Anybody ever use a Sterling 10.25?

[TexasRebel]

They are the same pattern

Ok thanks. I need to start bookmarking these pages so I can get this info quicker when I go to do this.

 

[Transmarobirdeater]

The sterling is a beast. I dont care if its heavier the 9inch dont have sqwat on the sterling. My buddy has an f150 with 351 winsdor and a 4 speed. He straight trashed that 9 inch. He had a yukon locker in it. The carrier bearings gave out while doing donuts on brand new 35 inch buckshots. I dont think haing a lighter axle on rocks is any better. It helps keep your center of gravity lower. If you wanna save a buck or two find a sterling with a factory traction lock. It works real well under a lighter truck. This is what it looks like.

 

[Transmarobirdeater]

Here it is.

 

[--weezl--]

The sterling is a beast. I dont care if its heavier the 9inch dont have sqwat on the sterling. My buddy has an f150 with 351 winsdor and a 4 speed. He straight trashed that 9 inch. He had a yukon locker in it. The carrier bearings gave out while doing donuts on brand new 35 inch buckshots. I dont think haing a lighter axle on rocks is any better. It helps keep your center of gravity lower. If you wanna save a buck or two find a sterling with a factory traction lock. It works real well under a lighter truck. This is what it looks like.

1, f-150 with a 351w is a MUCH heavier vehicle, probably more than double the weight, so that's twice the torque required to get the vehicle moving in the same time, and twice the strength required (vs a ranger)

2. he was doing doughnuts on brand new 35" buckshots, well that just shows that your buddy is a retard who beats the crap out of his vehicles, if you drive like that, SOMETHING is always going to break, no if and's or but's about it, so it's a coincidence it's the same part we are discussing

3. low center of gravity, yeah, you're right on this one, it does keep the cog low, and helps you not roll. it does make it more difficult in mud, as you have more weight to push through it, and more unsprung weight, which makes it more difficult to get over obstacles (rocks included) which results in more traction being needed, ie, better tires... point 3 is a wash IMO

 

[Transmarobirdeater]

Anyone that has a 351w with a new process 4 speed is not a retard sir.. I understand all the variables you stated in your post. I was just being a smart ass because everyone is pro 9 inch. I'm so ahamed. Anyway that is a good example of how strong the 9 inch is. I can't tell you how many u joints we went through. If you want to start calling names I guess we can. If I had a sterling I would use it.

 

[bobbywalter]

i am one of the retards that does donuts with brand new 35's and busts 9 inch and girdled 31 spline 8.8's with arbs......its why i have a ff dana 60 out back. and i fawk those up too. i am not offended by people that call me retarded for doing stupid shit like that.


but i am older and by comparison extremely feeble....so the retard in me is not as strong and i am quite a bit slower to break things because its too costly for me now..

9 inch unless you spend coin are not for big tires and 4x4 and retarded guys that enjoy finding their limits.

i was countlessly prodded to upgrade to a 9 inch by....the true retards....whom thought it had some magical advantage over my 31 spline arb and beefed 8.8 that was cake to get spare parts like shafts brakes and bearings for from anywhere. finding a junkyard 9 inch that was not expensive and that had useable factory gear offerings is a joke even in the mid 90's.


the people i have done most of my wheeling with all broke their 9 in rears, upgraded them for a long time and upgraded the axle finally.. i have broke the 9 inch in my bronco II several times now and have only had it a few years. i hate it. this is mostly the fault of the spool and driving it on the street...in normal circumstances it would not be hurt by the 4.0 and 36 in tires in a b II.... i been thinking of putting 3/4 ton chevy 8 lugs up on the drum brake 44 and a ff 60 or cc 14 in the back of it now.....mostly because i can find 4.10 gear working 60 or 14 bolts from free to 150 bux....and a 4.10 gear rear 9 inch 3rd with the wrong spline count in craigs list or the junkyards that is wore the fawk out is 3-400.



sure it sux being a retard....it costs more, but you know whats real.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

3. low center of gravity, yeah, you're right on this one, it does keep the cog low, and helps you not roll. it does make it more difficult in mud, as you have more weight to push through it, and more unsprung weight, which makes it more difficult to get over obstacles (rocks included) which results in more traction being needed, ie, better tires... point 3 is a wash IMO

Weight is a double edged sword in mud or snow, usually it helps more than it hurts but sometimes you bottom out before you dig to a bottom.

My V8 std cab longbox Ranger weighs 4k and my 5.4 4x4 scab shortbox '02 F-150 as it sits weighs roughly 5500... so it isn't close to double the weight by any means.

 

[Transmarobirdeater]

Well stated bobbywalter and 85_ranger4x4. The 9 inch has been around forever it is a tried and true rearend no doubt but it does have its limitations even under a ranger. I like the newer sterlings because factory disc brakes the traction lock it has a wide range of gear ratios. Its a full floater. Lockers are available. I would have to spend money on a 9 inch or I could snag a sterling with disc brakes and a T lock and be done.

 

[TexasRebel]

i am one of the retards that does donuts with brand new 35's and busts 9 inch and girdled 31 spline 8.8's with arbs......its why i have a ff dana 60 out back. and i fawk those up too. i am not offended by people that call me retarded for doing stupid shit like that.


but i am older and by comparison extremely feeble....so the retard in me is not as strong and i am quite a bit slower to break things because its too costly for me now..

9 inch unless you spend coin are not for big tires and 4x4 and retarded guys that enjoy finding their limits.

i was countlessly prodded to upgrade to a 9 inch by....the true retards....whom thought it had some magical advantage over my 31 spline arb and beefed 8.8 that was cake to get spare parts like shafts brakes and bearings for from anywhere. finding a junkyard 9 inch that was not expensive and that had useable factory gear offerings is a joke even in the mid 90's.


the people i have done most of my wheeling with all broke their 9 in rears, upgraded them for a long time and upgraded the axle finally.. i have broke the 9 inch in my bronco II several times now and have only had it a few years. i hate it. this is mostly the fault of the spool and driving it on the street...in normal circumstances it would not be hurt by the 4.0 and 36 in tires in a b II.... i been thinking of putting 3/4 ton chevy 8 lugs up on the drum brake 44 and a ff 60 or cc 14 in the back of it now.....mostly because i can find 4.10 gear working 60 or 14 bolts from free to 150 bux....and a 4.10 gear rear 9 inch 3rd with the wrong spline count in craigs list or the junkyards that is wore the fawk out is 3-400.



sure it sux being a retard....it costs more, but you know whats real.

Weight is a double edged sword in mud or snow, usually it helps more than it hurts but sometimes you bottom out before you dig to a bottom.

My V8 std cab longbox Ranger weighs 4k and my 5.4 4x4 scab shortbox '02 F-150 as it sits weighs roughly 5500... so it isn't close to double the weight by any means.

Well stated bobbywalter and 85_ranger4x4. The 9 inch has been around forever it is a tried and true rearend no doubt but it does have its limitations even under a ranger. I like the newer sterlings because factory disc brakes the traction lock it has a wide range of gear ratios. Its a full floater. Lockers are available. I would have to spend money on a 9 inch or I could snag a sterling with disc brakes and a T lock and be done.

I agree with just about everything said. The 9s aren't really cheap around here and the 10.25s are common and parts readily available. And plus, I'm not going to sell the 10.25 just to get a 9 that is more expensive to buy and get stuff for around here. To me it doesn't make sense doing that.

 

[--weezl--]

Anyone that has a 351w with a new process 4 speed is not a retard sir.. I understand all the variables you stated in your post. I was just being a smart ass because everyone is pro 9 inch. I'm so ahamed. Anyway that is a good example of how strong the 9 inch is. I can't tell you how many u joints we went through. If you want to start calling names I guess we can. If I had a sterling I would use it.

so by your logic if you take someone who is brain dead, but does what other people tell him to do, and buys a 351w, and a 4 speed, because he has the money, that automatically makes him intelligent? SMH

i am one of the retards that does donuts with brand new 35's and busts 9 inch and girdled 31 spline 8.8's with arbs......its why i have a ff dana 60 out back. and i fawk those up too. i am not offended by people that call me retarded for doing stupid shit like that...

so you spend how many thousand dollars on brand new tires, just to wear the crap out of them before they get any use? there is absolutely no logic in that what-so-ever

Weight is a double edged sword in mud or snow, usually it helps more than it hurts but sometimes you bottom out before you dig to a bottom.

agreed fully, that's why I said it was a wash, it depends on the terrain, and about a thousand factors, you can either try to float or dig, if you've got some good bedrock under a marginally shallow section of mud, heavy truck with pizza cutters works great, if you've got 10' of mud, you want a light truck, with massively wide tires to stay on top of it.

My V8 std cab longbox Ranger weighs 4k and my 5.4 4x4 scab shortbox '02 F-150 as it sits weighs roughly 5500... so it isn't close to double the weight by any means.

the gen i 4x4's are about 3200lbs stock, not sure where you added 800lbs, but that is closer to what I was getting at. also, the OP's truck is pretty much stock IIRC, so it's not really accurate to compare your v8 ranger to his application... and 3200 vs 5500, a little more than half the weight 58% actually...

 

[bobbywalter]

so you spend how many thousand dollars on brand new tires, just to wear the crap out of them before they get any use? there is absolutely no logic in that what-so-ever

yup.

that is why i am not offended by you saying i am retarded. how could i be....with such wretched excess for break in rituals.....retarded is being polite.



you should see the shit fit my wife throws and the words that come out of her old battle axe mouth.



back when i regularly wheeled i usually had to have all the tires shredding and smoking at various points of most the trails i frequented..


how is that any different? i know i had a set of iroks that never seen pavement, i put them on when i got to the event, and ripped two sidewalls in less then 10 minutes. and yes i buy insurance for that. i have had it happen with various types of new tires over the years....first trip to the woods to see what they do...and whooooosh....

back when i was running a healthy small block....turning boggers to grease was easy with the bed unladen, and they spin great but lack traction so bad on damp pavement it dont even hurt them when the bed is empty. with the locker kicked in and my bias valves engaged i could do all sorts of fun shit in empty parking lots.



i prefer to look around locally to what is available and cost effective regardless. sasq may have narrowed his housing, but it still uses junkyard parts in a jam....and worst case he can just run fw till he can narrow another housing.



as to weight, my truck is 6k with me in it....88 ext cab ranger....stock it was 4200.

those are light load with road tools, real world, on the fawking scale weights.


i see guys say the 4x4 ext cabs are 3500-3800.....i dont know how.....never seen one under 3900's

 

[TexasRebel]

What have you done to your truck to make it weigh 6k? That is crazy. I'm using tapatalk on my phone right now, so I can't see if you have it in your signature.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

[TexasRebel]

The Ranger The donor truck for motor and rear end.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.

 

[bobbywalter]

What have you done to your truck to make it weigh 6k? That is crazy. I'm using tapatalk on my phone right now, so I can't see if you have it in your signature.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

the laws of incremental-ism and unintended consequences happened to it.

































seriously.....i mean that........you know.....mo powuh.......need moooo powuh........put in the powuhz......and snap-crackle-fawking-pop.....





it started out bone stock with a capper, running boards....and a big tall blue bug gaurd.....you probably never seen such a ridiculous bug gaurd



and it ended up like this.

i will actually be updating this link as i have some new pics from maintenance that were requested about the frame mods.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35931



does that help you understand the weight issue?

 

[TexasRebel]

Dude. That thing looks awesome. What are you using for a power plant in it?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.