Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did find one issue with the Ranger, possible factory setup problem.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

    Toe in would wear the outer sides of both fronts --- toe out would wear the insides like in JT's pic --- but it would be accompanied with feathered edges on the rest of the tire as it's like dragging a tire sideways down the road and also would be an extreme example - but it can happen --- I do not visibly see feathered edges so it's most likely a negative camber issue on BOTH sides...

    Both radical toe in and toe out are accompanied with poor fuel economy as it's like a braking effect while driving and JT's steed is doing pretty good with it's MPG rating - again - it's a negative camber problemo...
    I can clearly see a feathered edge in the pic of the driver's side tire and with excessive negative camber only the inside of the tire would wear with what's likely excessive toe in.
    Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Arcane View Post

      I can clearly see a feathered edge in the pic of the driver's side tire and with excessive negative camber only the inside of the tire would wear with what's likely excessive toe in.
      To be honest going by just the pics it's hard to say what's going on with what were both talking about ---- I really don't see any huge earmarks of feathering, the "what looks like feathering" to me is mostly just because the tires worn at an angle and there is not the typical "90 degree's" on the side that does somewhat have a feathered look because of that fact,,, so it's hard to say absolutely,

      But again, toe in wears the outside of the tire - it's toe out that would wear the inside, take the angle to the extreme and you see why this is so, radical toe in "folds" the tire while going down the road -- it "folds" the outer of the tire over as it rotates,,, the entire carcass of the tire changes it's camber level to the ground --- again it's like dragging a tire sideways - radical toe in drags the outside of the tire and wears that area first --- same can be said for opposite as in the OP, radical toe out wears the inner part of the tire first, but again for this to happen at such a rate he would have obvious feathering and don't think he'd be seeing 28,000 miles out of them at all....

      Comment


      • #48
        Ak is right, toe OUT would wear that way, toe IN not.

        However, toe OUT makes the steering odd, at least in all vehicles I have had in which that developed.... with toe problems of any sort it always seems as if it is hard to go straight, a little adjustment seems to tug hard to the side, like balancing a pencil on its point.

        I don't see that, and the thing gets very good mileage, if it were dragging the wheels it ought to impact mileage, in much the way of a head wind.

        Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

        Correct - it should not be happening --- incorrect - it is alignment... be it a screw up of fords factory specs (yes it happens) or the alignment shop... an underinflated tire will cause wear on the sides but it will be both the inner and the outer, you have a negative camber issue...

        '''''''''
        Nope, NOT an alignment issue.

        That idea of an alignment problem is a pile of stinking BS. It's not AKB's BS, it is not his fault. He is just caught for the moment in the typical thinking that has been forced on people.

        The alignment is to spec. When it is a problem to align to spec it is not an alignment issue, it is a DESIGN ISSUE, and no amount of weasel words can change that.

        As mentioned by others, Ferd had a reason. Might be a shate reason, but they have a reason. Remember back where I mentioned the Explorer and the low tire pressure they actually specified? They had a reason for that. A bad one, but a reason. IIRC that spec had consequences, and it wasn't just tire wear.

        https://www.fordexplorerrollover.com...re/Default.cfm

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-6e2962b60cff/

        Ferd has a history of cover-ups, and of using one bad engineering choice to cover for another one, or a beancounter choice to cover for an engineering problem.. Often the results are as bad or worse than the original problem.

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/car...to-fuel-tanks/

        This may be just another one of their bad choices...... It is not clear that the solution is either because of, or better than, the hypothetical problem that Doozer brought up. You'd need to dig into internal email to discover that.

