Another question about tires...

[James Morse]

I have limited slip.
Technically so long as you're not in 4x4 you can put the spare on the front. But I don't recall seeing anything in the manuals about that. I think what they are saying is you are ok to drive for a limited distance.
What will happen is the limited slip clutches will try to engage and they will wear out ("will reduce the effectiveness of the limited slip due to excessive wear" - something like that).
It'd be like riding your clutch all the time in manual trans. Then you have to take the thing apart which is do-able but sure doesn't look like a whole lot of fun.
Send pic of cable carrier? I can retrofit something under the truck for 31" I bet.

 

[Lefty]

Turns out there's no way a 31" tire will fit in my tire carrier. Right now it has the oem 225/75(or 70)R15. The transverse carrier bar is actually pressing into the sidewall of the tire. So the issue isn't so much the diameter of the spare (I have a little clearance there), it's the width of the tire; a 265/75R15 would never fit, not even close. So the shop manual is right, there's a max size that fits and it's in there now.
Trying to change to 265 would add about 1.5" in section width so no way it would fit (diameter aside) because there's already less than zero clearance.
Even if you slotted the transverse bar (or make a new bigger one)View attachment 89394 to add width there, it looks like at the rear mount there's nothing you could do to make it bigger absent altering something. It probably could be done but it would take messing with it, assuming it's possible.

Most interesting

 

[sgtsandman]

I have limited slip.
Technically so long as you're not in 4x4 you can put the spare on the front. But I don't recall seeing anything in the manuals about that. I think what they are saying is you are ok to drive for a limited distance.
What will happen is the limited slip clutches will try to engage and they will wear out ("will reduce the effectiveness of the limited slip due to excessive wear" - something like that).
It'd be like riding your clutch all the time in manual trans. Then you have to take the thing apart which is do-able but sure doesn't look like a whole lot of fun.
Send pic of cable carrier? I can retrofit something under the truck for 31" I bet.

In the front, with you being in RWD, you can make it work. Like you said, it will eventually burn out the clutches if on the back. Murphy's Law says where ever you need to get to will be farther than what you could get away with with dissimilar sized tires.

Here are a couple internet pictures to give you an idea what the newer carrier looks like. It mounts to the frame cross members and may require pulling the bed to install one. Assuming the cross members are shaped the same.

Carrier removed

Unit installed

Illustrated drawing of the unit installed (not great but gets the idea across)

 

[Lefty]

This is a wonderful idea! I would have clicked LIKE more than once. We just might take this project on come summer. It's not hard to pull the bed and make the mod.

I had never thought much about it but merely assumed this was an integral part of the frame.

 

[JoshT]

I'm mostly staying out of this, but I can answer this one.

That was why I was careful to specify the cable winch carrier. I suspected the type shown above would have a tighter fit but was not sure about that and I didn't know what year that style of carrier stopped being used.

1998

The new spare tire winch system was part of the 1998 "redesign".

...and...

I had never thought much about it but merely assumed this was an integral part of the frame.

Considering this it is riveted into the frame and replaces trhe rear crossmember from the previous generation, I would say that it is an integral part of the frame. At least as much so as any other frame crossmember. To swap it into an earlier model you're looking at replacing the rear crossmember, possibly the one forward of that too. I don't know differences in frame dimensions. I know the lengths changed, but I din;t know about the width or height. I don't think that they changed in any way that would maatter for this, but it is possible that one would have to narrow the winch assembly to fit. Definitely doable, and I'm pretty certain that I've seen it done before.

Lefty why would you plan for this as a summer project? You've got a 2003 that should already have the winch mechanism?

 

[Lefty]

I'm mostly staying out of this, but I can answer this one.



1998

The new spare tire winch system was part of the 1998 "redesign".

...and...



Considering this it is riveted into the frame and replaces trhe rear crossmember from the previous generation, I would say that it is an integral part of the frame. At least as much so as any other frame crossmember. To swap it into an earlier model you're looking at replacing the rear crossmember, possibly the one forward of that too. I don't know differences in frame dimensions. I know the lengths changed, but I din;t know about the width or height. I don't think that they changed in any way that would maatter for this, but it is possible that one would have to narrow the winch assembly to fit. Definitely doable, and I'm pretty certain that I've seen it done before.

Lefty why would you plan for this as a summer project? You've got a 2003 that should already have the winch mechanism?

Oh, I am just fine, but I have been helping a buddy restore and modify a 2002 XLT 4WD with ginormous Falken tires on 17" wheels. I think I posted a photo of it already. He has a spare but it would never fit up underneath, so he stores it laying loose on the floor of his pickup bed.

I noticed the rivets; not a concern. And as for that crossmember or cross members, I'm sure we can come up with something, probably fabricate when we get the the bed off.

Not long ago I saw pickup with a trap door in the bed, not a bad idea either, except with my luck, I would get a flat while hauling bricks.

 

[JoshT]

I still don't understand your goals. His 2002 is still going to have that same winching mechanism. From what I'm reading now it almost sounds like you might be hoping to remove the winch for more room?

First I'd point out how do you plan to hold the tire in place if you remove the winch? I suppose that you could build a mechanism similar to what the earlier models used, but sized to fit the ginormous tires.

Second, take a tape measure and check the distance between the frame rails. I think that you will find that the limitation on size to fit under the truck has more to do with distance between the frame rails than with the winch mechanism.

If you take a look here, "https://www.therangerstation.com/tech/ford-ranger-dimensions/", you will find the rear frame width listed at 32.8" outside to outside. That's for the 1998-2011, but if memory serves me right, the back end of the frames didn't get wider (some Fords did back in the 70s). I can gurantee that there is atleast a half inch of frame thickness on each side cutting away from that 32.8" width. At most you'll have room for about a 31" tire between the frame rails, maybe a 32 if it's on the smaller side and worn down. Coincidentally (or not) 31 is also the largest tire installed on Rangers from the factory, and it was a 31x10.5R15 found on the FX4 LII trucks.

