gearing for 44" tires?

[ignerntkneece]

What do you think i should gear my 94 ranger to pull 44" tires. I don't plan to be mudding with the truck just drivin it on the weekend? i got a 4.0 and a 5 speed??? i'm gonna have a d44 and my stock 8.8 for axles

[LittleBigFoot]

No.

Just no.

[Loanranger]

3.54:1 should be just fine.... :iamwithstupid:

[small ranger]

my mall crawler has a crawl ratio of 40:1 so I would say stock ratio is fine.

[JohnnyO]

Don't worry about the gearing because with a D44 and 8.8" the weight of the 44's will snap the hubs off in no time.
5.13 is the highest you can get for an 8.8" I think.

[metalmacguyver]

Your limited by whats available.



Do you know what a Rockwell is?

[mhughes165]

What do you think i should gear my 94 ranger to pull 44" tires. I don't plan to be mudding with the truck just drivin it on the weekend? i got a 4.0 and a 5 speed??? i'm gonna have a d44 and my stock 8.8 for axles


dude....really man....i said it could be done with a 44....but ur just pushing the limits of logics now

i said before, i wouldnt reccomend anythign above a 40" tire for those axles.....
and thats just for street use driving like miss daisy....

youre going to need like 7.13's for what u want todo, and ull top out at about 50mph

you need more power and axles that can handle it......

my old ranger on 44's had a mild small block in it, and 4.56's and i wheeled that with a heavy right foot....i never woulda thought about driving it on the street with anything more then 35's though, street use can alot of times be harder on axles then the mud.....mud is forgiving, pavement isnt

[skyhigh91]

If you want to put 44's on do it, play safe & post pics.

[mhughes165]

If you want to put 44's on do it, play safe & post pics.


id rather see a really capable righ on like 38's, instead of a truck thats useless on 44's which is why im saying not to run 44's

[ignerntkneece]

ok i don't believe alot of this, i'm gonna do it, there is a ranger in my town on a d44 and a 9" with a bone stock 289 motor. i know it can be done. That 289 ain't got that much more power than my little 4.0

[metalmacguyver]

Ok go do it. dont listen to us. Dont forget that your stopping distance will be trippled.

What state are you in? I dont want to be near by.

[mhughes165]

ok i don't believe alot of this, i'm gonna do it, there is a ranger in my town on a d44 and a 9" with a bone stock 289 motor. i know it can be done. That 289 ain't got that much more power than my little 4.0


sure, dont beileve the people on here that have built dozens of the rig your dreaming of building.

the 8.8 WILL FRIGGIN EXPLODE, im done being nice here, i plan on breaking the 8.8 in my truck atleast once every 3 months, you have a 28 spline 8.8, the gear u will need to atleast make it todo 50mph simply do not exists for the rears.

the d44 for someone that has NEVER from the sound of it built a truck bigger then a slightly modded ranger, will SHATTER before it leaves your town, there is no question about it.

NOW if u said u were going to run a 9" in the back with moly axles, then id say that sure, it would hold up to bein just a cruiser.

and if u planned on using a 44 with moly axles and d60 big bearing outers, sure it might hold up to the occasional muddy road.

BUT what ur talking about is just ludacris, there is no way simply that a geared 8.8 and d44 will hold up to this. it just wont......there is no other way for us to tell you.

have u ever TALKED to the guy that has the ranger with the 44's in your town, do u know what kind of money he has tied up in it??

and comparing a 289 to a 4.0 isnt even a comparison, i personally believe the 289 was the MOST reliable v8 ford EVER produced, even more so the a 302(which is based on the 289), it produces ALOT more torque, has no emissions equipment, has 2 more cylinders and has a much lower powerband, where as your 4.0 sure it makes decent power and torque, but the gearin u will need and the rpm u will need to run the motor at ocnstatly to make it even POSSIBLE would quickly kill your 4.0 as well.....






well....that being said, if u really dont want to take the advice of everyone here that has done it time and time again, then go ahead and do it, but dont plan on us helping you when u start complainin about your 8.8 exploding into a million pieces and your truck being iompounded for being a hazord to yourself and others


have a nice day

[mhughes165]

Ok go do it. dont listen to us. Dont forget that your stopping distance will be trippled.

What state are you in? I dont want to be near by.

lol, i know he aint nowhere near me, cause that truck would be impounded the second it hits the street, no questions asked

[Todd]

Ok I have some input on this as I know someone with a truck on 44’s on a Dana 44 and 8.8. It’s an F-150 with a 351, T-18, 1356, and the Dana 44 and 8.8 with 4.56’s open spinning 44’s. He bought the truck to use the platform for putting one tons under it, as it needs then bad. Not only is he pushing the axles but the drive shafts and t-case.

He only DD’s the damn thing as he knows it will blow up if he tries to take it into the woods. He has already blown the rear pulling out of a gas station.

WE all told him not to buy the damn thing but he did anyway. I mean why DD a huge truck what will get shitty gas mileage? But if he does put 1 tons under it my thoughts of the truck will change.

