Tire for 97 XLT 4x4

[don4331]

Yes, the Dana 28 version of same doc has 4.10s thru '97. https://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/pdf_documents/Dana_Ford_28.pdf

3.08s too if you really wanted them.

 

[lowspeedpursuit]

3.08s too if you really wanted them.

I had 3.27s with my 2.3L for like a week in the process of moving axles around. It was a singularly miserable experience. I probably could have been passed by a golf cart.

 

[James Morse]

Now I'm confused.
Are you saying after 93-1/2 up to 97 there were no 4.10 at all or that they were available w/ Dana 28 (which is not what I have).

After 97 it seems there were 4.10 see attached it says final drive 4.1 but from what I've read so far I'd assume that is a completely different gear than what fits mine.

 

[lowspeedpursuit]

The latter: 93-97 only offered 4.10 in D28 gears, not D35. One of the other guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the D35 was introduced to go with the 4.0L. Smaller engines initially continued to use the D28.

With the '93 redesign, they stopped using the complete D28 axle assembly, and every truck used D35 beams. But, smaller engines got a "hybrid" axle, which used a custom 3rd with D28 gears inside of it.

'98+, as discussed, is a completely different front axle with incompatible gears.


Honestly, I'm not saying you can't regear, but it's generally considered complex to do yourself and expensive to have done at the shop. If you're still at a learning stage with your truck, what makes the most sense is probably to install the bigger tires with the 3.73s for now. There are downsides to weigh between each of the 3 gearing options 3.73-4.56.

If you decide you're really unsatisfied with your acceleration, you can consider 4.56, but you may find that puts your RPMs uncomfortably high at highway cruising speed, especially if you go with 30"s instead of 31"s.

Even if you do manage to find junkyard 4.10s from a '90-'92, my understanding is that many shops aren't interested in installing used gears, and certainly won't warranty the work.

 

[James Morse]

Right, that all makes good sense.
I checked before I got the truck to make sure I was seeing a D35 front diff because my impression is it's better. From previous discussions about the differences in the years.
I'd say at least right now the huge majority of my driving will be on the street and any off road I do is going to be pretty darn tame compared to what I see the modified trucks doing.
Mostly the off road is I just want to be able to go up some of these national forest roads that start out paved with a few houses then they turn to gravel/dirt, but maintained, but after there are not really any houses then the conditions get progressively worse but actually with the clearance I can go quite a ways in the Mazda but you will get to a point where you -might- be able to go there in 2wd but it would be real risky you would be stuck, like, in low water crossings, mud, etc. So that's really not too demanding of course some roads that go up in the mountains can have huge ruts in them but you can kind of pick your way around them. At some point of course if I am taking a factory truck off road there will be some point where it just won't do it but my gut feel is the '97 will be like night and day compared to the Mazda. If I ever get the rad sorted I'll find out.
I'm still kind of thinking about the 265/70R15, that isn't an oem choice, but it's about half in between the 235/75R15's and the 265/75R15's.
I think it would look good and it's still in the green range for 3.73, yes you'd lose a little pep and you'd gain a little weight, etc, but it would minimize the change.
It's either that or stick with the 235's. I could go to the 265/75R15 and be oem-spec and Ford says implicitly that works w/ 3.73 but after reading everything it might be more change than I want.
I don't want to go to 4.56 etc since most of my driving is street driving it would be overkill for basically occasional use.
Thanks for all the help.

 

[scotts90ranger]

It's less convoluted than lowspeedpersuit is talking about, mid '90 through about '94 all front axles were true Dana 35's, somewhere around '95 they mixed in some hybrid axles if I have my story straight, a 4.0L will have a real D35... personally I wouldn't stress about much of anything on a stock rig with fairly small tires unless you are going to absolutely rail on it, with 31" tires I'm sure it's possible to break axles but you would probably have to try...

my You can fit up to about a 32" tire without lift if memory serves on a '97, a 4.0L with 3.73's is less picky on tire size before you notice, some people back in the day swore that 3.73's and 33" tires was perfect with a 4.0L (those old timers around here know who I'm talking about...).

 

[James Morse]

Wow that is shocking news about the 33" because that's way outside anything I was even considering.
I would want to look at a few with that to see if I like it.
I know I don't like huge trucks with a lot of lift and really small tires, it looks weird as can be.
Small trucks with gigantic tires can also look weird.
I guess this is pushing me to actually consider 32". I don't know about 33" but who knows.
Pretty sure I have the D35 before I got it I looked for those ribs on it plus it should have been stock with that truck.

It would look like this they have offsets not sure why
1997 Ford Ranger with 15x10 -39 Vision D Window and 32/11.5R15 BFGoodrich Mud-terrain T/a Km3 and Stock | Custom Offsets (customwheeloffset.com)

 

[scotts90ranger]

Yours has a true D35 and a 28 spline 8.8, a 4.0L guarantees both so don't stress about that, especially if you have the ribs on the pumpkin up front... The 8.8 thing is more on what lowspeedpersuit was talking about, the 8.8 is ONLY in 4.0L Rangers other than some Edge models and some other random stuff in the last few years (never mind the 31 spline in the FX4 level 2... but they probably all had 4.0L too...). The front axle is kinda random other than 4.0L trucks and only in the last couple years of TTB...

If you get bigger tires and they rub a little you can just stack some washers with 1 3/8" holes (which in washer world means 1 1/4" washers, I asked the fastener company we use at work when I got washers...) under the coil springs for some more clearance, 1/2" of washers would be about 3/4" lift... there's room for 1" of washers... It's not as simple as cranking torsion bars but all you need is a jack, two jack stands (sway bar makes it harder to do one corner at a time), a 1/2" breaker bar, some extensions, a 1 1/8" socket and the washers.

 

[James Morse]

IL have 235/75R15
265/75-R15 vs 265/70-R15 Tire Comparison - Tire Size Calculator (tacomaworld.com)
235/75-R15 vs 265/70-R15 Tire Comparison - Tire Size Calculator (tacomaworld.com)
235/75-R15 vs 265/75-R15 Tire Comparison - Tire Size Calculator (tacomaworld.com)

This is telling me that going to 31" is going to make not quite an inch difference in height but really I'm no longer in the green for 3.73 or I'm on the fringe.
Taking that somewhat with a grain of salt of course.
Gear Ratio Guide For Larger Tires (therangerstation.com)

Going to 265/70R15 gives me all the width increase from 235 which is substantial (I think it looks better) but only .4" higher so all in all doesn't change the look that much and at 29.6" diameter it's not a lot different than the 235/75r15 that I have now. Also the 265/70 wouldn't make much impact on the speedo and if the speedo was a bit high it should then be right on. I haven't done the GPS speedo yet.

So I'm tending to the 265/70's but I don't totally rule out the 265/75 since I hear good things plus people are saying that even 33" is like ideal for the 3.73 so there's that which it yet way different.
Between 265/75 and 265/70 I can't think there is lots of difference off road but on road I think the 265/70's would be better with their shorter sidewall.

 

[ericbphoto]

Without a gearing change, my preference would be the 265/70 R15.

 

[scotts90ranger]

I think you're over thinking it... I ran 28" tires with 3.08 gears and a 4 cylinder for a while, not recommended but it was fine (5th gear was useless and taking off from a stop sucked... but went to 3.73 and it was better), your 4.0L won't care... when I had a '91 explorer it had 235 75 15's and 3.55 gears, I swapped to 3.73 gears and it was nicer but not huge... might have to go to a speedo gear with one less tooth to account for it but that's easy...

 

[James Morse]

OK. Everything noted.
Actually asking myself at this point where is the advantage going from 235/75R15 to 265/70R15? The wider tires may look cosmetically nicer, depends on taste I guess. They aren't appreciably different in height.
To me narrower tires are going to be better in rain, you have more pressure per sq. Likewise would they be better off-road? Also wider tires will affect gas mileage adversely a little bit (not really a concern though).
235's might be cheaper. I guess if I couldn't get the tread I want in 235 that would be a factor. I think it's the tread more than the size that influences price isn't it?
At this point I think the choice is between staying w/ 235's or going to 265/70R15. So between those two, cosmetics aside, are 265's really gaining me anything? As in, are they an advantage off-road or the other way around?
Between those two choices there is very little change in speedo or pep they are so close I think I would probably notice nothing.
I guess I have it in my head that wider tires look a little cooler/little more aggressive. 265 with less sidewall might handle a little better on the street, but again, these differences are tiny except for the width diff.
Overthinking is my middle name.... I'm trying.....

 

[ericbphoto]

Between those choices, it's mostly personal preference. In many situations, but not all, traction comes down to the size of the contact patch. How many square inches of tire are gripping the road, dirt, sand, rock, etc. Most if the time, more is better. That's why we reduce air pressure in the tires when going offroad. It allows the tire to squish and have a bigger contact patch. In sand, the bigger contact patch reduces the weight per square inch of contact so you don't sink in as easily. I believebthe same idea is used for snow. On rocks, it allows the tires to conform to irregular surfaces and grip better. However, at high speeds, on pavement, the bigger contact patch will hydroplane easier, especially when the rread wears down and can't channel water away as easily. Year's ago, someone explained to me that in shallow or medium depth mud, a skinnier tire with smaller contact patch was better because the tire could dig to the bottom and find firmer material to grab. I ran 33/8.50 r15 mid terrains on my F150 back then and liked them. But lots of. People will say you want big tires in mid for the flotation. I won't argue that either way. It depends on the situation.

So, find a tire you like in a size that fits your truck and your budget. The good/bad thing about tires is that they wear out and you get to buy something different next time if you don't like what you chose this time.

 

[sgtsandman]

I’ve found 31X10.5R15 to be a good all round tire. The 235/75R15 is 9.5” wide, if I remember correctly.

I haven’t had any hydroplaning problems and snow performance has been good. Driving at the Badlands with dedicated areas of sand, rocks, and mud trails, they went everywhere I wanted to go and never even thought about getting stuck.

 

[ericbphoto]

I’ve found 31X10.5R15 to be a good all round tire. The 235/75R15 is 9.5” wide, if I remember correctly.

I haven’t had any hydroplaning problems and snow performance has been good. Driving at the Badlands with dedicated areas of sand, rocks, and mud trails, they went everywhere I wanted to go and never even thought about getting stuck.

I got stuck because my tires stopped touching the ground.