Sterling 10.25

[95XL]

Hey, I'm looking into swapping a full float Sterling 10.25 into my Ranger, and just had a couple of questions about it. The only thing I'm really concerned about is the master cylinder for the brakes. The Sterling has some huge drums compared to the 7.5" or 8.8". Is my stock master cylinder going to make enough pressure to move the wheel cylinders in those brakes? Also, I have to double check, but I believe my truck has 4-wheel ABS, do I have to find an axle out of a truck that has the ABS plug? And if I do, do I have to splice the plug that comes on the axle onto my wiring harness? Or can I just leave them unplugged? Thats pretty much it.

Oh, and the driveshaft, I'm pretty positive the F-250's didn't use the same driveshafts as Rangers lol. How much would you guys say it should cost to have a custom shaft made with the Ranger yolk on the front, and the F-250 flange on the rear of it?

[projectnitemare]

The sterling is a good axle, you aren't going to break it. As for the brakes, I think you would be fine with the stock master. Good chance you will need to find an axle with a speed sensor. Most likely your Ranger plug will work, just incase get the one from the truck. Just cut the original off and splice on the other one. As for the driveshaft you will need a custom one. If you have a decent driveline shop in the area a good fab guy will be able to just switch the yokes if you take the driveshaft from the other truck. I'd say under $100 for something like that, I new shaft will run probably $250 or so. I make my own shafts so whatever supplies cost. Just be aware that if you need to regear if you find a pre-89 axle you will need a new yoke for the new pinion.

Matt

[Evan]

Why are you swapping that axle into a 2.3L Ranger? It's only worth the time and money if you're running 50" or larger tires. I'd look into a 31-spline 8.8 or 9". Those will not only be lighter and more nimble, but will cost less time and money to swap in and support at least 40" tires.

[metalmacguyver]

So if you are going full width in back, what are you putting up front?

[95XL]

Why are you swapping that axle into a 2.3L Ranger?
I'm doing a dual wheel conversion, and I really wanted to use a full floater, so no matter how much weight I put in the bed, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking an axle shaft. And I would have to weld up the spring perches and shock mounts anyways, so I might as well do it right the first time.

So if you are going full width in back, what are you putting up front?I'm sticking with the Dana 35. I'm putting dually rims on the front as well, and my adaptors are about 4.3" thick to account for the backspacing, so the front rims will be on the same centerline as the stockers. I found the measurement for the Sterling from WMS TO WMS, and it's 1.25" narrower than a stock ranger axle with the same adaptors as the front, so the inner rear wheels will only be 5/8" narrower than the fronts.

Just be aware that if you need to regear if you find a pre-89 axle you will need a new yoke for the new pinion. I'm hoping I can find one with 4.10's and a limited slip, that way I don't have to F with anything inside the diff.

You follow?

[organic]

I'd like to see some pics of the truck after its all done. Should be pretty cool looking!

[Loanranger]

Just wondering if you realize that anything heavy you put in the bed in front of the rear axle is going to put more weight on the front axle too? What size tires are you planning to run on this?

[95XL]

Just wondering if you realize that anything heavy you put in the bed in front of the rear axle is going to put more weight on the front axle too? What size tires are you planning to run on this? Yeah, I've thought of that, thats why the centerline of the rim is going to be in the same spot on the front, so it doesn't mess with the bearings.

I'm running 235/70 r16 General Grabber AT2's

[Woods-Rider]

What do you haul/tow that you would need a 10.25 but still be able to move with a 2.3L?

[Woods-Rider]

What do you haul/tow that you need a 10.25 for but will still be able to pull with a 2.3L?

[KELLY88]

While I don't doubt that dually tires front a rear would look pretty cool I can't help but agree with the others and wonder why you need a Sterling 10.25, what exactly do you plan on towing or hauling? Plus the extra weight of the axle and tires would put a lot more stress on your transmission/tranfer case, even without a load. I agree you probably wouldn't have to worry about breaking an axle shaft with that setup but you're likely to destroy something else in the drivetrain.

[alaskan155]

instead of spacers in front, here is an idea.
http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/winter2007/44knuckleswap.htm

do that, but attach the 3/4 ton parts to the d44 1/2 ton knuckle, 8-lug conversion for dana 35, then if you haven''t got a axle yet, try looking at the 14b full floater out of the chevies(73-91), get the Dually version from there, it be a better match, (since a SRW axle with Dually hubs from a chevy is the same width as a ranger) it be a perfect match, the dually axle should put the tire in the right place.

all u loose is ABS

[95XL]

What do you haul/tow that you need a 10.25 for but will still be able to pull with a 2.3L? The need for the 10.25 is not out of what I haul/tow. The need for the 10.25 comes from the fact that I need a full float axle with the 8 on 6.5" lug pattern. The 10.25 meets both those criteria, and it's still a Ford part (Not that that has anything to do with it, but I like to stick with Ford when I can).

