[AirBender]

ive always wanted to build one of these.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXyec7Pm9kQ

[D94R]

CJ based?

We had a 98 WJ Grand Cherokee that was 2wd (one of like 4 ever made), but I never paid attention to whether it had a empty center chunk, or was just a tube. I'd guess tube, and would assume a 2wd CJ (if they made em) would just be dummy tube axle too.

[jfive]

We have one of those around her bender. Guy has been driving it for 15years plus. Probubly would never split with it though.

[gumby]

Whereas a single tube axle would maintain perfect alignment thru any type of suspension travel......as long as both wheels remain on the ground, lol. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

I wouldnt count on this being true. Solid axles have issues with sympathetic roll angles; meaning as the vehicle rolls in a corner, the axle will lift the inside tire and load the outside tire. With no ability for camber gain thru travel, there is no way to keep the tread surface flat on the pavement.

If a straight front axle could keep the tires perfectly vertical thru any direction of travel, that would equal 100% traction and it would be the best option for every race car.

[TurboRay]

LOL........youse guys are crackin' me up with all this Jeep talk - and that wheel-popping R/H drive postal Jeep is just crazy, Steve!

KG - I think that clamp-on spring perch (3-in ID) is designed for a rear axle tube, as most of the aftermarket front tube axles that I've seen are 2".



I wouldnt count on this (a single tube axle maintaining perfect alignment thru any type of suspension travel) being true.

The whole idea of this thread was to get insight as to whether any of y'all ever installed a tube/beam axle in a Ranger. But, after doing so, if I ever get to the point of lifting an inside tire while cornering in my truck, I hope I have a helmet, 5-pt harness and full cage, lol. Therefore, let me rephrase my original statement.........as long as the axle remains horizontal with the ground, the alignment will remain unchanged.

Now, I realize that as the tires roll under hard cornering, the camber can change as the outside tire rolls/deflects and the axle itself gets closer to the pavement on that side. But, that's also true of ANY type of suspension, including a conventional REAR axle.

And, while it's true that independent strut and double-wishbone suspensions can be designed to increase negative camber when compressed (as the "outside" suspension components are when cornering) - to compensate for tire roll - I think that's getting a little "nit-picky" on my goal for this little Ranger, lol. :cheers2:

C'ya - RAY

[gumby]

I wasnt referring to lift as completely off the ground, Ray. We are still talkin about a street truck. :yesnod:
Therefore, let me rephrase my original statement.........as long as the axle remains horizontal with the ground, the alignment will remain unchanged.
My point was that the only time this will be true is in a perfectly straight line. As a primarily street driven truck, perfectly straight paths are actually pretty uncommon. Any time the truck is in roll, even minor deviation from perfectly level, your straight front axle will also deviate from perfectly level.

To get back to your topic, as you seem to be upset at the direction this thread has gone, no one on this site has a tube front axle under their Ranger. :didimiss:

On the street, it likely wont matter much in terms of tire wear/handling/alignment, and you will lose a bunch of weight which will be good for dragstrip time. If you feel like its a good fit for you, go for it. Thats what hot rodding is all about, right?

[TurboRay]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm upset, Gumby........I'm not. I actually found much of the discussion quite humorous and/or thought provoking.

And, YES - doing something like this IS what hot rodding is all about. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

[gumby]

WRT to steering, I think I would look into mounting a lightweight rack directly to the axle tube. No bumpsteer! A steering shaft could be built that could accommodate the the amount of travel a street driven solid front axle would generate. Or you could go to a flexible steering shaft.

My second path to explore would be keeping the factory ranger box, and adding an idler arm on the opposite frame rail. With this you would incorporate a center link and two, equal length, tie rods which could be tuned for any bumpsteer issues.

[TurboRay]

.......I would look into mounting a lightweight rack directly to the axle tube. No bumpsteer!

WOW.......now that's the wildest suggestion I've heard yet, lol! It's doable, I suppose - but it would be "going where no man has ever gone before". I think I'm more inclined to try and duplicate the geometry of the PETERBILT STEERING (http://www.truckpartsystem.com/partImages/394310_1_f.jpg) that KG linked.....with a gearbox - having a horizontal pitman shaft (oriented "east/west") - mounted up front, and the end of the pitman arm lined up with the forward spring eye (shackle at the rear). http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[gumby]

[mounting a lightweight rack directly to the axle tube] would be "going where no man has ever gone before".
Not exactly. I have seen quite a few Mini-sprint and Midget race cars with small racks mounted to the front axle tube.

http://www.hyperracing.com/Assets/Hyper_images/images/01-001-2.jpg

[TurboRay]

SHEZAMM, gumby! You sure got me on that one, lol - I've never seen anything like that before. It looks $expensive$. With L/H steering, however, I'm thinkin' the left tie rod would have to be awfully short.....and, with unequal-length tie rods, the Ackerman would probably be slightly different from left to right. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

THANX for the pic - that strategy is quite interesting - but, I think I'll stick to a more conventional steering arrangement. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY

[D94R]

It would be the same throw either direction in steering right? So, wouldn't ackerman angle stay the same, no matter the placement of the rack?

Then again, if I'm wrong, I can see why it would be biased to one side or the other if all you do is make turns in one direction.

[TurboRay]

Obviously, the "stroke" of the R&P is the same on either side, but the tie rod's "angle of attack" would differ slightly from side to side throughout a turn. This phenomenon is similar to the higher rod angularity of a short-rod vs long-rod engine. The left-turn vs right-turn Ackerman wouldn't differ greatly - perhaps even inconsequentially (unless the L/H tie rod were REAL short......like, say, 4-5") - but, it would be different. http://forum.turboford.org/ubb/graemlins/dunno.gif

C'ya - RAY

[gumby]

And you thought I was nit-pickin', haha!

For a street application, I would look at a larger rack than those units and use one with an offset pinion(to the left) so the tie rods could be equal length.

[D94R]

Ray, makes sense!

[TURBO Ranger]

Why not use coils, dirt cheap, buckets already in place, better ride, etc. The trailing arms would enter into the weight equation but they would not weigh much, plus you could reuse the shock mounts on the frame as well, just a thought.

[gumby]

Then you hafta add a lateral locating device, and things start down the road of complication.

[TURBO Ranger]

Omg a panhard bar is not complicated, or track bar or whatever you wanna call it lol, super easy and light weight, just saying, with a long bar, from opposite frame rail, lateral movement through suspension cycle probably wouldnt be as much as leaf deflection through a turn at speed

[gumby]

OH eem GEE!! you are so right! I'm sittin each evening redesigning double wishbone front and rear suspensions for my newest project and I HAD NO IDEA HOW SIMPLE it would be to toss a trac rod on the front of a ranger....

I said "start" down the road. Read the whole thread where each idea that isnt a simple tube and parallel leafs gets shot full of holes, and figure in the engine cross member, oil pan, trailing arms, and steering linkages that are all in the path of a decent panhard bar under a stock height ranger, and this is definitely the start of complication to a simple idea.

OH emmm GEE!!!

:D

[TurboRay]

LOL.......you guys are crackin' me up! But, YES, gumby is right - I'm trying to make it as simple, trouble-free and light as possible. No lateral locating device (Panhard, etc.) or trailing/radius arms needed, plus I'll be able to delete 3 notoriously-heavy crossmembers AND the bulky coil-spring/shock perches.

As stated earlier, the (representative) Speedway 1/4-wall DOM tube axle is 22 pounds and the single-leaf Posie spring is only about a pound heavier than a Ranger coil (7 lbs 3-1/2 ozs vs 6 lbs 4-1/2 ozs). I don't know the weight difference of the two spindles (Ranger vs. '37 Ford), but I have a feeling that the early stuff (all forged by Henry) is a little lighter. And, as said earlier, using a manual Corvair or Vega steering gear in favor of the stock Ranger box will probably lop off 15-20 lbs, lol.

The brake calipers, rotors, caliper brkts and shocks will probably be about even. Add in the hardware to mount the axle (spring perches, U-bolts/nuts, 4-hole plate, shackles, etc.....maybe 8-10lbs) and I think I can get the entire front end suspended and meet my original goal of at LEAST a 100lb weight reduction. :thumbsup:

C'ya - RAY