86+ D60 w/ Leafs.

[Burnside]

So I was mowing my lawn today- on the cub cadet circling the ranger with a 42 rolled up next to it. and I think I know what I want to do (for today at least )

I'm thinking build the ranger with a 2" body lift, exploder leafs in the front short side forward. 63" chevy's in the rear. f250 shock mounts on all 4 corners. prolly end up with around 118" wheel base. I would agree with the ~107" wb for under 40" tires. but with 42's I think closer to 120" would work well.... 42's are a damn tall tire; I want the truck to be somewhat proportional. I've always thought a square doesn't know which side is the front. 4 liter, 5.13's, doubler, bead locks, 42's.

I think it'd work well. Expect a build thread out of me at some point. Might not be for a while as it'll be slow, it'll be as fast as it can be funded. I already have a good chunk of the parts. I will most likely just take pictures along the way and make one big post at the end.

Awesome discussion guys, thank you for all of the awesome input any more input is still welcome, I've been known for being indecisive.

Any cool ideas for a paint job? I am not diggin the red.

 

[bradz71]

I think the two-tone brown is your thing.

Sounds like you have a good plan, I'm glad you decided to go with leafs!

 

[JohnnyU]

It's not my truck, nor is it my time spent wrenching on either of them, but I'm still not convinced that the Ranger is the way to go...

 

[bobbywalter]

with 42's i dont have any clearance issues with 4 in bs on 79 perches.

the 44's rub on my radiator pocket. but thats because i have a "gigantasaurus rex" radiator that goes from past headlight to headlight....someday that will change.... in keeping cog low and expressway friendly i have less then 4 in up travel too currently.



power and weight is a big thing with the weaker leafs like the rbv's.. i kinked and broke the explorers nearly instantly testing on the obstacles in my yard. this is why i suggest cutting the mains off a junkyard set to fully support mains from a flexy type rbv pack... definatly be a good idea with a v-8 rig in my eyes, though you dont have a v8 it may increase the life of the springs..


power and actual weight along with tire size, thats one thing i try keep in mind when comparing rig setups, as it generally makes a huge difference in failures of componants.









i do think coils are better all around and more desirable.




to say coils are easier when starting with a d60 set up for leaves, i havt to say i highly disagree with that. leaves are diy tunable and pennies on the dollar.

i have fugged up with coils as far as tuning. especially with ttb. its expensive to play around with rates unless your hooked up with a group that has alot of coils laying around. i have experimented with alot of junkyard coils over the years and definatly know good setups to use. but thats also alot of spare time and effort wasted


seems we are all guilty of that round here though




wheelbase is a bitch in any event. my vote is to get a 4 door explorer to hack up

 

[Bray D]

but I'm still not convinced that the Ranger is the way to go...

Why is that? Weight distribution?

If he decided to go coils I could see an advantage to the BII being a better approach angle by pushing the front forward. With leaves, I feel the limiting factor (as far as approach/departure is concerned) will be the leaf springs themselves. That being the case, it wouldn't matter if it were a BII or a Ranger.

Pushing the axle forward would help with engine crossmember clearance but I don't think that'll be much of an issue considering diff position and being full width.

 

[NMB2]

because I have trailgear leafs, the centerpin pushes the axle back. Also, the stock shackle angle is not right w/ a lift. so by pushing the rear hanger forward, corrected the shackle angle and let me lose 18" of frame.

 

[Burnside]

I wonder If the sportsman will fit in the bed of the ranger? that'd be cool to roll down the interstate with a ranger on 42's on the trailer, and the sportsman in the bed of the ranger.

I like the sound of a 114" wheel base with 42" tires. Even with stock size tires 114" doesn't look very long. The only reason I will stretch it during the build is to improve the approach angle by putting the short side forward.

If I were building toward 38" tires I think the bII with coils, push the front axle way forward and shoot for a mid 100's wheel base. For 42" tires I am thinking 114" sounds about right. The ranger is already there so I can give the leafs a shot. I want it to climb well.

 

[JohnnyU]

If your track width is 89" +/- 1", that means it would be approximately 78% of your wheelbase (114"), or 85% if you go with a 104". The 9% difference in wheelbase may or not make that much of a difference as far as overall stability is concerned.

The extra 10" will probably be noticeable though. I can say that I was thoroughly impressed by the 36"/114" combination when running my Ranger. That was a point and click truck, it pretty much went wherever I pointed it, and really shined when climbing. I did make frequent use of the sliders though.

I've also been quite impressed with the Chevy, even though its 20" longer and at a similar belly height. It climbs hills (at the farm at least) with relative ease. Again, sliders are really needed for the long wheelbase to be "useful" without being a hindrance.

A set of sliders or a full belly-skid will help prevent a fair bit of damage when dragging yourself over things, but approach and departure (mainly departure) angle will really leave something to be desired with the long bed Ranger. I used to drag ass all over the place before removing the bed and shortening the frame 12". Ideally, I'd do the same process to the Chevy, but I'd want to keep the bed as it is more versatile than a flatbed is. Unless you're willing to do that with the Ranger, I see that as a definite drawback even on 42's. You're wanting to keep it low, Id aim for no more than 8" of lift from stock. Cut/trim from there.

Since you are tearing the front axle out of the B-dos anyway, assemble the springs onto the axle and roll it under the front end. I think you need to do this to get an idea of how the spring hanger need to be located to achieve acceptable caster angle. That'd be easy enough to do, and it too would help you visualize how well that bumper/hanger idea would work.


I'm not saying it wont work, I'm just saying you might as well mock things up a bit to see how they sit before completely hacking up an otherwise perfectly good truck.

 

[NMB2]

why are you wanting to run the truck so wide?

 

[JohnnyU]

That's just as estimate I made based on a 69" WMS-WMS, 8" wheels with beadlocks (9") and 4" backspacing, and 15" wide tires.

 

[Burnside]

Again, sliders are really needed for the long wheelbase to be "useful"

I think the ability to make a climb would be more useful than not dragging a slider. Bray's truck with 109" and 35's 'hugs' the crests of rock ledges perfectly. The belly of his truck comes close- but doesn't drag. I would agree that your old ranger on 36's with the 114" was good at hill climbs and always felt extremely stable. I remember hopping out of my BII and in to your ranger, it stands out in my mind how low slung and stable the rig felt. On that note too, I would rate my 94" wb bII with the exact same tires as your ranger- sucking at hill climbs, trying to spin around on itself, and typically feeling like it wants to lay on its side. Although there were a couple situations where you'd high center at clark's property and the bII on 33's would be fine (the vee ditch entrance over the roots)... I guess really there really is no answer. I guess I am just focused on the 42" tire aspect, that's a really tall tire and I don't think you'd've high centered where you did on 36's if your running 42's. I could argue that the longer wheel base makes for better drive shaft angles and more room for a doubler- but I guess people run that with no problems. I like the way a bobbed bed looks, or even flat beds if done right, but if I can haul the sportsman in the bed than the bed is staying whole.

I'm not commited to either, so keep the opinions coming! It's funny how if you read the s10 forums they claim 120" is ideal for 42's. Jeeps claim 107" is ideal for 42's, Toyotas claim 110". The common trend though seems if people lengthen it- they are happier; until it gets above 126" or so then you hear people say they wish they were shorter.

I very well could tear the bronco II down, and get to seeing how things fit up, and change my plan all together.

 

[Bray D]

I don't think track width and wheelbase are related really. Both rigs should be equally stable sidehilling given the same track width, lift height, spring stiffness, etc.

I almost forgot that you will have to push the axle forward to clear your cab with either rig. Taking that into account you may be pushing close to 120" WB. Just something to keep in mind.

I do drag my ass end quite a bit. Is the ranger a long bed? If so that may be an issue if you don't plan to hack off the frame after the springs. A tall bumper (or no bumper) would probably help though. I know you wanna keep it long if the Sportsman fits back there. I'm just sayin.

 

[JohnnyU]

I don't think track width and wheelbase are related really.

I can't remember the formula, but Millikin talks about them both as being important parameters affecting overall stability. Granted they are using it in context of "race cars", but their principles still apply to general vehicle dynamics.


I really need to find a copy of that book for my "library".

 

[Bray D]

Whatever happened to 'x' , 'y' , and 'z' being unconditionally independent? This Millikin guy is always pwning me haha.

 

[JohnnyU]

And.....?