Plus the extra weight of the axle and tires would put a lot more stress on your transmission/tranfer case, even without a load. I agree you probably wouldn't have to worry about breaking an axle shaft with that setup but you're likely to destroy something else in the drivetrain. I agree that the Sterling is a heavier axle than stock, but how much heavier could it be?!? Best bet is probably 100lbs at the most, I can haul 100lbs around all day long and not have any more load on my drivetrain than normal. The extra set of tires, granted, are going to weigh a lot more, but once they get rolling they shouldn't be too bad. I don't think it should be any worse than running 31's with 3.73's (I've got 4.10's currently).

Alaskan155 - I like the idea, but the whole point of doing this conversion is so I have a senior project for college. I've already decided not to use two of the adaptors I've made by switching to the 10.25. If I did the knuckle swap, then I wouldn't be able to use either set. I feel that the D44 swap would be stronger in the long run, unfortunately I have already spent enough $$ on my adaptors that I'm pretty much forced to use them now. Also, could you elaborate a bit on the width of the 14 bolt? I couldn't really follow what you said. The way I understand what you said is the 14b with dually hubs puts makes the width about the same as a stock ranger axle? If I did that the inner wheels would be about 4 inches narrower than the front.

[Todd]

I agree that the Sterling is a heavier axle than stock, but how much heavier could it be?!? Best bet is probably 100lbs at the most, I can haul 100lbs around all day long and not have any more load on my drivetrain than normal.

Try about twice the weight of an 8.8

[alaskan155]

http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/14b_bible/index.html here check this link out, basically there are 2 axle housing, and 2 different hubs, 1 combination gets u the same width basically as a ranger, which is a single rear wheel axle, with dually hubs, which is a 63.5" wms-wms(about stock ranger), a regualr SRW axle is is 67.5" wms-wms, that give you 2 inches on each side over the ranger , then a dually axle is 72" stock, so that about 8", 4 " on each side, pretty much matches your front spacer, so as you can see there are a alot of width to choice from, atleast 2 per axle housing, then avalibility, not sure on the sterling avaliblilty but the 14b FF started in 73 and ended in 2000, so plenty of parts and aftermarket supports

[Woods-Rider]

The need for the 10.25 is not out of what I haul/tow. The need for the 10.25 comes from the fact that I need a full float axle with the 8 on 6.5" lug pattern. The 10.25 meets both those criteria, and it's still a Ford part (Not that that has anything to do with it, but I like to stick with Ford when I can).

so why do you need the full float axle? not trying to say you dont need it just curious as to what you are doing with it?

[95XL]

I'm doing a dual wheel conversion, and I really wanted to use a full floater, so no matter how much weight I put in the bed, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking an axle shaft. And I would have to weld up the spring perches and shock mounts anyways, so I might as well do it right the first time.
:annoyed:

[Woods-Rider]

Sorry, still dont understand why you need or want duals, full floater, or a 10.25. Is there something you haul or tow on a regular basis?

[95XL]

but the whole point of doing this conversion is so I have a senior project for college.

ugh, for god's sake man, keep up...

Project Apple Bottom (http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7374&highlight=dually)

[Wicked_Sludge]

its a neat and unusual project for sure...but im going to have to side with the others on this one. yes you will never have any hope of breaking that 10.25...but next to go will be spring hangers, after you beef those, you'll crack the springs themselves, then after that, the "weak" ranger frame. my point? an 8.8 will stand up to anything that the stock hangers/springs/frame will stand up to. unless you plan on beefing all of that too, you arent increasing your capacity beyond what would be attainable with an 8.8.

a dually, full floating axle has a massive rotational weight. you're going to notice that it takes a lot more work to get the truck moving than it does now. i think you'll also have a fun time getting the rangers shocks and springs to ride properly with the increase (nearly double) in unsprung weight.

[Loanranger]

I'm running 235/70 r16 General Grabber AT2's

Another thing, if these are the tires you're going to run, how much clearance do you think you'll have under the center of that sterling axle?