So please take our advice, putting 44” rubber on ½ ton axles is just flat out dumb.

[KELLY88]

Hey I support your idea to dream big but Rangers are small trucks and the driveline components just can't handle a tire that size. The 8.8 is a good strong and reliable axle up to 35s or maybe 37s but after that it's just not built to handle the stress. We're not trying to knock you down, just trying to give you the facts that while it seems like a fun idea, reality will set in sooner or later and it isn't feasible. 44" tires are going to cost a lot of money, so will a lift to clear them. Then you'll end up spending the same amount if not more when the axles snap and/or the motor blows. The 4.0 is a decent motor but it simply was not built to run a 1 ton driveline.

[85_Ranger4x4]

and comparing a 289 to a 4.0 isnt even a comparison, i personally believe the 289 was the MOST reliable v8 ford EVER produced, even more so the a 302(which is based on the 289), it produces ALOT more torque, has no emissions equipment, has 2 more cylinders and has a much lower powerband, where as your 4.0 sure it makes decent power and torque, but the gearin u will need and the rpm u will need to run the motor at ocnstatly to make it even POSSIBLE would quickly kill your 4.0 as well.....


The early 302's were just a stroked 289 and thus had more everything powerwise, but shortly after they came out the smog stuff started coming down and knocked them down to being a pooch, which is what the vast majority of 302's were made as.

[mhughes165]

The early 302's were just a stroked 289 and thus had more everything powerwise, but shortly after they came out the smog stuff started coming down and knocked them down to being a pooch, which is what the vast majority of 302's were made as.

i was doing the comparison of the 289 to a 4.0, the only comparison of the 302 to a 289 was as far as reliability, which the 289 wins out on

[85_Ranger4x4]

i was doing the comparison of the 289 to a 4.0, the only comparison of the 302 to a 289 was as far as reliability, which the 289 wins out on

I was just saying that aside from .13" of crankshaft throw there isn't much of a difference between the 289 and a early 302, reliablity should be similar as well, until the 302 got mucked up later on.

[mhughes165]

but how many of those older 302's are floating around, i know for a certainty most 302's that get swapped into rangers are always newer and as u say mucked up, even 80's mustang 302's had emission equipment while carburated

[arkantor]

Ok I have some input on this as I know someone with a truck on 44’s on a Dana 44 and 8.8. It’s an F-150 with a 351, T-18, 1356, and the Dana 44 and 8.8 with 4.56’s open spinning 44’s. He bought the truck to use the platform for putting one tons under it, as it needs then bad. Not only is he pushing the axles but the drive shafts and t-case.

He only DD’s the damn thing as he knows it will blow up if he tries to take it into the woods. He has already blown the rear pulling out of a gas station.

WE all told him not to buy the damn thing but he did anyway. I mean why DD a huge truck what will get shitty gas mileage? But if he does put 1 tons under it my thoughts of the truck will change.

So please take our advice, putting 44” rubber on ½ ton axles is just flat out dumb.

I have seen the truck It looks special none the less. Why would you want 44's anyways? Put something smaller on so you can actually use the truck.

[85_Ranger4x4]

but how many of those older 302's are floating around, i know for a certainty most 302's that get swapped into rangers are always newer and as u say mucked up, even 80's mustang 302's had emission equipment while carburated

How many 289's are still floating around?

By mucked up I mean the mid 70's to mid 80's 150ish hp 302. There for awhile the emissions stuff really took the bite out of them in stock form, and they really cheapened them up inside and out.

At any rate none of this really has a whole lot to do with the topic at hand, I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.

[mhughes165]

here.....ill make it coincide, EVEN if u had a 289 or a 302 it would just explode faster from more power to the rear wheels which = more stress

[arkantor]

Can we take bets on what blows first?

[mhughes165]

i take the 8.8 and i say 2 weeks

granted that may be giving to much credit in itself.......

i still question whether it will ever be done

[madmax401]

Hey ignerntkneece , id listen to these guys if i were you.the guys here care about their members ....and well some of them have some cool and wild ass rides,but they built them to hold up to what theyre gonna be using it for. if you lock that rear up on the road and slam into somebody and cause an accident, depending on the extent of the injuries to the other people.......im thinking vehicular homiside. just be safe. we all wanna have fun today and be able to have fun again tomorrow. thats all im sayin.

[mkpecor]

i have a 1974 302 im gunna put in my truck, alot lot better than the new shit, any way my budie had a 90 ranger with 3/4 ton axles with 42'' swompers and we always broke shit,so much we ran the axles right out from under it one night wheelin, all i have to say have fun brakin all the time.

[ignerntkneece]

i don't plan on just buying just gears for my stock 8.8, i mean a mustang has an 8.8 under it hell most people change the irs out from under a 03-04 cobra and put a 8.8. and the bottom end in them cars can hold 1000 hp! on a 8.8 rear end. whats the big difference? 170 hp and 44s against 6, 7, 8 hundred hp and drag slics? i plan on puttin mosier axles front and rear! this ain't gonna be no trail rig... its just gonna be a weekend warrior. i mean if i start breakin alot i'll have to upgrade, i just asked a simple question cause i figured yall knew a little bought stuff like that. I have learned what i have to do and i plan on doin it in about 6 months when i pay my 2002 king ranch f-150 off. Oh i live in SOUTH CAROLINA for those who asked!!! u want some come get some!!!

[hitech_hick]

i don't plan on just buying just gears for my stock 8.8, i mean a mustang has an 8.8 under it hell most people change the irs out from under a 03-04 cobra and put a 8.8. and the bottom end in them cars can hold 1000 hp! on a 8.8 rear end. whats the big difference? 170 hp and 44s against 6, 7, 8 hundred hp and drag slics? i plan on puttin mosier axles front and rear! this ain't gonna be no trail rig... its just gonna be a weekend warrior. i mean if i start breakin alot i'll have to upgrade, i just asked a simple question cause i figured yall knew a little bought stuff like that. I have learned what i have to do and i plan on doin it in about 6 months when i pay my 2002 king ranch f-150 off. Oh i live in SOUTH CAROLINA for those who asked!!! u want some come get some!!!

44's under a Ranger, it can be done, but it is going to take a bit of work. As for the Ford 8.8 holding up, the larger tire size is like putting a long breaker bar on your axle shaft, horse power is not needed to break stuff. If you swapped in a 31 spline Ford 8.8 with chromoly shafts, you could probably get away with 40's, but that is a little bit of a stretch. As for the D44 holding up in front, it will hold up until you put it into 4WD.

I am actually planning on building up my Mazda with the target tire size being around 40's. The front axle needs to be pushed forward, as does the rear axle to maintain a reasonable turning radius. Steering should be either hydro assist (recommended for street vehicles) or full hydro (if you want to put a bunch of money into it). Gearing, go as deep as you can, would recommend running a doubler. As far as suspension, that is kinda up to you, I just recommend keeping it as low as possible for stability.

I have been pulling parts together for my rig for some time now. I have a completely dressed 5.0, an NP435, a BW1356, an NP205, and a set of D60's. Even with all of these parts, I figure that it will still take between $20,000 to $25,000 to put my rig together the way I want it.

It can be done, just takes a bit of research/time/money/work to pull it all together.


hick

[metalmacguyver]

i don't plan on just buying just gears for my stock 8.8, i mean a mustang has an 8.8 under it hell most people change the irs out from under a 03-04 cobra and put a 8.8. and the bottom end in them cars can hold 1000 hp! on a 8.8 rear end. whats the big difference? 170 hp and 44s against 6, 7, 8 hundred hp and drag slics? i plan on puttin mosier axles front and rear! this ain't gonna be no trail rig... its just gonna be a weekend warrior. i mean if i start breakin alot i'll have to upgrade, i just asked a simple question cause i figured yall knew a little bought stuff like that. I have learned what i have to do and i plan on doin it in about 6 months when i pay my 2002 king ranch f-150 off. Oh i live in SOUTH CAROLINA for those who asked!!! u want some come get some!!!


Sure an 8.8 can hold up to 1000HP when its spinning drag slicks in an application that doesnt have intense shock loads when spinning tires and wheels that are designed to be as light as possible.


But think about what will happen when you have a tiny 8.8 or D44 with 300lbs of spinning tire and wheel on it and one side grabs. :badidea:

[milje]

Ok I have some input on this as I know someone with a truck on 44’s on a Dana 44 and 8.8. It’s an F-150 with a 351, T-18, 1356, and the Dana 44 and 8.8 with 4.56’s open spinning 44’s. He bought the truck to use the platform for putting one tons under it, as it needs then bad. Not only is he pushing the axles but the drive shafts and t-case.

He only DD’s the damn thing as he knows it will blow up if he tries to take it into the woods. He has already blown the rear pulling out of a gas station.

WE all told him not to buy the damn thing but he did anyway. I mean why DD a huge truck what will get shitty gas mileage? But if he does put 1 tons under it my thoughts of the truck will change.

So please take our advice, putting 44” rubber on ½ ton axles is just flat out dumb.

Actually I think he only has a 302, I was talking to him the other day and he said that he's planning on building a 347 out of it because he cooked his engine.


44's are too much tire for 1/2 ton axles, period.

This list should give you a pretty good idea about what kind of tires different axles can handle. If you want to waste your money and buy stuff for axles that are going to blow up, go for it, that's your choice. Why do you think people are trying to talk you into bigger axles? Just to rip you a new one?
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/axleguide.html

[michowski]

This sure puts a new meaning on how good can you really drive a stick lol. Dude dont do it on your axles. Upgrade them to at least the ford 9" front and rear. I hope you got a bumper big enough to stay in your state lift laws as well. For a DD this is the worst thing you can do. Probly get 6 mpg, get tickets daily, snapping driveline parts on a regular basis. Yes it can be done but theres no reason to do it unless you just won a 50 million dollar lottery and have to much money. I would advise not doing it.

[milje]

Upgrade them to at least the ford 9" front and rear.

The conversion of a 9" to a front axle is a pretty involved process I hear :D



Actually I had a friend working on one for his senior design project, I have no idea what came out of that, Todd might know.

[michowski]

The conversion of a 9" to a front axle is a pretty involved process I hear :D



Actually I had a friend working on one for his senior design project, I have no idea what came out of that, Todd might know.

If he is gonna be taking the time to install 44"s on his ranger I figured he would be able to put a 9" up front.

[ignerntkneece]

44's under a Ranger, it can be done, but it is going to take a bit of work. As for the Ford 8.8 holding up, the larger tire size is like putting a long breaker bar on your axle shaft, horse power is not needed to break stuff. If you swapped in a 31 spline Ford 8.8 with chromoly shafts, you could probably get away with 40's, but that is a little bit of a stretch. As for the D44 holding up in front, it will hold up until you put it into 4WD.

I am actually planning on building up my Mazda with the target tire size being around 40's. The front axle needs to be pushed forward, as does the rear axle to maintain a reasonable turning radius. Steering should be either hydro assist (recommended for street vehicles) or full hydro (if you want to put a bunch of money into it). Gearing, go as deep as you can, would recommend running a doubler. As far as suspension, that is kinda up to you, I just recommend keeping it as low as possible for stability.

I have been pulling parts together for my rig for some time now. I have a completely dressed 5.0, an NP435, a BW1356, an NP205, and a set of D60's. Even with all of these parts, I figure that it will still take between $20,000 to $25,000 to put my rig together the way I want it.

It can be done, just takes a bit of research/time/money/work to pull it all together.


hick

I do understand its gonna take some money. i'm gonna try to keep my 8.8 i dk yet i may get a 9 inch. as far as front axles? what comes with axles that big under them f-450? I'm still brain storming... i don't plan on using the truck for a trail rig i'm biulding a show truck? it ain't my daily driver so i ain't really worried if i break a rear end i'll just have to upgrade.

[mhughes165]

I do understand its gonna take some money. i'm gonna try to keep my 8.8 i dk yet i may get a 9 inch. as far as front axles? what comes with axles that big under them f-450? I'm still brain storming... i don't plan on using the truck for a trail rig i'm biulding a show truck? it ain't my daily driver so i ain't really worried if i break a rear end i'll just have to upgrade.

look man, show truck or not.....you aint gonna win any shows if u dont make it to them. and if u dont understand even the kind of crange that 44" tires that will bring, u need to get urself out into a REAL wheelin world, and see what happens,
i see far too many times people breaking with friggin 5 ton rears on 44" tires.....

the ONLY axle i know that MAY hold up 100% is a set of unimog's, and that will always be a plus on the show circut cause there cool as shit to look at

[mtnrgr]

Here is a 94 ranger on ebay for sale with 44's the item number for it is 120242800504. This should answer all your questions.

[mhughes165]

lol..........that thing would prolly explode if he gave more then 1/8 throttle

[bobbywalter]

just do it.



get some 3/4 ton shit and do it. GET IT DONE


easiest route, would be an open 14 bolt out back from a c@C

and a 79 ford 150 housing with 3/4 ton outers if you want coils along with its brackets and a 6/8 in lift kit for a 79 150...make buckets to work with the springs... or better a 3/4 ton or one ton leaf setup and some soft ride 6 inch chevy springs.


get hi steer arms and the steering isnt too bad as you can still run joints with tapped tube and not move the steering box. but i strongly suggest full hydro cause its the best for the street and 44's...real solid in feel compared to conventional.



for your stated use...
if you want to keep the fenders intact, you will have to go real high and this adds alot of stress and other hazards to even a street only aplication, if you mod the fenders you can actually make a real decent rig road wise with these parts for under 2500 to 3 grand not including the rubber.



what do you have access too?

[bobbywalter]

oh...and one thing to keep in mind...

in general...
1200 hp drag racing is pussy shit compared to 4 wheel drive stuff as far as stress is concerned.


i have learned that the hard way. 160 hp will destroy d60s wheeling...


900 hp at a strip just dont get to doing that very often.




and to everyone else.....he stated use a primary mall crawling....so really a explorer 8.8 with 8 lug pattern would get it....just have to put fresh spiders in every 3rd oil change:D

[metalmacguyver]

oh...and one thing to keep in mind...

in general...
1200 hp drag racing is pussy shit compared to 4 wheel drive stuff as far as stress is concerned.


i have learned that the hard way. 160 hp will destroy d60s wheeling...


900 hp at a strip just dont get to doing that very often.

Exactly what I meant.


Sure an 8.8 can hold up to 1000HP when its spinning drag slicks in an application that doesnt have intense shock loads when spinning tires and wheels that are designed to be as light as possible.


But think about what will happen when you have a tiny 8.8 or D44 with 300lbs of spinning tire and wheel on it and one side grabs.

[hitech_hick]

look man, show truck or not.....you aint gonna win any shows if u dont make it to them. and if u dont understand even the kind of crange that 44" tires that will bring, u need to get urself out into a REAL wheelin world, and see what happens,
i see far too many times people breaking with friggin 5 ton rears on 44" tires.....

the ONLY axle i know that MAY hold up 100% is a set of unimog's, and that will always be a plus on the show circut cause there cool as shit to look at

Breaking 5 ton rears with 44's? Exactly how many times have you personally seen this?

As for running unimogs, there are almost as many varieties of mogs as there are danas (slight exaggeration but you get my point).

Stock axles are not made to hold up to 44's, you will have to build up whatever axle you plan on running. Yes rockwells and mogs are pretty stout stock, but they are not without their flaws.



hick

[ignerntkneece]

i'm very thankful for the info... i haven't bought anything yet or made any big plans... i'll keep all this in mind.

[V8_power428@hotmail.com]

pick up a set of 2 1/2 ton rockwell axles with 6.72s they are pretty cheap, try to find some with spicer joints they area bit stronger. you wont break em, but you can kiss any dreams of doing more then 50mph away due to your 4.0L, the truck would be gutless. my dad built a rig with rockwells and a 4.0L in it but he had a dual t-case setup and his top speed was about 20MPH no good on the street. he ran 52/16R20's for transprting it and then for off-road use he had a choice between firestone 66/44's or rolagon 44 tall 66 wide flotation tires

[mhughes165]

Breaking 5 ton rears with 44's? Exactly how many times have you personally seen this?

As for running unimogs, there are almost as many varieties of mogs as there are danas (slight exaggeration but you get my point).

Stock axles are not made to hold up to 44's, you will have to build up whatever axle you plan on running. Yes rockwells and mogs are pretty stout stock, but they are not without their flaws.



hick


ive seen this personally about a dozen times between wheeling here in jersey and goin down to florida for mudfest(well when u could)

its all about how hard u wheel it.....if u arent breakin u arent tryin hard enough

[cbluepit]

ive seen this personally about a dozen times between wheeling here in jersey and goin down to florida for mudfest(well when u could)

its all about how hard u wheel it.....if u arent breakin u arent tryin hard enough

first of all you cant fit a 16.5 on a 5ton unless you have 0 backspacing . second i highly doubt 44's are gonna break a 2" axles , 18.4x26 which are 57" tall have only broke two that i know of . third the arent to many people running 5 tons at mudfest i only know of 4 people and 1 of them is running 66terra tires . not trying to be dick but know what your saying before you speak . oh who is running them in jersey im curious ?

[86ford]

i don't plan on just buying just gears for my stock 8.8, i mean a mustang has an 8.8 under it hell most people change the irs out from under a 03-04 cobra and put a 8.8. and the bottom end in them cars can hold 1000 hp! on a 8.8 rear end. whats the big difference? 170 hp and 44s against 6, 7, 8 hundred hp and drag slics? i plan on puttin mosier axles front and rear! this ain't gonna be no trail rig... its just gonna be a weekend warrior. i mean if i start breakin alot i'll have to upgrade, i just asked a simple question cause i figured yall knew a little bought stuff like that. I have learned what i have to do and i plan on doin it in about 6 months when i pay my 2002 king ranch f-150 off. Oh i live in SOUTH CAROLINA for those who asked!!! u want some come get some!!!

dear dickhead,

you obliviously dont know what a 200lb tire can do to the pencil axles in a 28 spline 8.8. heck one of the jeep guys i know runs a 31 spline 8.8 on 37inch iroks and has snapped shafts. read this http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/axleguide.html
other than the front d60 being slightly under rated its COMPLETELY correct. NOTE they say 35 inch tires max. for the d44, you want to go 11 inches more!
read up and learn before you start asking retarded questions of the good folks around here.

o yea, comparing a mustang to a wheeling rig just dosent work.

86

[mhughes165]

dear dickhead,

you obliviously dont know what a 200lb tire can do to the pencil axles in a 28 spline 8.8. heck one of the jeep guys i know runs a 31 spline 8.8 on 37inch iroks and has snapped shafts. read this http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/axleguide.html
other than the front d60 being slightly under rated its COMPLETELY correct. NOTE they say 35 inch tires max. for the d44, you want to go 11 inches more!
read up and learn before you start asking retarded questions of the good folks around here.

o yea, comparing a mustang to a wheeling rig just dosent work.

86

uhm, dude, were u pissed or somehting when u replied to this, weve already made it clear to him that he needs to run 60's atleast for him to drive it on the road, hes been lookin for them and now knows hell need to gear the hell out of them aswell

[Evan]

you obliviously dont know what a 200lb tire can do to the pencil axles in a 28 spline 8.8.



The weight of a tire doesn't have much to do with breaking axle shafts. Strain on the shafts comes when you increase the diameter of the tire. This results in much more leverage the driveline needs to work against in order to rotate the tire.

[Toreadorranger]

The weight of a tire doesn't have much to do with breaking axle shafts. Strain on the shafts comes when you increase the diameter of the tire. This results in much more leverage the driveline needs to work against in order to rotate the tire.

And how do you think that leverage works? The more weight there is the more "force" on your lever. Weight has just as much do with it as diameter.

[bobbywalter]

weight is a huge factor...especially once spinning...then slipping and biting.

[Evan]

weight is a huge factor...especially once spinning...then slipping and biting.


No.

A heavy tire that is spinning quickly and then bites puts no more load on the axle shaft than a light tire would. When the tire "bites" the rotational energy of the tire is absorbed by the tire and the ground, NOT the axle shafts.

EDIT: By the way, I love the quote you left on my Cardomain. :beer:

[Evan]

And how do you think that leverage works? The more weight there is the more "force" on your lever. Weight has just as much do with it as diameter.


Wrong. For practical purposes the "leverage" against the axle shaft is not determined by the weight of the tire. It's determined by the length of the tire radius. The force on the axle shaft is determined by the torque you're applying to the driveline and the friction coefficient between the tire and the ground. A longer radius multiplies this force.

[JohnnyU]

A heavy tire that is spinning quickly and then bites puts no more load on the axle shaft than a light tire would. When the tire "bites" the rotational energy of the tire is absorbed by the tire and the ground, NOT the axle shafts.


Wrong.

It's called inertia. Look up Impulse and Momentum in a Physics, Kinematics, or Machine Element Design text book.

[Evan]

Wrong.

It's called inertia. Look up Impulse and Momentum in a Physics, Kinematics, or Machine Element Design text book.


I have. In college I had the highest grade in my class in both Physics I and II. And in this case we're concerned with ANGULAR momentum.

A tire that is spinning and then is suddenly stopped by gaining traction looses it's angular momentum to the ground and vehicle. The axle shaft has NOTHING to do with the process.

I can jack the front of a 2WD truck up and spin the tire rapidly by hand, then drop the jack so the tire hits the ground and is stopped. In this case there is no axle shaft involved at all.

This is why the weight of a tire means squat compared to the radius, when analyzing the force on an axle shaft.

[krugford]

How heavy are these tires? 150lbs heavier than the stockers? That's adding close to 15% onto the stock vehicle. Not as much of an increase in forces as the increase in radius will give you, but not negligible either.

If a tire is spinning and catching, it's the inertia of the rest of the driveline that's going to snap the shaft, not the weight of the tire. Spinning the tire by hand does not reflect the same situation as crawling. The difference is how the power is being transmitted through the system. In a running vehicle, the power is being transmitted to the tire through the axle. In your example, the tire is being powered by your hand on the outside of the tire. The transition from a dynamic to static condition on the tire will be accentuated by the larger tire. With a larger tire, the force at the ground required to snap a shaft decreases as the tire increases in diameter.

Evan,
You should remember that having the highest grade in an entry level physics class is not a qualification that relates to this discussion. It does not automatically mean you are right and the fact that you attempted to qualify your statement with an example that is not seeing the same forces as what is being discussed means you have not completely thought through the problem. The tire and wheel will all see some forces from that rapid stop due to their own inertias, small as they may be.

[Evan]

How heavy are these tires? 150lbs heavier than the stockers? That's adding close to 15% onto the stock vehicle. Not as much of an increase in forces as the increase in radius, but not negligible either.

If a tire is spinning and catching, it's the inertia of the rest of the driveline that's going to snap the shaft. Spinning the tire by hand does not reflect the same situation as crawling. The difference is how the power is being transmitted through the system. In a running vehicle, the power is being transmitted to the tire through the axle. In your example, the tire is being powered by your hand on the outside of the tire. The transition from a dynamic to static condition on the tire will be accentuated by the larger tire. With a larger tire, the force at the ground required to snap a shaft decreases as the tire increases in diameter.


Right, but the weight of the tire when it catches is irrelevant. That's what my example was trying to show. The only thing that matters is the length of the radius and the amount of skinny pedal.

A heavy tire might be even easier on the axles in this case, because it takes longer to stop and would result in less impulse to the axles, as the time the force is applied is increased.

[JohnnyU]

Evan, you're still missing the fundamental concepts at work here.

What is (angular) momentum comprised of?

L = r x p

Where L is the angular momentum, r is the position vector (tire radius in this case) and p is the linear momentum.

p = m*v

Where m is the mass and v is the velocity that the mass is traveling at.

Moreover, Impulse is defined as the integral of force over time:
I = ∫ F dt

It can also be derived:
I = ∫(dp/dt) dt simplifying...
I = ∫ dp simplifying again gives:
I = ∆p You may know this as the "Impulse-Momentum Theory"

I = F∆t = m∆v = ∆p

You can see that even angular momentum is DIRECTLY proportional to the mass. The mass of the tire is VERY relevant to this scenario.


I'm not going to list my qualifications in an effort to make my case, the theory/principles should speak for themselves.

[mhughes165]

all i know, and i agree with u johnny, is think of it this way, what hurts more when u drop it on ur foot.....a tire weighing 200pnds, or a tire weighing 100 pnds but the same height.....

[Evan]

Evan, you're still missing the fundamental concepts at work here.

What is (angular) momentum comprised of?

L = r x p

Where L is the angular momentum, r is the position vector (tire radius in this case) and p is the linear momentum.

p = m*v

Where m is the mass and v is the velocity that the mass is traveling at.

Moreover, Impulse is defined as the integral of force over time:
I = ∫ F dt

It can also be derived:
I = ∫(dp/dt) dt simplifying...
I = ∫ dp simplifying again gives:
I = ∆p You may know this as the "Impulse-Momentum Theory"

I = F∆t = m∆v = ∆p

You can see that even angular momentum is DIRECTLY proportional to the mass. The mass of the tire is VERY relevant to this scenario.


I'm not going to list my qualifications in an effort to make my case, the theory/principles should speak for themselves.


You just did a lot of typing for nothing. Nobody is saying angular momentum is not directly proportional to mass, or questioning the method of derivation for the Impulse-Momentum Theory. I am saying that when a tire is spinning rapidly and suddenly grabs, the force on the axle shaft does not come from the momentum of the tire, it comes from the energy being applied through the driveline which is multiplied by a factor of the tire radius and the coefficient of friction between the tire and the ground. The energy stored in the rotating tire is transferred to the ground and the frame of the truck.

I listed some qualifications because you implied that I wasn't familiar with high school Physics concepts.

[bobbywalter]

evan, you will have to figure out the math for me bud.


because the weight of the tire does effect the axle shaft.


for instance.


truck has 38 inch tires. rarely ever breaks a shaft.




same truck...same tires.


add 15 gallons of water, bust every shaft in minutes. why? i dont know why, seems the water doesnt add resistance right? it just literally goes with the flow in my tiny little mind.


same truck same axles...add 42's....cant keep shafts in the fawker. 38's that are dry...no issues.













my truck....33 in bfg at's....i can pound the fawk out of it with all my ponies...rarely an issue.....but i get stuck alot.


33 in swamper sx's......sheeeeeittttt..snap crackle fawking pop buddy.


i dont know the equation...and i dont want to know the equation...


i just know that i have to drive smarter with heavy ass tires. or have alot of parts.

i know what your saying about the tire stopping not hurting the axle with a free spinning tire....

no shit...how could it.


and not what i am saying either.... the same load of a tire under 300 pounds of instant torque slamming into it....the heavier tire is comming down harder and getting more traction due to its nature and adding more resistance because of increased traction/friction and even more due to the extra weight....the lighter less aggressive tire is easier and less ressitive to turn and will break traction sooner allowing even less weight to be a factor.

i could be wrong.

but a sx and a a/t have completely different affects in my experience. in every way...they fawk up my brakes,spindles bearings and shafts at alarming rates taking it easy where i can let my small block roar and hardly bust a thing.


i dunno...its crazy...maybe its just me.:not_i:

[85_Ranger4x4]

Weight in tires is like a big flywheel, it takes more effort to get spinning and more effort to stop spinning. Catch something good and it will snap everything behind it that isn't up to the task, but it will be harder to stop spinning once it starts, and it will be spinning much faster than a smaller tire (power permitting) and less likely to do anything but keep on spinning. But if you don't have the power to get that flywheel up to speed you are going to have trouble.

Fluid/more weight will help the tire dig down and go places it normally wouldn't without it, and will make life a lot rougher for the axle/everything else involved. I use fluid in my tractor for traction, but it came from the factory with it back in 1953 and was built with it in mind.

[98ranger4x4]

not trying to start crap or anything but i am pretty sure the weight of the tire does effect stress on the axle, consider one of those 44''s spinning (with an open diff) then suddenly grabbing: that energy will be transfered into the ground and truck yes but also into the driveshaft and opposite axleshaft. if the truck were in neutral then it wouldnt hurt anything but with the power being supplied from the engine in that scenario you will have the momentum/inertia of the moving tire fighting against the inertia of the opposite tire through the axleshafts. I may be wrong but im pretty sure about that.

[ignerntkneece]

Geeze how old is this tread? I posted this before i hadn't done any research? I need at least a dana 60 and ima run a windsor motor i think...

[88mudder]

4.0 aint gonna do shit with 44's..
neither are the axles your running

you need a Big block and rockwells

[mhughes165]

4.0 aint gonna do shit with 44's..
neither are the axles your running

you need a Big block and rockwells

no u dont.....would it be nice, ya, but u dont NEED a big block and rockwells to spin 44's, ive runn 44's on 1/2 ton gear with a small block and a c4 before and it would light up the tires no problems....would i reccomend anyone else try it, no, thats why some low geared 1 tons will be fine with the 4.0, especially for show use

[ignerntkneece]

no u dont.....would it be nice, ya, but u dont NEED a big block and rockwells to spin 44's, ive runn 44's on 1/2 ton gear with a small block and a c4 before and it would light up the tires no problems....would i reccomend anyone else try it, no, thats why some low geared 1 tons will be fine with the 4.0, especially for show use



Yea it may be fine except i ripped 3rd gear out with my new ram clutch i put in it... that ram grabs hard!!! So the transmission ain't much good anymore... I'm not keeping that weak v-6 ima get a v-8 i was thinkin about turboing the 4.0 but thats more than i wanna deal with.

[bobbywalter]

well, a d44/60 combo from a 250 will be cheaper and easier to find and mall crawl with the best of them.


though i suggest a 5.3/6.0 gm low mile setup and 60/14 bolt if you can swing it.


or do a 6.2/6.5 diesel....banks turbo....economy mall cwawlinz.:thefinger:

[metalmacguyver]

Economy mall crawling at 5 bucks a gallon?

[bobbywalter]

if i try really hard i can get 13+ with the smallblock mall crawlin...


trying really hard the 6.5 should do 18+ mall crawlin...



not bad for a 4x4 on 35's that a stock counterpart cant pass.


at 4 bux for 87 oct and 5 bux for diesel its still cheaper to run the oil burner...especially for me. 30 percent or better of my fuel is low cost..:D

[hitech_hick]

or do a 6.2/6.5 diesel....banks turbo....economy mall cwawlinz.:thefinger:

4BT all the way... :headbang:


hick

[TrucksGetDirty]

This is so stupid.

If I saw those 44's and they never went muddin, I would slap the owner, take the truck and go use if for what it's made for. Making up for what you lack with a big truck, very sad.

[hitech_hick]

This is so stupid.

If I saw those 44's and they never went muddin, I would slap the owner, take the truck and go use if for what it's made for. Making up for what you lack with a big truck, very sad.

True. I think that the original poster for this thread had a lot of pie-in-the-sky ideas, and no plans or means to carry it out. It takes more than than a lift to run 40's...


hick

[bobbywalter]

i have to agree, it is a shameless waste of good tires....and would only be further a waste if a front 60 was involved.





but. its his right. and to run 40's or 44's is a pretty simple deal for mall crawlin. way simple with no serious abuse on the menu.



if thats what the guy wants then i dont see a reason not to help em to his goals.

the tires if actually purchased new with wheels will cost much much more then the axle swap and steering setup to safely handle them for mall use..

[88mudder]

all i can say is do it right the first time, and no shortcuts. Put a real engine in there. Small tires = small engine and big tires = big engine. Sure you can do it other ways, but its not the right way.

[bobbywalter]

all i can say is do it right the first time, and no shortcuts. Put a real engine in there. Small tires = small engine and big tires = big engine. Sure you can do it other ways, but its not the right way.

for mall crawlin? right way?


i dunno. i can run 44 in tires no problem with my low rider 4x4 ranger. it runs down the road ok. its definatly not what i want, but i change shit up as time allows.

cause sitting in the garage for two years is not something i can do. i like to use it.

its a multi use 4x4 and not for mall crawlin so it gets setup for whatever i want when i want.

for the street i run 33's....trails go 35-38 general. i can use 44's now(since last fall) simply cause i can, but thats just for mud. i have had guys comment on running my rig just recently on the little tires. driving 200 miles a day to go to work. seems to me a guy would have to be a fawking retard to run a big any kind of tire or have a assload of income to run 200 miles a day so the rig looked "right". in which i dont think a ranger would be something one would want to build with that kind of income. i am guessing alot of ranger guys arent usually making 120 g a year and just bored living in thier house thats been paid off for 10 years:dntknw:.





i do know too many ruthless rbv based rigs running forties plus for tires gettin it awn hard with stock powertrains, (though doubled) and fawkin 60 parts up. so in my experience to say you need a big block and rockwells to run 44's is not right in itself.


for all i know it could have been you that said i wasnt doing it right. guy had the balls to tell me it was a waste of a 60 to put tiny tires on it. and a double waste to put it in such a small truck;missingteeth; so no credibility for that clown right off the bat...

i mean, if a guy cant tell by looking at that hunk of shit i try to pass off as a truck, that i run large tires on it to beat the balls off it, its hard for me to take any comment seriously. especially a guy with a 4bbl bb chevy that lives 2 miles from the hole he runs it in with a 12 bolt and 10 bolt front on 38's....

fawkin thing wouldnt make it on a real trail...

but hey, it least it was done right!!!!!! at least to him.


yeah right, for mall crawling.

its all in perspective and actual use.

guy came right out and stated mall crawler.

seemed obvious. 3/4 ton axles and no front shaft for mall crawlin is even needed..


:dunno: