You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII - READ ONLY
1840 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2002 at 4:10 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.- Your Host is kcram
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.
What is this discussion about? Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger
#1218 of 1840 Ranger driveshaft replacement by frey44
May 24, 2002 (2:56 pm)
Just to try to help any Ranger owner who may be having the same travail as I did (vibration in seats at various speeds, and "slop" in the driveline) I am posting the TSB for Ford's "fix": replacing the stock steel driveshaft with the new alloy one. This shaft made a DRAMATIC improvement in smoothing out the vehicle and eliminating the "bump from behind" feeling, and driveline lash, when taking off from a stop. The part number for this shaft for MY TRUCK (a 2000 Ford Ranger 4x4 XLT, 4.0, 5 speed auto) is: 1 L5Z 4602-MFROM THE FORD ISSUED TSB:
Driveline - Thump/Clunk Noise
Article No.
01-11-11
06/11/01
^
NOISE - "THUMP"/"CLUNK" HEARD ON LIGHT
ACCELERATION FROM A STOP OR WHEN
BRAKING AND COMING TO A STOP - SLIP/STICK
SENSATION AT REAR DRIVESHAFT SLIP - JOINT
SPLINES 4X4 SUPER CAB ONLY
^
DRIVESHAFT - "THUMP"/"CLUNK" NOISE HEARD
ON LIGHT ACCELERATION FROM A STOP OR
WHEN BRAKING AND COMING TO A STOP - SLIP/STICK SENSATION AT REAR DRIVESHAFT SLIP - JOINT
SPLINE - 4X4 SUPER CAB ONLY
FORD:
1998-2001 RANGER
This article is being republished in its entirety to update the model year applications for the service
parts required.
ISSUE
Some 4X4 Super Cab vehicles may exhibit a low frequency "thump" type noise/vibration on light
acceleration from a stop, and/or when coming to a stop with light to moderate braking. This may be
caused by axle wind up during acceleration or deceleration and creating a stick/slip condition at the
rear driveshaft slip-joint splines causing the "thump"/"clunk" sensation.
ACTION
Replace 3.5" steel driveshaft with 4.0 "aluminum rear driveshaft. This requires installation of a revised
fuel tank skid plate. for vehicles built before 1/15/2001 equipped with the 4X4 Off-Road package.
Refer to the following Service Procedure for details.
SERVICE PROCEDURE
1.
Reference yellow balance mark on existing steel driveshaft. Using chalk, paint-pen or equivalent,
index a mark on the rear axle flange in-line with yellow mark on driveshaft. This will enable the
new driveshaft to be reinstalled in an original balanced state.
2.
Remove existing steel driveshaft from vehicle.
3.
Using the previous reference mark on the axle, align the applicable revised aluminum driveshaft
yellow mark to the axle flange mark. This will assure correct orientation of the new service
driveshaft.
4.
Install new service driveshaft and t6rque all eight (8) fasteners to 88-119 Nm (65-87 lb-ft).
5.
Remove fuel tank skid plate for vehicles built before 1/15/2001 equipped with the 4X4 Off-Road
package.
6.
Replace with new service Skid Plate (1L5Z-9A147-AA).
7.
Torque fuel tank skid plate fasteners to 34-46 Nm (25-34 lb-ft).
8.
Verify condition has been corrected by accelerating from a stop, and/or with light to moderate
braking when coming to a stop.
Parts Block
OTHER APPLICABLE ARTICLES: NONE
SUPERSEDES: 01-9-6
WARRANTY STATUS: Eligible Under the Provisions Of Bumper To Bumper Warranty Coverage.
OPERATION/DESCRIPTION/TIME
DEALER CODING
OASIS CODES: 597997, 702000, 702200, 702300, 703000, 703200, 703400
Copyright © 2002 ALLDATA LLC
#1219 of 1840 SHOCKS and TIRES. I need help. by frey44
May 24, 2002 (3:03 pm)
I have narrowed down some shocks (for the 2000 Ranger 4x4 mentioned in the previous post ) to either EDELBROCKS or BILSTEIN premium shocks. I am looking for a better ride (i.e. better DAMPING in normal highway driving...I never go offroad). Any ideas ?? Also, what do you guys recommend for replacement tires ? I want to stick with the stock recommended sizes: either 235-75-15, or 245-70-15. I have Michelins LTX's, but cannot seem to get them to balance (I suspect they suffer from a lot of LATERAL runout. The Hunter says they balance, but 2 of these appear to be about 1/4 inch out of lateral trueness.)Could I switch to an "automotive" all season tire for a better , smoother ride ?
I mainly use my Ranger to haul my jazz drumkit around.
