86+ D60 w/ Leafs.

[bradz71]

Keep in mind too Josh that with a Explorer pack you will gain another 1/2'' of clearance for the leaf spring. Looks like you had a 3'' pack on there in the picture.

 

[JohnnyU]

Those were the Chevy leaves, so they're 2.5" wide.

The other thing to note was that the wheel wasn't seated against the hub due to the caliper bracket. They're 15" wheels and 1-ton brakes. A fair bit of grinding will be in order, but they wheels were probably spaced out another 1/2" from where they would normally be.


It's honestly not as bad as we had thought, and not nearly as bad as all the GM guys complain about it when using this era axle. I still think the coils will provide more flexibility in mounting options and wheelbase though, especially if he uses the BII and stretches the front by 5-6".

 

[Burnside]

especially if he uses the BII and stretches the front by 5-6".

So I half assed started tearing down the bII last night, and I don't know if I can do it! I was planning on swapping to the ranger for wheel base reasons, but I've been wheeling the bII for 7 years, daily drove it for 4 of those years. It's a familiar well known truck in the local wheeling circuit, it'd be awesome for it to come back from ttb and 36's on 1tons and 42's. I do not want two trucks. One wheeling pig is one too many already, don't want to deal with maintaining/storing two pigs.

I definitley believe that wheel base is a major factor in a wheeling truck's capability. As long as you aren't high centering- longer is better. It is more stable, drive shaft angles are improved, steep ups and hill climbs; lwb vehicles do better at. I used to wheel a ranger with the same susp., axles, and tires, before my bII, and there was this hill at a local wheeling spot that the ranger would walk up- and try as I may, I can't do it in the bII.

Any opinions on wheel base? Me heart says bII but my head says Ranger. I love my bII and think it would looked wicked on 42's. But as cool as it would look I fear it wouldn't perform as good as a ranger with a 20" longer wheelbase. Stock height vehicles- the short wheel base will shine because with no lift you need the swb so you don't high center. Once lifted suspensions are introduced high centering is rarely an issue.

Here's some pics of a bII on 42's and full widths for reference. He apparently did coils and has the front axle pushed forward about 8", I believe the rear axle is in stock location. So stock wb on a bII is 94", push forward front axle ~5" = 99" wb. Move the rear axle back 4" = 103"... that might help.

And here's the build thread. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=783562&highlight=

P.S. If i built the bII and not the ranger it would save me a TON of wrench time. The bII already has the 4.0 drivetrain in it, and within the last month I've installed new motor mounts, clutch, slave, etc. I wouldn't have to pull the 2.9 drive train and stock ttb off the ranger. The bII is clean and is already in my shed and getting the ttb lift and axles removed- I won't have to dick with getting a non-rolling bII carcass out of the shed and on a trailer. Selling the ranger could re-coup some of the cost of going coils to push my axle way forward on the bII also.

Here's a recent pic of the b-dos. She's been rode hard, but rust free.

 

[CheapThrillB2]

I am using a b2 frame but did a ranger cab on it. I am at 112" WB

 

[NMB2]

mine is 104" WB

 

[Bray D]

Decisions decisions. Both rigs have their advantages. The ranger is already setup for the longer wheelbase. You don't have to dick with the hardships of stretching the BII (steering, possible clearance/intereferences you may run into). The BII has sentimental value and already has the powertrain installed/freshened up.

Which rig is a better base to build off of? Who's to say.

I'm not saying to use the ranger or the BII, but I will say don't let a little extra work make you shy away from having the end result you want.

 

[1badexplorer]

I'd say B2. With a little stretch in the front and rear it will work out good for you. My Early bronco was originaly a 92" WB with some work it is now 99" and 92" to the outside of tires and I love it. It is short enough th fit anywhere without even making a single backup but it still stable on the hills.

 

[NMB2]

mine is 4" stretch in the front and 5 in the rear, i even moved the rear shackle hangers forward and lost about 20" of frame. the difference in stability going from 94" and 62" wide to 103" and 79" wide is incredible

 

[bradz71]

When I scrapped my BII it was for a good reason, everything was starting to tear apart on it and I was ready to go a different direction (Toyota). If you're still attached to the BII you better build off it or else you are going to keep kicking yourself. Stretching a BII is nothing a sawzall can't fix.

But on the other hand that Ranger would be a fresh start, hard to choose, drink a few beers and decide then.

 

[NMB2]

unless you're doing ledges alot, there isnt a whole lot of gain from the WB stretch really. a good medium is 103-113" WB. no need for 117-125" wheelbase otherwise.

 

[Burnside]

ledges definitely do give short trucks a hard time.. I'm leaning towards the bII as of now even though I know I will be damning myself one day when I'm struggling on one. That being said the shorter wheel base can make situations more challenging, and feel more tipsy. As long as it's not always rolling over that's kinda fun. I know "the goal" is to build a truck that masters all obstacles, but it wouldn't be fun if you had something that easily and safely stolled through things. One thing I love about wheeling is the pucker situations.

I've wheeled with truck under a 95" wheelbase, or over 110" wheel base. I can't really think of anyone I've wheeled with that has anything in between. There is an obvious difference in rig strengths/weaknesses. a swb's strength is it doesn't need to go in reverse to make a tight turn, a lwb's strength is it's good at scaling bad ass rock ledges....

Bray- What's your wheel base at? Do you remember what King said he was at?

I am gonna rip the axles and susp from the bII because that needs done either way. I already have an EVTM for the 89 bII, I ordered one for a 91 explorer the other day. I would like to spend a lot of time with the wiring harness and really try to clean up the engine bay, see if I can't trim down the wiring harness some. I really like the looks of that orange bronco II I posted earlier. I think if the rear was pushed out a little more it'd be perfect.

For stretching the rear, i was thinking when I install the 63" springs instead of moving the the front hanger forward, move the rear back- possibly building a bumper to mount the rear hanger off if needed.

I'm not the biggest fan of body lifts, but I don't see what's so terrible about them either. It seems like a good way to clear bigger tires without moving your cog up a ton. It also makes wrenching on your rig a little easier, opens up new options for routing exhaust, tying cages to the frame etc. I'll be running 42" tires and will most likely need more lift than I want to stay off of the tires.

 

[bradz71]

So shoot for something in the middle ground of like a 105-107 wb. Best of both worlds.

Body lift should be fine, as long as you tie your cage into the frame. My biggest beef with bodylifts for trail rigs is that the likelihood of cab and frame separating is that much more. But if you tie your cage into the frame, it will stay put and you'll be fine. The added height of CG isn't any worse than someone putting 150 of steel exocage around the top of their cab.

 

[4x4junkie]

Agreed the bodylift (say 2") has numerous advantages, most of which are small, but they do all add up to it being worth having. The BII also has 10 mounts for the body, so the added leverage on the bolts is dispersed more than you would have on the 6 bolts for a Ranger cab. Even still, you'd have to end up in a pretty damn serious rollover situation to have it separate if your mounts are otherwise in good shape.

With 42" meats I'd probably be shooting for around 105-107" on the wheelbase together with plenty of fender cutting so you can maintain a low CoG.

 

[NMB2]

For stretching the rear, i was thinking when I install the 63" springs instead of moving the the front hanger forward, move the rear back- possibly building a bumper to mount the rear hanger off if needed.

I gained 5" of rear WB by keeping the front hanger in location and moving the rear hanger forward about 4-5"

I'll be running 42" tires and will most likely need more lift than I want to stay off of the tires.

these are 40's and i maybe have 3-4" lift?

 

[Bray D]

Bray- What's your wheel base at? Do you remember what King said he was at?

I'm at 109" and I think King's at 104". I'll admit I've never ran anything shorter or longer than my truck but I'm pretty comfortable when tackling most of the obstacles we encounter.

NMB2 - how are you gaining WB by pushing your rear hanger forward? I don't follow.