Sterling 10.25

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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?