[86ford]

i think your smoked a little to much crack when you came up with this idea.

86

[Will]

For what it's worth, the load in the bed should not put weight on the front tires, or take it off. If it does, you are loading it wrong. The weight should be centered over the rear axle. If you weigh your truck you will see that the front axle when the truck is empty is pretty close to the axle maximum weight rating. The front of my truck weighs 3,400# and the rear is 2,800#--the front axle rating is 3,800# and the rear is 6,084# (which is governed by tire capacity as each tire is rated at 3,042#). Considering it is a crewcab, with the passengers filling the seats the front end will be at 3,800# without putting anything at all in the bed. All of the cargo load belongs over the rear axle--period.

I really like alaskan155's idea. That idea hinges on finding a chassis-cab axle which puts you 4" per side wider than the ideal 80" (in my opinion, as dually full-sizes are 20% wider than SRW full-sizes) but that could look okay I think.

[Wicked_Sludge]

i think your smoked a little to much crack when you came up with this idea.

86

theres no need to make posts just to belittle people. if you dont have anything useful to add, lets not clutter up this guys topic any worse than it already is :bye:

[metalmacguyver]

i think your smoked a little to much crack when you came up with this idea.

86

Leave the guy alone. I like the idea of a dually ranger. Its unique.

[thegoat4]

With more unsprung weight, you need correspondingly higher sprung weight to hold the wheels to the road. Unless you put something heavy in the bed you're likely to have a hard time driving it around.

I've had to transport garbage trucks before they got their compactors mounted. 3,000+lbs of unsprung weight with pretty much nothing sitting on top. They're just about impossible to control and will happily bounce a lane or two over.

Stick a gooseneck hitch in the bed and find you a heavy trailer. Cram some big rubber blocks between the suspension and the frame to hold the load and protect your springs and mounts.

Toss in a transfer case to get a low range and you should be OK.

[Loanranger]

For what it's worth, the load in the bed should not put weight on the front tires, or take it off. If it does, you are loading it wrong. The weight should be centered over the rear axle. If you weigh your truck you will see that the front axle when the truck is empty is pretty close to the axle maximum weight rating. The front of my truck weighs 3,400# and the rear is 2,800#--the front axle rating is 3,800# and the rear is 6,084# (which is governed by tire capacity as each tire is rated at 3,042#). Considering it is a crewcab, with the passengers filling the seats the front end will be at 3,800# without putting anything at all in the bed. All of the cargo load belongs over the rear axle--period.

I really like alaskan155's idea. That idea hinges on finding a chassis-cab axle which puts you 4" per side wider than the ideal 80" (in my opinion, as dually full-sizes are 20% wider than SRW full-sizes) but that could look okay I think.

Interesting theory here, and it would work if your load is perfectly balanced. Lets just say he's hauling an engine and transmission, which are mated together. Obviously the engine weighs more than the trans. So you're saying it is possible to load this with the weight centered and equally balanced over the rear axle?

[Dishtowel]

To all the people giving him a hard time about his make-work project, he said he's not doing this for the weight bearing. He's doing this for the aesthetics of it. It is exactly that, a 'make-work' project.


For what it's worth, the load in the bed should not put weight on the front tires, or take it off. If it does, you are loading it wrong. The weight should be centered over the rear axle. If you weigh your truck you will see that the front axle when the truck is empty is pretty close to the axle maximum weight rating. The front of my truck weighs 3,400# and the rear is 2,800#--the front axle rating is 3,800# and the rear is 6,084# (which is governed by tire capacity as each tire is rated at 3,042#). Considering it is a crewcab, with the passengers filling the seats the front end will be at 3,800# without putting anything at all in the bed. All of the cargo load belongs over the rear axle--period.


To most people throwing a load in the back of their pickup is not an exact science, when bolting in a fifth wheel or whatnot then you put in some effort to make sure things are over the axle. If the CenterOfGravity of the load is centered above the axle (as you said) then the front axle dosn't even know about it (in terms of weight bearing.) There is a science about this sort of stuff called statics.

Good examples of this are semi-trucks. Most tractors (trucks with a 5th-wheel) put the hitch pin over the center of the axle group at the back. Dump trucks and vans clearly do not have their load centered over the back axle group. Thus the front axle knows when there is aload.

When you hitch up a bumper pull trailer you make your front axle lighter.

I'm sure abunch of you knew this, but lets just get the load bearing side of this out'a here, thats not his goal.


