Anyone seen a 1998-2001 Ford Ranger 4x4 converted to TTB?

[Jim Oaks]

I've been re-educating myself on this today. So I guess if you bolt it in to the stock location, then ideally you want the Dana44HD passenger shaft which is shorter, and you still need to cut about 3/4" off of it.

If you did get it mounted, then you'd have to contend with the steering linkage and steering box.

I feel like it would be easier to get a 2000+ Ranger, and swap it on to a '95-'97 Ranger 4x4 frame with the D35 already in the front. Then maybe go D44 hubs.

We've discussed this on here before, but I don't think anyone here has tried, but the '95-'96 Bronco/F150 5-bolt D44 spindle will bolt to the Dana 35 knuckle. I learned about this years ago at a desert race in Nevada.

You can get the spindles new for $175.00:

https://shop.broncograveyard.com/D44-OE-Spicer-Spindle-1993-95-NON-ABS/productinfo/32083/


According to a thread on dezert rangers, The issue is with the caliper and pads fitting over the D44 rotor. You have to have the rotor machined down from 11 3/4" OD to 11" OD.

Someone mentioned that:

(For the 95+ trucks *i think) the calipers/pads not having a wide enough gap to accept the rotor, the bosch caliper that autozone sells, its pistons were recessed a whole lot more than my oem calipers, i was able to use a brand new unmodified rotor, with almost new pads, no problem.

This is something that I think needs explored more.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I feel like it would be easier to get a 2000+ Ranger, and swap it on to a '95-'97 Ranger 4x4 frame with the D35 already in the front. Then maybe go D44 hubs.

Easier yet would be a front clip and tail light update on a 95-97 truck. Same interior, two piston brakes if you want to keep that, nobody would know the difference. Only thing is you would still have a pushrod 4.0.

I agree, frame swap > installing the crossmember and steering.

Spindle upgrade sounds cool, has kind of a "if it is that simple why has nobody done it before?" smell to it though.

I remember Todd hogged out the balljoint holes on his D35 to accept D44 balljoints/knuckles.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Just realized one of our forum members is doing a full width Dana 44 TTB in a 1993 Ranger.

If you go the whole width, then there is an issue with coil spring angle.

It would be interesting to build a cradle that could slide up under the frame on a 1998-2011 Ford Ranger, be bolted in place, already have the coil buckets attached that were spaced away from the frame, and the mounting locations for the TTB pivot brackets.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Easier yet would be a front clip and tail light update on a 95-97 truck. Same interior, two piston brakes if you want to keep that, nobody would know the difference. Only thing is you would still have a pushrod 4.0.

I want the opening half doors.

 

[BlackBII]

The angled coils could be solved by using coilovers in place of regular coil springs and shocks.

 

[adsm08]

Only thing is you would still have a pushrod 4.0.

That's not hard to fix.

 

[Jim Oaks]

The angled coils could be solved by using coilovers in place of regular coil springs and shocks.

That would definitely be the easiest fix. It would be cool to do it with coils so it looked like it came from the factory that way.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I want the opening half doors.

Ah, forgot about that. I couldn't do without them on my F-150.

That's not hard to fix.

No but it is one more thing to do on the apple vs orange which is easier comparison.

 

[adsm08]

No but it is one more thing to do on the apple vs orange which is easier comparison.

A fairly minor one though. We are already to the point in this spitballing where the cab is off. Just throw a SOHC 4.0 or even a 5.0 in there while it is call it a day. Takes 10 minutes to set an engine with the cab off.

 

[4x4junkie]

If you did get it mounted, then you'd have to contend with the steering linkage and steering box.

There shouldn't be any reasons to mess with the steering box...

As for the linkage, options are abound (custom swingset linkage, K-link setup (Superlift w/DOM tie rods, etc.), cutting ½ inch off the threads of each piece of the stock D44 linkage (drag link, tie rod, both TREs), or simply just cutting and sleeving the D44 linkage shorter).


The angle on the coil springs may not be as extreme as it looks. The lower D44 mounts already have an inward angle to them, I think that if the upper mounts are moved out just an inch (and maybe tilted slightly) they would be lined up perfect with the lower mounts.

I feel like it would be easier to get a 2000+ Ranger, and swap it on to a '95-'97 Ranger 4x4 frame with the D35 already in the front. Then maybe go D44 hubs.

You'd be at stock width that way... If stock width is fine, then no problem, but I had gotten the impression you were looking to go wider with this.

I'm indifferent on the D44 hub swap thing... I've had zero issues with the bearings on the D35 (an often-cited reason to swap). I strongly think the reason why people have issues with them so often is because brake rotor manufacturers always put POS chinese bearing races into new rotors, but then never provide matching cones for them. New D44 hubs OTOH I'm guessing come bare (meaning you supply your own race, generally from a quality matched bearing set) and is why you don't see the issue as often on D44s. This has nothing to do with the spacing of the bearings on the spindle.
The D44's brakes however are bigger... So if you're constantly warping rotors, then IMO that would be a more valid reason to do a D44 hub swap on a D35 (another good reason might be to simply match up the bolt pattern after a rear axle swap of some sort).

 

[Jim Oaks]

There shouldn't be any reasons to mess with the steering box...

But you would have to address adding the steering box to a 1998-2011 model.

I'm indifferent on the D44 hub swap thing... I've had zero issues with the bearings on the D35 (an often-cited reason to swap).

For me, I just want the hubs. I would want to run 35's, and I don't want to be busting the flange style hubs with 35's and 4.88's.

 

[4x4junkie]

But you would have to address adding the steering box to a 1998-2011 model.

Sorry, I guess I became distracted by the comments about swapping a later cab onto a '95-'97 frame. Though this still wouldn't change whether you did a D35 or a D44 (or a SAS for that matter).

For me, I just want the hubs. I would want to run 35's, and I don't want to be busting the flange style hubs with 35's and 4.88's.

Jeep hubs (Warn pt# 37780).
Close to 20 years now (if not longer) people have been doing this swap (myself included, 35s, locked, and 5.13s even)... Time has proven they just don't break often (as with D44 hubs, they are actually stronger than the axle shafts are).

My philosophy has always been to keep things simple as possible (I learned this lesson many years ago after the D44 swap on my Ranger). The more non-stock parts you put on it, the more things you then have to keep track of any time something needs to be repaired or replaced.
Between getting rid of the chinese bearing races and putting the Jeep hubs, you can have a very reliable D35 axle that also shows just how robust the stock hardware on RBVs really can be.

Not that there's anything wrong with doing the D44 outers swap, I just don't feel it's necessary unless you happen to be having a brake overheating issue.

 

[Jim Oaks]

I always value your opinion when it comes to the front axles in Bronco II's. You've put a Dana 44 TTB in a Ranger, and replaced the Dana 28 with a 35 in your Bronco II. So is the Bronco II using the Jeep hubs?

Ideally, I'd like to build something that was the compilation of the best Ranger parts over the years. 4-door cab, TTB instead of SLA, manual transfer case, 6-inch lift, Superlift steering, 35-inch tires, and a 4.0 with a supercharger. I can't see replacing the 4.0 SOHC with a 5.0L. Especially if I could supercharge one.

For me, the weakest links are the hubs and transmission, although the Ranger transmissions improved around 1995 and forward.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Make sure the weakest link is easy to change out.

 

[4x4junkie]

^^
That usually tends to be the axle shafts on a front axle.
Locking hubs certainly are easier to change than shafts, but the gap in strength between stock-type RBV hubs and the shafts is too wide to be useful, it just becomes an annoyance for most people.
Awhile back Warn used to offer "hub fuses" to help protect the shafts (a thinner locking gear designed to shear before a shaft breaks), but they too ended up being more troublesome than anything, and so were discontinued.


Jim,
I've had the Jeep hubs on my BII since the beginning (almost 14 years now).
I've recommended the hubs to others here & elsewhere who complained about constantly busting hubs also (this probably even as far back as when the forums were still on the RRORC site)... and I can't recall anyone having come back to report their problem persisted after the Jeep hubs (instead they too usually started making the same recommendation).

I really am impressed with how well the axle has held up. I know you've seen my wheeling pics, I don't always do little "bunny" trails either. Of course I always try to use a little 'finesse' before just attacking something with the gas pedal, but still...
The only place I did have an issue was Moog ball joints that wouldn't last 10K miles (one didn't even make 5K). I switched to Raybestos Professional Grade (formerly Spicer) joints and problem solved (this in spite of Moog's marketing claim lol... 11 years and closing in on 50K miles now). Only thing now is, Raybestos seem to have gotten harder to find since Federal Mogul took over Affinity Grp (Raybestos' manufacturer).
I recently gave some suggestions to another user about this in this thread.