Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Adam C.

Ford ranger leaf spring

Recommended Posts

The best I can tell from finding the stamp while sorting through my pile. 

Ford

3L54 PB

OW3 323C152078981934923643547.jpg

Tried digging around on the interwebs and the heat treated guide. Wanna start moving into the known steel world and not just half assing it with unknown. 

Thanks for any information!

~Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no one has a definitive answer you might try a small sample "coupon" in a "harden/break" test and see if it it is hardenable. If so treat it like 5160 and you probably won't be far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was thinking. I've done a lot of searching online. I've gotten very little info on the composition just the part number to order replacement parts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be because that's all those numbers mean.  It's a pretty safe bet the leaf springs are the equivalent of 5160, or at least something that will respond to the same heat treatment recipe as 5160.  Coil springs, on the other hand, are a crapshoot these days.  Gotta know the year and car brand, and after 2005 or so nobody knows.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I had a set of Ford leaf springs (actually, I still have some of it) and I did some internet searching some years ago on them when I got them. Turns out Ford used either 5160 or 1095 (yeah I know hard to believe) for their leaf springs and they used to stamp the steel type in one end. Mine were stamped 5160. I don't know how old yours are or what Ford is using now, but cut a chunk off, forge a small blade and put it through the HT for 5160 and then break it and see how well it responded.

Whenever you are using an unknown or untested material, it always pays to do some testing first.

Edited by Joshua States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Joshua States said:

I had a set of Ford leaf springs (actually, I still have some of it) and I did some internet searching some years ago on them when I got them. Turns out Ford used either 5160 or 1095 (yeah I know hard to believe) for their leaf springs and they used to stamp the steel type in one end. Mine were stamped 5160. I don't know how old yours are or what Ford is using now, but cut a chunk off, forge a small blade and put it through the HT for 5160 and then break it and see how well it responded.

Whenever you are using an unknown or untested material, it always pays to do some testing first.

I agree but I am wondering, given that Furd Mangle Company uses/used 1095 or 5160 if we could sort of codify a testing procedure and the results from both steels to help folks tell the difference? If it is already in a thread, that I missed, could we link it? 

Just a wild thought, buuuut, if one is using springs at this point I might hazard a quess that they aren't set up to really "maximize" 1095 so perhaps multiple normalizations before quench and generally treating it like 5160 might be the order of the day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 6:13 PM, Alan Longmire said:

That would be because that's all those numbers mean.  It's a pretty safe bet the leaf springs are the equivalent of 5160, or at least something that will respond to the same heat treatment recipe as 5160.  Coil springs, on the other hand, are a crapshoot these days.  Gotta know the year and car brand, and after 2005 or so nobody knows.

As far as coil springs i will test each set i get, but i will try to get truck leaf springs.For important stuff i will order that to be safe.Thank you Alan.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vern Wimmer said:

I agree but I am wondering, given that Furd Mangle Company uses/used 1095 or 5160 if we could sort of codify a testing procedure and the results from both steels to help folks tell the difference? If it is already in a thread, that I missed, could we link it? 

Just a wild thought, buuuut, if one is using springs at this point I might hazard a quess that they aren't set up to really "maximize" 1095 so perhaps multiple normalizations before quench and generally treating it like 5160 might be the order of the day.

 

Whenever you are using any steel that you are not totally sure of, normalization and testing is a must, regardless of what you might "think" it is. Even when I had a steel that I knew what it was, but I had never used it before (W2 in this case) I did a small blade and tested the HT method, just to be sure.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×