Interesting theory here, and it would work if your load is perfectly balanced. Lets just say he's hauling an engine and transmission, which are mated together. Obviously the engine weighs more than the trans. So you're saying it is possible to load this with the weight centered and equally balanced over the rear axle?

Back to that COG topic again.

[Will]

There's a science about this called statistics?

Anyway, I was responding to the guy that said adding things in the back also adds weight to the front. His argument being that increasing the rear axle capacity requires an increase in front axle capacity. It doesn't. If you throw some junk in the bed of your truck, no, there's no danger you will overload the front axle. If you put a 500# engine/transmission and strap it right up against the forward wall of the bed about 400# is going to the rear axle and 100# to the front. If you just dump it in the middle of the bed you will have almost no weight added to the front at all--a couple tens of pounds. This is because Ford put the box over the center of the axle. My argument was aimed at--don't worry about it. It wasn't intended to be a lecture on truck loading.

An RBV has a pretty heavy frame. It's a 6" channel formed from 3/16" steel. My Dodge one-ton motorhome chassis is a 7" channel of 3/16" steel. A Ranger could be upgraded to haul something substantial--a cube of CMUs could be carried by a Ranger with a flatbed and an upgraded axle for instance. Even though he's not building it for such, he might need it for that down the road--or a future purchaser.

[Loanranger]

There's a science about this called statistics?

Anyway, I was responding to the guy that said adding things in the back also adds weight to the front. His argument being that increasing the rear axle capacity requires an increase in front axle capacity. It doesn't. If you throw some junk in the bed of your truck, no, there's no danger you will overload the front axle. If you put a 500# engine/transmission and strap it right up against the forward wall of the bed about 400# is going to the rear axle and 100# to the front. If you just dump it in the middle of the bed you will have almost no weight added to the front at all--a couple tens of pounds. This is because Ford put the box over the center of the axle. My argument was aimed at--don't worry about it. It wasn't intended to be a lecture on truck loading.

An RBV has a pretty heavy frame. It's a 6" channel formed from 3/16" steel. My Dodge one-ton motorhome chassis is a 7" channel of 3/16" steel. A Ranger could be upgraded to haul something substantial--a cube of CMUs could be carried by a Ranger with a flatbed and an upgraded axle for instance. Even though he's not building it for such, he might need it for that down the road--or a future purchaser.

It's nice to see that you can contradict yourself in one paragraph. You're saying that even though aproximately 1/5th of the load is transfered to the front axle, that any load in the back has no effect on the front?

[Will]

I said it doesn't matter. A Ranger only has a 1,000 or 1,500# payload. If it were dense enough to be right against the cab with the CG of the load 10" away, about 1/5 would go on the front axle. With a 1,000# load that's 200#. Since you don't generally load like that you would not even see that much. The Ranger axle has enough juice for that. If you put a flatbed and drop a cube of CMUs on the bed, you would need the load centered--just as you would do on an F350 with a flatbed.

How am I contradicting myself? I'm not putting a micrometer on this.

[Loanranger]

If you weigh your truck you will see that the front axle when the truck is empty is pretty close to the axle maximum weight rating. The front of my truck weighs 3,400# and the rear is 2,800#--the front axle rating is 3,800# and the rear is 6,084# (which is governed by tire capacity as each tire is rated at 3,042#). Considering it is a crewcab, with the passengers filling the seats the front end will be at 3,800# without putting anything at all in the bed.



His argument being that increasing the rear axle capacity requires an increase in front axle capacity. It doesn't. If you throw some junk in the bed of your truck, no, there's no danger you will overload the front axle. If you put a 500# engine/transmission and strap it right up against the forward wall of the bed about 400# is going to the rear axle and 100# to the front.
Your top quote here states that your front axle is already maxed out, and then you are going to add 100 pounds to this.

If you just dump it in the middle of the bed you will have almost no weight added to the front at all--a couple tens of pounds.


My point here is that sometimes it's not an option to balance the weight of the load over the rear axle due to the fact that the ranger bed is only so long. This is why I used the example of an engine and trans combo, and who's to say it's not a powerstroke and tranny which weighs more than 500 pounds.

I said it doesn't matter. A Ranger only has a 1,000 or 1,500# payload. If it were dense enough to be right against the cab with the CG of the load 10" away, about 1/5 would go on the front axle. With a 1,000# load that's 200#. Since you don't generally load like that you would not even see that much. The Ranger axle has enough juice for that. If you put a flatbed and drop a cube of CMUs on the bed, you would need the load centered--just as you would do on an F350 with a flatbed.

How am I contradicting myself? I'm not putting a micrometer on this.

I'm only trying to get the point across, that if hauling anything that would make using a sterling axle nessecary, that the front should be upgraded also. Why do you think they don't put the same front axle in the F150 as they do in the f550? It is only common sense that any weight biased to the front of the rear axle is going to add weight to the front axle, just as any weight biased to the rear of the rear axle is going to remove weight from the front axle. And like I said before, sometimes it's just not possible to center the weight of the load over the rear axle precisely.

[Woods-Rider]

There's a science about this called statistics?


lol, he said statics, not statistics. just thought i would clear that up.

[95XL]

Wow, I don't get on here for a whole weekend and the whole place falls apart. lol.

Wow, a lot of stuff was brought up by people, where should I start?

I guess I'll start by talking about the unsprung wieght/spring hanger subject. I understand that obviously there is going to be more unsprung weight, there isn't really any way to fix that, besides not doing the axle swap, which I'm pretty much dead set on now. As far as breaking the spring mounts/cracking springs. I did the chevy spring swap last summer, and I replaced all of the spring hangers with new ones when I did it, and I'm pretty sure the chevy springs wont crack. If so, I'll just buy some chevy 2500 spring packs, they're the same length as the 1500's.

As far as load centering etc... I'm not really worried about load centering and everything.

I think I need to say thanks to everyone who understands where I'm coming from by doing this.

This thread has strayed way off topic, all I really wanted to know is if my master cylinder would be able to handle the massive breaks on the 10.25, and what to do with the ABS and Speed Sensor Plug, it's funny how such a couple small questions could explode into this. lol.


BTW, I added pics of the rims mounted on the ranger in the Project Apple Bottom Thread, I suggest everyone goes and checks them out!

[Dishtowel]

lol, he said statics, not statistics. just thought i would clear that up.

thanks, yes, Statics,(the study of bodies & loading at rest) the little brother to Dynamics (the study of bodies & loading in motion)

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/1/web/2929000-2929999/2929003_303_full.jpghttp://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/1/web/2929000-2929999/2929003_304_full.jpg
wise guy, lol, jj

[95XL]

I was just thinking about the spring rates and such, having the added unsprung weight of the 10.25. Would adding the Monroe Load Adjusting shocks help at all with this application? (The Monroe shocks that are like coil-overs, but are meant to be like a helper spring).

[Will]

Damn, I forgot about this thread. I can't remember what side of this argument I was on.

That's a great junior college textbook, by the way. I think I have that one.

[JohnnyU]

This is no different than someone swapping in 1-ton axles with the Ranger frame or leaf springs with intentions of running 40's, I'm not sure why anyone would think differently?

I think this is a killer project, as I stated in your build thread. Instead of running the drum brakes, you may want to check one of the tech pages on Pirate4x4 for a disc brake conversion.

There are a few simple things you need to take into consideration with the hydraulic braking system, mainly diameter and stroke of the master cylinder, as well as diameter and stroke of the wheel cylinders. Essentially, you're worried about fluid volume displaced by the master cylinder vs. fluid volume required to actuate the wheel cylinders to provide sufficient braking.

[canyoncritter]

for the speed senor, you can always mount it off the drive shaft.

there a few people making them,pm me and Ill dig up the info if it will help

[95XL]

Well, I finally made it to the junkyard to pull the axle. But I didn't end up with a 10.25. I ended up with a full-float Dana 60 out of an E-350. It's got 3.54 gears in it right now, so I need to re-gear down to 4.10's. I was searching for gears, and apparently there is a carrier split between 4.56's and 4.10's, meaning if you have 4.10's or numerically lower gears currently (4.10's - 3.54's), and you want to re-gear to something 4.56 or numerically higher, you need to buy a new carrier for the 4.56 and higher gears. Luckily I'm only running 4.10's, so I shouldn't need a new carrier.

Now I just need to fab up some shock mounts and spring perches.

[JohnnyU]

Try Dan at www.ruffstuffspecialties.com That's where I bought my shock tabs, perches, u-bolts and plates, for a good price too.

[95XL]

Thanks for the link. But I think I can find them lacally for a little cheaper, and I wont have to pay shipping. I'm also going down to Carlisle, PA. for an all ford show, so I'm going to be keeping my eyes open for some while I'm down there.

I think I'm going to lay off this project for a while, I'm probably going to be buying a new truck before sinking any more $$ into my Ranger.