        I will say...... Anyone who locks up the steering at 55 is crazy. Anyone who thinks that people actually drive at 55 is even crazier. If the speed limit is 40mph, then some folks may actually drive as slow as 55 mph. Those folks don't seem to live around here.
        Last edited by J Tiers; 06-25-2021, 11:12 AM.
        2730

        Keep eye on ball.
        Hashim Khan

        Everything not impossible is compulsory

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Doozer View Post
          Some good information here.
          Lots of BAD information here.
          Lots of opinions here based on righteous logic that are ill informed.
          Consider there is a real reason for the tire wear that was intentional,
          and a rest of an engineering solution to a constraint or criteria.
          Example... There is a federal highway regulation that involves vehicles
          must pass a test that involves driving the vehicle at 55 mph and turning
          the steering wheel to full lock, and the vehicle must not roll over.

          Ways to set the suspension up to achieve this are generally either
          limiting the angle of the steering by putting stops on the spindles
          and/or also setting up a combination of king pin inclination and also
          caster to make the wheels lean into a turn, like a motorcycle would.
          These setting are great at speed (55mph or higher) but lead so scrubbing
          the tires at parking lot speeds. That is because castor setting is considering
          sidewall flex at a certain speed, with the end result of keeping the tread
          flat on the road. But at parking lot speeds where there is no sidewall flex
          because there is no weight transfer, the caster geometry ends up trying to
          make the tire contact patch anything but flat on the ground, and you get
          edge loading of the tread, and hence the wear.
          So this wear you are experiencing may be the result of engineering compromises
          implemented in order to pass the 55mph roll over test. To pass this rest, the
          Corvair engineers specified different tire pressures on the front and rear tires,
          because they were constrained by the swing arm suspension design.
          So simply to say the truck needs an alignment or to say Ford effed up with their
          alignment specs is really just an knee jerk and possible uninformed opinion.
          Most likely this is an engineering compromise. Maybe not a good one from the
          end customer point of view, but from a money and safety point of view, it made
          sense to somebody in an office somewhere. So just keep an open mind when
          we encounter situations like this. The reason might not be bad alignment or bad
          specifications. Consider the design and specifications might be a compromise
          to achieve a certain goal in the larger picture. Can you take away castor and
          fix YOUR issue? You might be able to adjust the A-arms some, but I suspect
          only so much adjustment is available. Will it invalidate the 55mph rollover spec?
          Maybe. You might be messin' with the rules the gubment gave us to keep us safe.
          It might upset your ideology. I promise you, it won't change mine.

          --Doozer
          More bad information, this is simply not true.
          There is a rating system in place to signify rollover resistance only. A 55 mph full lock dynamic maneuver would effectively banish every Jeep and sport utility vehicle from the road.

          After 30 years of rollover carnage the NHTSA did study various criteria in order to implement standards for both static and dynamic vehicle rollover resistance around roughly the year 2000, however this was never implemented and instead consumer safety guidelines were address by simply assigning rollover resistance rating to vehicles.

          Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Vehicle Rollover Resistance



          Home, down in the valley behind the Red Angus
          Bad Decisions Make Good Stories​

          Location: British Columbia

          Comment


          • #50
            This federal regulation is a lot older than your document dated 2013 that you link to.
            Remember the Corvair? It was the 1960s era if I recall.
            I used to work for Michelin Tire Corporation.
            I could read you the reg. chapter and verse if I had my books in front of me.

            --Doozer
            Last edited by Doozer; 06-25-2021, 01:25 PM.
            DZER

            Comment


            • #51
              My last car would tend to wear the front tyres like that unless I set the tracking to slightly toe in right at the extreme end of the specified tolerance.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Doozer View Post
                This federal regulation is a lot older than your document dated 2013 that you link to.
                Remember the Corvair? It was the 1960s era if I recall.
                I used to work for Michelin Tire Corporation.
                I could read you the reg. chapter and verse if I had my books in front of me.

                --Doozer
                So you are telling me that a piece of legislation requiring vehicles to be submitted to a 55mph full lock maneuver dating back to the early 60's was in place and and as been repealed?
                I don't think so but I'll welcome a correction if you care to submit one.
                Doing a full lock turn at 55mph in anything short of a F1 car and not experiencing anything short of bizarre results is ludicrous and a fools errand at best.