#1220 of 1840 you...... by tbunder
May 24, 2002 (5:34 pm)
should upgrade to 265/70/16. that's getting to be the universal 16" truck size tire. it is exactly the same height as the stock 245's, but just 1.2 inches wider. it also is exactly the same height as a 31" tall tire for a 15" wheel. it is .2 inches wider though.i didn't experience any mileage change and it looks a lot better than the skinny 245's.
#1221 of 1840 I've had both the bilsteins by obyone
May 24, 2002 (10:14 pm)
and edelbrocks on my truck. Prefer the bilsteins as the edelbrocks were a little to stiff. Good for highway driving at extreme speeds, but the bilsteins give better all around ride and handling#1222 of 1840 frey by saddaddy
May 25, 2002 (6:21 am)
Is the clunk thing you were talking about just axle wrap? I have felt that on nearly every truck I have ever driven. It seems to be worse on small trucks, but there are some really easy fixes other than replacing the driveshaft.#1223 of 1840 SADADDY...Ranger "clunk" by frey44
May 25, 2002 (7:18 am)
Sadaddy, this clunk [in MY case at least] Ford admits is due to badly machined splines on the original steel driveshaft i.e. the slip splines on the extension yoke (from the tranny) do not always mate properly (with the correct tolerances) with the inside [female] insert of the driveshaft itself [on some trucks....mine was an example of this]. This apparently allows the shaft to "waggle" and vibrate in the vertical plane up and down, as well as oscillate and vibrate as it spins. Also, there was just a lot of "slop" [excessive for a new truck] in the drivetrain when taking off from a dead stop. They corrected this by reducing the MASS of the shaft (to make it smoother) and tightened up the tolerances of the slip joint area. Also, the mechanic told me he has had Rangers come in with only a few thousand miles on them with very little grease in the slip joint area [factory goof up ?????]. This new alloy shaft [mostly aluminum, it appears] has virtually eliminated ALL of the slop and the clunk and most of the vibration. Amazing, really. FWIW, I am not on here to criticize the Ranger (I own one), but only to try to give back some info to help others as they have helped me. The moral is: on extended cab trucks, that driveshaft is a potential source of irritating buzz or vibes, especially in the seat-floorboard and roof pillars area. Have a nice weekend.#1224 of 1840 Ford by scape2
May 25, 2002 (1:10 pm)
has got to get with it in the tire category.. I changed my tires on my Ranger to an LT265 70/16 and it made a world of difference when up on the trails or in the dry dirt areas. This will also make your Ranger stand taller and give it a more aggressive stance. Toyota figured this one out years ago.. this is why some feel the Toyota looks better... I am however noticing more Rangers with larger tires.. Thank goodness....#1225 of 1840 scape and frey by saddaddy
May 25, 2002 (2:10 pm)
scape---> You are right. That is the main reason that I have always felt that Tacos were the best looking small truck. They have a stance that is unrivaled. Even the FX4s with 31" tires, although I admit they look good, just don't have the right stance for my taste. I still haven't totally grown to liking the newer body style Tacomas, but IMHO they look tougher than the competition. Let the criticism begin...frey---> I see what you are saying now, the looseness in the drivetrain like that will make for some jerky driving. I gotcha.
#1226 of 1840 nah...... by tbunder
May 25, 2002 (11:01 pm)
the ZR2 is by far the toughest looking truck out today. no question about it.but the ford FX4 just begs you to take it up against one, although that ZR2 pkg. can really wheel and take major abuse.
the tacoma looks kinda wimpy imo. maybe its just it's reputation as being a tin can with no power or torque. i know i know, it is a good truck, but it just isn't very intimidating.
also just fyi, the 245's that come stock on off-road rangers and now all rangers with 16" wheels, are exactly the same height as 31" tires and 265/70/16 tires. its just that they aren't as wide. also, toyota has only been putting this size on since '01. so "for years" really isn't valid, as before they just put on 31" tires on 15" wheels like GM started with the s10 and sonoma in '94 with the intro of the ZR2.
#1227 of 1840 TIRES by frey44
May 26, 2002 (8:25 am)
I asked about tires because I am trying to get the vibration out of my truck. Bigger tires are not necessarily better for some drivers (me). First of all, I'd have to buy new wheels ($ 400 for decent ones), then the larger tires (at least 600 bucks). Also, larger tires are more difficult to balance, and have more rotating mass, just what I am trying to avoid. Looks ?? The Ranger is a little truck; big tires don't make it look "bad"...only like a little truck with big tires (some Rangers and Tacos jacked up are actually emabarrassing sights !! Hilarious ! They look like Tonka trucks !). If you want to look bad, you drive an F 150 or a Ram jacked up, with huge tires, (and suffer the 11 mpg on the highway).
So, if anyone knows of a tire that will run smoothe, let me know.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement