Ranger Shocks vs Explorer

[85_Ranger4x4]

Bilstein offers different shocks for a 95 Ranger vs say a 94 Explorer. I can't find anything that says they interchange but physically I would think they would have to... which makes me think the Explorer shocks might be stiffer.

I have oversize tires, V8 swap, fiberglass topper or a slide in camper and the 7' bed fills fast I go on road trips... I would think I would have to be heavier than a V8 Explorer on trips and and the Skamper isn't all that light either. My old Skyjackers were driving me nuts on the last trip and I need to do something, no idea if they are not enough or if at 10+ years old (low miles though) they are just tired. Rears were were whooped and I put Bilistein's on last summer and the rear was a thing of beauty on the highway.

Anyone ever tried running them? I have a thing into Bilstein asking their $.02.

24-184762 - 91-94 Explorer (both 2dr and 4dr)
24-022364 - 95-97 Ranger

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Very fast turnaround, they messaged me an hour after last night because I had fat fingered a number and then about an hour after I corrected it this morning.

24-184762 has a higher rebound tuning, lesser compression
24-022361 which has higher compression, but a lower rebound

Trying to figure out which one is better now...

 

[ericbphoto]

Very fast turnaround, they messaged me an hour after last night because I had fat fingered a number and then about an hour after I corrected it this morning.

24-184762 has a higher rebound tuning, lesser compression
24-022361 which has higher compression, but a lower rebound

Trying to figure out which one is better now...

so, in laymen’s terms, does that mean the first one squishes easier and rebounds slowly? Or do I have that backwards?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

so, in laymen’s terms, does that mean the first one squishes easier and rebounds slowly? Or do I have that backwards?

That is the way I am taking it.

I am thinking the Explorer ones are set up for a more polite ride and am leaning sticking with the Ranger ones.

 

[Shran]

I'm not sure about factory replacements but I did find a set of Bilsteins that are damn close to the Ranger High Rider shocks (Sachs 030-772 is what I have on it now.) These should be close to the right length for anyone who has a small lift in the front of any TTB RBV.

Bilstein 33-230405 is the part number
Collapsed Length (IN)10.75
Extended Length (IN)16.40
Collapsed Length (MM)273.0
Extended Length (MM)416.5
Compression @0.52m/s840
Rebound @0.52m/s3695
Finish Zinc Plated
Reservoir No
Body DesignSmooth Body (Non-Coilover)
Body Diameter 46mm

The Sachs shocks measured about 11" compressed and 16" extended.

The new Bilsteins are literally sitting on my porch right now. I will have to do a review one I have some road time on them. The old shocks weren't necessarily bad but my poor Explorer kinda wallowed around turns and stuff and I definitely could not keep up to other people off road at times... even my buddy who has a stock Super Duty was able to drive faster than me in certain areas where I felt like I was going to compress my spine.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm not sure about factory replacements but I did find a set of Bilsteins that are damn close to the Ranger High Rider shocks (Sachs 030-772 is what I have on it now.) These should be close to the right length for anyone who has a small lift in the front of any TTB RBV.

Bilstein 33-230405 is the part number
Collapsed Length (IN)10.75
Extended Length (IN)16.40
Collapsed Length (MM)273.0
Extended Length (MM)416.5
Compression @0.52m/s840
Rebound @0.52m/s3695
Finish Zinc Plated
Reservoir No
Body DesignSmooth Body (Non-Coilover)
Body Diameter 46mm

The Sachs shocks measured about 11" compressed and 16" extended.

The new Bilsteins are literally sitting on my porch right now. I will have to do a review one I have some road time on them. The old shocks weren't necessarily bad but my poor Explorer kinda wallowed around turns and stuff and I definitely could not keep up to other people off road at times... even my buddy who has a stock Super Duty was able to drive faster than me in certain areas where I felt like I was going to compress my spine.

How did you find actual numbers?

All I can seem to find is like package dimensions (15" long, 2" high, 2" deep BS)

 

[Shran]

How did you find actual numbers?

All I can seem to find is like package dimensions (15" long, 2" high, 2" deep BS)

I found a spreadsheet with some lengths here, note that it is from 2017:

http://info.bilsteinus.com/public_access/new_products/2017/BILSTEIN%20Product%20Sheet%20April%202017.xlsx

This catalog is from 2020 but was also helpful:

https://cart.bilsteinus.com/Portals/0/PDF/BILSTEINORCatalog2020_WEB.pdf

This site has a great chart but not the specific part that I found:

Bilstein Shock Specs

Bilstein shock specs including part numbers, extended and compressed lengths, travel measurements and mounting codes. To understand the upper and lower mounting codes and precise locations for taking measurements for Bilstein shocks, please review the Bilstein shock measurement guide. Go direct...

www.my4by.com

I think where I ended up with the right part number was here:

Search Results

You can sort by length, mounting type, etc. If you click on the part or search for the part number, you'll get the full details.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Maybe it is just because I am looking at the 4600 series.

I have 5100's on the back but they don't make anything close for the front with a stock suspension.

 

[4x4junkie]

It seems to me a shock with higher rebound damping has better control over the suspension bounding up & down over whoop-de-doos, whereas the opposite (something with similar rebound but more compression resistance) would lessen the likelihood (or severity of) actually bottoming the suspension against the bumpstops. The former should also ride smoother since the shock doesn't resist an initial bump as much (or in the case of driving over a pothole, the suspension (tire) doesn't fall as fast down into the hole (more rebound), which together with less compression resistance, allows the suspension to more-easily absorb the impact when the tire hits the other side of the pothole.

I had Skyjacker Nitro shocks on the front of mine for awhile and I suspect their rebound & compression damping numbers were pretty similar, they were quite boundy (or bouncy, however the best way to put it is) and didn't ride near as well as the Fox 2.0 resi shocks I have on mine now (which are valved 30/90, or 3× more rebound damping than comp).

Did Bilstein give you any actual valving numbers for those shocks, like "255/70" or anything similar?

 

[Shran]

I don't know how they're valved. Now I'm curious!

I got them put on after work this evening. Fit like a glove, length was very similar. I removed the boot... those stupid things just fill up with mud and salt, even when on the bottom like these shocks are. Took it out for a test drive around the neighborhood - WOW. I have to say that it is a HUGE improvement over the Sachs shocks I had on it before. I hit a few bumps that I for sure needed to slow down on before, but this time at much higher speeds and felt very little in the front. I can still feel a lot in the rear but I need the load leveler shocks, unless I swap in airbags or taller lift springs.

Anyway I am very pleased.

 

[gaz]

85Ranger4x4,

Those 2 shocks have 2 seriously different jobs. The explorer shock is handling a heavier, top heavy vehicle which has it's lower rear springs below the axle. The Ranger, much lighter has the rear spring above the axle, super different needs.

For me it's all about stability, primarily when turning. I don't expect my truck to ride like my cousin's Cadillac. I expect my suspension to do a great job of keeping my tires on he ground while limiting body roll.

Call James Duff LLC, it's worth the quarter, even if just too ask a question or 2 and get a quote for dual front 70/30's very the B's ..)

For your rig I would want nothing less than dual Duff 70/30's on all four corners to manage the weight.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Did Bilstein give you any actual valving numbers for those shocks, like "255/70" or anything similar?

"Specific valving/tuning numbers I cannot provide, so I have to respond in a fashion that does not divulge that information.

Part number 24-184762 has a higher rebound tuning, lesser compression compared to 24-022361 which has higher compression, but a lower rebound. I will not be able to advise you which one is better for your application because one shock is meant for one vehicle, the other for another vehicle, and we’re limited by our legal department suggesting products on incorrect vehicles so I hope that information serves you well to make your decision moving forward."

I took it as the Explorer had softer compression so it rode smoother and soccer mom didn't spill her Crystal Pepsi as much.

The Ranger with more varying weight and possibly bigger tires had harder compression.

I don't know, shock tuning is a new forte to me.

85Ranger4x4,

Those 2 shocks have 2 seriously different jobs. The explorer shock is handling a heavier, top heavy vehicle which has it's lower rear springs below the axle. The Ranger, much lighter has the rear spring above the axle, super different needs.

For me it's all about stability, primarily when turning. I don't expect my truck to ride like my cousin's Cadillac. I expect my suspension to do a great job of keeping my tires on he ground while limiting body roll.

Call James Duff LLC, it's worth the quarter, even if just too ask a question or 2 and get a quote for dual front 70/30's very the B's ..)

For your rig I would want nothing less than dual Duff 70/30's on all four corners to manage the weight.

I have the rear pretty much dialed in, it rode like a dream loaded to Ohio last year. But even with new tires I had a bounce in the front on certain roads that was really annoying like it needed shocks, and my old ones are old and not really that whoopie when I did the axle swap the year before. F-150's had single shocks and I don't think I am any heavier than one of those... at the end of the day probably not really much heavier on the front than a Supercab Ranger.

Body roll was pretty much killed when I added a rear sway bar. Granted it didn't do my articulation any favors but it is pretty much required with the Skamper and it makes it a dream to drive on the highway... and it is a long ways to anywhere articulation is much of a concern.

 

[4x4junkie]

"Specific valving/tuning numbers I cannot provide, so I have to respond in a fashion that does not divulge that information.

Part number 24-184762 has a higher rebound tuning, lesser compression compared to 24-022361 which has higher compression, but a lower rebound. I will not be able to advise you which one is better for your application because one shock is meant for one vehicle, the other for another vehicle, and we’re limited by our legal department suggesting products on incorrect vehicles so I hope that information serves you well to make your decision moving forward."

What a load of B.S. Reminds me of why I kicked Bilstein to the curb and went with Fox years ago (they had no issues whatsoever giving me some valving #s and recommendations).

Given the little they've said, I'd lean toward the 24-184762 shocks if ride quality is what you're after, the 24-022361 if more control against bottoming out is desired...

Another shock maybe worth looking at is the KYB Gas-A-Just. I put a set of these on my Ranger over 20 years ago, and although I'm not driving it as much as I was, they still seem to be holding up fine. IMO the KYB rides a bit more harsh than Fox or Bilstein, but they do provide good control over whoops and dips (mine has two grp-27 batteries under the hood and the Warn winch w/steel cable, so it too is pretty nose-heavy).