                This from the NHTSA document I eluded to earlier in regards to establishing performance criteria suitable for pending legislation requirements regarding vehicular rollover resistance. This legislation has never come, only the rollover resistance rating guidelines have been implemented.

                If you choose to look it up, look for:

                DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
                49 CFR Part 575
                [Docket No. NHTSA-2001- 9663; Notice 2]
                RIN 2127-AI81
                Consumer Information Regulations;
                Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
                Rollover Resistance

                ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
                SUMMARY: The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act
                of 2000 requires NHTSA to develop a dynamic test on rollovers by motor vehicles for the
                purposes of a consumer information program, to carry out a program of conducting such tests,
                and, as these tests are being developed, to conduct a rulemaking to determine how best to
                disseminate test results to the public. In response, this notice discusses the results of NHTSA=s
                evaluation of numerous driving maneuver tests for the dynamic rollover consumer information
                program that Congress mandated for the American public beginning in the 2003 model year.
                This notice also proposes several alternative methods for using the dynamic rollover test results
                in the agency’s consumer information for vehicle rollover resistance.
                Home, down in the valley behind the Red Angus
                Bad Decisions Make Good Stories​

                Location: British Columbia

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

                  Toe in would wear the outer sides of both fronts --- toe out would wear the insides like in JT's pic --- but it would be accompanied with feathered edges on the rest of the tire as it's like dragging a tire sideways down the road and also would be an extreme example - but it can happen --- I do not visibly see feathered edges so it's most likely a negative camber issue on BOTH sides...

                  Both radical toe in and toe out are accompanied with poor fuel economy as it's like a braking effect while driving and JT's steed is doing pretty good with it's MPG rating - again - it's a negative camber problemo...
                  I completely defer to you when it comes to cars. I am confusing toe with camber, again lol..

                  I do my own alignment on my old car and made a nice lil rig to check toe, camber and caster. Along with my bear alignment plates it worded out very nicely..

                  But yeah, Ill always get the skinny from you re: autos. You are in the business after all.... Thanks for the clarification.. JR

                  Here is the rig I made, one for each side...

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	alignment.jpg
Views:	221
Size:	71.8 KB
ID:	1948525


                  And a lil tutorial to make yer own lol It was a fun lil project...
                  https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...tool-(homemade)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I would be wary of driving that vehicle any faster than a chicken can run.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Willy- What is your deal ?
                      Just because you have never heard of something and you don't believe it
                      you are trying to prove me wrong with some court case from the 2000's
                      about something not related.?.?.?
                      If you prove me wrong, do you get a gold star?
                      Did your elementary school teach you to be right all the time?
                      Is like a contest to win a prize for you ?
                      Maybe some day you might figure out that life is about helping people,
                      not being right. Especially for sure by not trying to get people to believe
                      some bizarre chain of logic loosely related to the original subject.
                      That's how people try to argue politics. Forks make people fat so we
                      should make people who use forks pay more for health care. Yeah, sure.
                      Get over it dude. Go outside and get off the internet for a while.

                      -D
                      DZER

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Negative camber was my thought, but a quick check sighting the tires does not appear to show anything. Zero camber more likely, which is "reasonable".

                        Dealer suggested that "driving style" affects it, which may surely be true, but....... Their suggestion was to put new tires on it and have it aligned... Remarkably helpful, I'd have never thought of that.
                        2730

                        Keep eye on ball.
                        Hashim Khan

                        Everything not impossible is compulsory

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          you shouldn't need to remount tires to rotate them on any vehicle with TPMS. Move the wheels to a different axle and within a few miles the sensor will pick up which wheel is where. I highly doubt Ranger tires are staggered (larger rear than front) and even if they're directional (again, doubt it) you can move front to rear and rear to front. Perhaps it's more important in FWD and AWD to rotate tires, I've never owned a RWD vehicle so no experience with them.

                          Again, not saying you have to rotate the tires, but it's good practice - they do different things and wear in different ways.

                          If it's excess caster that's causing the wear then you're probably SOL as that's set by the various hub/ strut pivot points and relationships.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by mattthemuppet View Post
                            you shouldn't need to remount tires to rotate them on any vehicle with TPMS. Move the wheels to a different axle and within a few miles the sensor will pick up which wheel is where. I highly doubt Ranger tires are staggered (larger rear than front) and even if they're directional (again, doubt it) you can move front to rear and rear to front. Perhaps it's more important in FWD and AWD to rotate tires, I've never owned a RWD vehicle so no experience with them.

                            Again, not saying you have to rotate the tires, but it's good practice - they do different things and wear in different ways.

                            If it's excess caster that's causing the wear then you're probably SOL as that's set by the various hub/ strut pivot points and relationships.
                            Agree on all points. But you're not SOL if it's caster - but it is a job for a frame shop.

                            -js
                            There are no stupid questions. But there are lots of stupid answers. This is the internet.

                            Location: SF Bay Area

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

                              To be honest going by just the pics it's hard to say what's going on with what were both talking about ---- I really don't see any huge earmarks of feathering, the "what looks like feathering" to me is mostly just because the tires worn at an angle and there is not the typical "90 degree's" on the side that does somewhat have a feathered look because of that fact,,, so it's hard to say absolutely,

                              But again, toe in wears the outside of the tire - it's toe out that would wear the inside, take the angle to the extreme and you see why this is so, radical toe in "folds" the tire while going down the road -- it "folds" the outer of the tire over as it rotates,,, the entire carcass of the tire changes it's camber level to the ground --- again it's like dragging a tire sideways - radical toe in drags the outside of the tire and wears that area first --- same can be said for opposite as in the OP, radical toe out wears the inner part of the tire first, but again for this to happen at such a rate he would have obvious feathering and don't think he'd be seeing 28,000 miles out of them at all....
                              It's clear this tire has excessive negative camber and I can see the slightly rounded edge on the inboard side of the second set of blocks from the left and the outboard side doesn't have that smooth edge and I can see the same on the two sets of tread blocks to the outboard side of that one.


                              Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Arcane View Post

                                It's clear this tire has excessive negative camber and I can see the slightly rounded edge on the inboard side of the second set of blocks from the left and the outboard side doesn't have that smooth edge and I can see the same on the two sets of tread blocks to the outboard side of that one.

                                Yes basically what i stated in the beginning - obvious negative camber --- we could speculate more on toe in and toe out but just going by a pic don't cut it,,,
                                as I also stated before the entire tread is worn at an angle - this leaves 90 degree's + on the specific blocks in question that your talking about and well under 90 degree's on the other side of the block - meaning the side of the block in view which has a lesser angle and will "appear" more rounded -
                                also have to add to that - that the other side will actually undergo a natural feathering just by the load from the negative camber not being direct and "folding" that rubber over slightly with every revolution as again it's not at a 90 degree angle and therefore the top is "buckling" under the load that the bottom cannot physically support due to it being "non-existent"

                                Bottom line - even just a pic I can absolutely say for certain that it's not excessive toe out that's causing the lions share of JT's problem - it's negative camber,,, I can say this because it would take drastic toe out to create that kind of wear on a tire - drastic - and I can verify that it's not seeing that kind of scrubbing because the tire does indeed have a "center sipe" directly down the middle and it is basically not showing any signs of radical feathering and in fact I cannot detect any signs of feathering on it at all...

                                unlike the block in question to where the one side is left to fend on its own - the center sipe has both support from the side it's attached to - to the opposing side it rests against - so virtually unaffected by the camber angle... not so if it was experiencing drastic toe - the sipe would be eaten away on one side and feathered on the other as the out of toe would separate the two and expose the deviance...
                                Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 06-25-2021, 09:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X