At my largest I ran a 32x11.5R15 and still had the factory spare under the rear. If you're calling his tires ginormous on 17" wheels I think they'd be a fair bit bigger than my 32s were. I don't care how much cutting you do, it isn't likely to fit under the bed with the stock frame rails in place.

Your buddy's best bet will be a tailgate carrier or in bed carrier, either way it's probably going to be custom. Find a way to secure it, pack around it, and be prepared to move everything to get to it. Or, if you need the whole bed space, leave the spare at home and commit to carrying a patch kit and a air compressor, heck that's what a lot of vehicles come with instead of a spare now. That's probably what I'll be doing with one or two of mine in the future, namely the 85 Ranger and the 68 F-100.

 

[bobbywalter]

235 85 16 can fit under my ranger gen 1 chassis. but that is with all custom crossmembers. thats like 31 inches if i am remembering right....and it barely fits....i only did that because i had to have all of the bed space...and was running the road on 33's.


i also have a 34 gallon fuel tank and 6.2 liter diesel engine...... which incidentally...required custom crossmembers as well for some reason.... .


the point....anything more then stock takes work.

 

[Lefty]

235 85 16 can fit under my ranger gen 1 chassis. but that is with all custom crossmembers. thats like 31 inches if i am remembering right....and it barely fits....i only did that because i had to have all of the bed space...and was running the road on 33's.


i also have a 34 gallon fuel tank and 6.2 liter diesel engine...... which incidentally...required custom crossmembers as well for some reason.... .


the point....anything more then stock takes work.

Well then,maybe this idea wont work. You guys had me going for a while

 

[bobbywalter]

that should allow the 31-32 in tire. the later frame iirc is 1 inch wider inside at the bottom of the rails then the gen 1 chassis.

i have full width axles and my shocks are on the outside of the frame.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I tried a 31 in my stock carrier, no way it would fit.

 

[James Morse]

OK, I was confused about the cable winch carrier I see now.
I doubt I want to get into cutting/drilling/welding. I really like to keep the spare out of the bed it takes a huge chunk of space, so it sounds like rear mount is all I have left, or, hope for the best. It would make it a lot more convenient to get it in/out that's for sure.
I was looking at the pic of my spare, and looks to me like there's still printing on the tread - I think it was never used (or it's a new replacement which I kind of doubt). I would have thought the rubber would not last 25 years? It looks ok I don't see cracks etc in it.
If it was never used maybe I want to make sure I can get it out of there if I ever needed it.

@JoshT 265/75R15 (my oem size) and 31x10.5R15 are basically the same tire which is why I'm saying I can run the 31" with no issues. 265/75R15 is just not very popular size any more supplanted by 31" I'd say and interchangeable.
General Grabber HTS 60 | 265/75R15 (tirerack.com)
General Grabber HTS 60 | 31X10.5R15LT (tirerack.com)

Interesting they have this in both sizes, usually it's one or the other. Anyway, you note that they are pretty much identical, 31" is .4" larger diameter which translates to .2" higher truck and .2" less clearance which I'd say is negligible, I doubt very much that 31" would cause any issues on a truck designed for 265's. Tread width is slightly wider on the 31". But they are really close.

That particular tire isn't quite so aggressive as I want so probably that's not the one for me, but, if I did see the tire I eventually choose in both sizes (usually you don't), then, I'd opt for the 265, probably, because it's less weight.
Since the 31" has 2/32 more tread that's probably where most of the difference in diameter comes from.

I've never heard of anyone running 31" on a '97 4x4 and having issues, but I'd sure want to know if they did. I am pretty sure it's totally fine. The only thing I can think of is, maybe, with the steering totally cut to one side or the other, it could rub? But I don't think Ford would have cut tolerances that close. I think there would be no rubbing.

 

[JoshT]

Rubber lasts a lot longer when it's off the ground and out of the sun. I wouldn't trust a 6+ year old tire for regular driving duties, wouldn't have a problem driving safely and within reason on an original spare to get home or to the tire store.

I don't think I ever said you couldn't run a 31. You can run a 31 no problem. I said that 31 is the largest that came on them stock and that larger wouldn't fit between the frame rails. I said that I thought that was only on the FX4 LII. I thought that approximately a 30" tire was the tallest factory tire prior to that trim package, but I don't know all tire sizes run on every generation of Ranger.

 

[James Morse]

No I know you didn't say that I'm just talking about them.
Yeah 265 isn't quite 31" so 31 is the biggest. Everything you said is accurate afaik.
Some were as small as 195 I think then 225 and 235 real common, the 265's were only on 4x4 (I think). It has 2" lift over the axle. I think, if you try to run 265 / 31" on a stock 2wd probably it would be a problem.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I’m gonna say that a 31 should clear just fine on a 4x4 at least with stock rims. Biggest I ever ran on my 2wd Ranger was 235/75-15, which is pretty much identical to a 30x9.50-15 (in fact most 30’s are rebadged 235’s or at least used to be). My 92 has 30x9.50-15s and cleared fine. My green Ranger I ran 31x10.50-15 and had no clearance issues. Also had those tires on dad’s 99 with no issues. My choptop originally had 31’s when I got it and cleared fine. I suppose it might be possible with some wicked off-camber stuff off roading you might rub a little, but I don’t see any problem clearing 31’s except the tire carrier. I haven’t tried mounting one in the cable spare tire carrier yet though. If you’re really worried about clearing, a spacer for the coil springs and shackle for the leaf springs can get you 1-2” of extra breathing room, which really isn’t all that difficult or expensive.