Axel Limiting Straps on a Ranger?

[Lefty]

Way back when I owned and MGB that came with axel limiting chains. Normally one would think this kind of thing belongs on an ATV or in an off road course. All except those limiting chains might just come in handy in a road race or even a rally where the car might run off the road. The MG handled just great of course. Those chains may have also served to work like a cheap sway bar.

All of this has got me wondering, especially now since some friends have asked if I want to go off road with them.

Any thoughts?

 

[Curious Hound]

The trick is to see what is limiting your travel now. If it’s the shocks, that is probably not the best idea and straps might be a good idea. If it’s the springs and they’re held in place with good retainers, that should be ok. If you just want peace of mind regardless of anything else, install limiting straps.

I don’t have limiting straps and haven’t had any trouble due to that. I get corners of that thing hanging in free air pretty often.

 

[Blmpkn]

The MG had chains because it was made by the British. They're usually too drunk to engineer things the RIGHT way lol.

If your talking about the rear axle, they're unnecessary. They're unnecessary in the front as well, on stock suspension parts, as long as your shocks are the right length.. like mentioned above.

Pretty much the only vehicles that need chains/straps are low-riders with hydros that can hop themselves off the ground and extreme off road rigs like trophy trucks.

 

[Lefty]

The truck is to see what is limiting your travel now. If it’s the shocks, that is probably not the best idea and straps might be a good idea. If it’s the springs and they’re held in place with good retainers, that should be ok. If you just want peace of mind regardless of anything else, install limiting straps.

I don’t have limiting straps and haven’t had any trouble due to that. I get corners of that thing hanging in free air pretty often.

Free air? Really? Erich!

 

[Lefty]

The MG had chains because it was made by the British. They're usually too drunk to engineer things the RIGHT way lol.

If your talking about the rear axle, they're unnecessary. They're unnecessary in the front as well, on stock suspension parts, as long as your shocks are the right length.. like mentioned above.

Pretty much the only vehicles that need chains/straps are low-riders with hydros that can hop themselves off the ground and extreme off road rigs like trophy trucks.

Thank you once again. I'm told the Brits like Beefeaters. Maybe that explains.

 

[rubydist]

The stock suspension is limited in extension by the shocks on both the front and rear axles, and in compression by bump stops on both the front and rear.

 

[Blmpkn]

The stock suspension is limited in extension by the shocks on both the front and rear axles, and in compression by bump stops on both the front and rear.

The rear axle's limited by the leafs

Thank you once again. I'm told the Brits like Beefeaters. Maybe that explains.

A 16 year old can enjoy a pint over there.... as long as they're accompanied by an adult. 18 otherwise puffing a joint still illegal.

 

[Shran]

The only time I've used limit straps was on our offroad race rig to keep the shocks from being pulled all the way out repeatedly. I don't see them being useful in any other capacity, they are basically a race item only.

 

[superj]

i have never had limiting straps on anything either, off roader or autocross

 

[gw33gp]

I race an Austin Healey Mk II Sprite. It has a kind of fabric limiting strap. The reason it has one is because the driveshaft runs through a tunnel and if the axle flexes down too far the driveshaft will hit the bottom of the tunnel and and damage the driveshaft. The MGB is just an over-grown MG Midget and the Mk II Sprite is the same as he Midget. So the strap on the MGB probably serves the same purpose.

I see no need for a limiting strap on the axles of a Ranger unless it is very modified and does some extreme wheeling or racing. As has been pointed out already, the shocks limit the downward travel if you have the stock or equivalent shocks on you Ranger.

I do have limiting straps (cables) on my front sway bar. They are used to limit the extension of my sway bar disconnects when they are disconnected. If they extend too far, the guide will slip out and it would be a lot of work to get them connected again. It has nothing to do with axle drop. They are only functional during articulation in the front when the way bar is disconected.

 

[Lefty]

I race an Austin Healey Mk II Sprite. It has a kind of fabric limiting strap. The reason it has one is because the driveshaft runs through a tunnel and if the axle flexes down too far the driveshaft will hit the bottom of the tunnel and and damage the driveshaft. The MGB is just an over-grown MG Midget and the Mk II Sprite is the same as he Midget. So the strap on the MGB probably serves the same purpose.

I see no need for a limiting strap on the axles of a Ranger unless it is very modified and does some extreme wheeling or racing. As has been pointed out already, the shocks limit the downward travel if you have the stock or equivalent shocks on you Ranger.

I do have limiting straps (cables) on my front sway bar. They are used to limit the extension of my sway bar disconnects when they are disconnected. If they extend too far, the guide will slip out and it would be a lot of work to get them connected again. It has nothing to do with axle drop. They are only functional during articulation in the front when the way bar is disconected.

Most interesting! I gotta say that I really loved driving that MG. I liked the Austin Healey Sprite too: crazy beautiful cornering ability, felt like the wheels were running on rails. I had a 2.8 liter Ford in mine, much lighter and far more responsive than those old British 4 cylinder engines.

 

[rubydist]

No the rear axle is actually limited by the shocks. If you disconnect the shocks, the leaf springs will allow the axle to drop about another inch or so compared to where the shocks stop it.

 

[JoshT]

Most interesting! I gotta say that I really loved driving that MG. I liked the Austin Healey Sprite too: crazy beautiful cornering ability, felt like the wheels were running on rails. I had a 2.8 liter Ford in mine, much lighter and far more responsive than those old British 4 cylinder engines.View attachment 86245

I actually thought about doing that with the 2.8L that was/is in the '84 I totaled. Had 5k miles, maybe less, on as fresh rebuild when the truck went sideways into a pecan tree. Refreshed bottom end, ported heads, offy intake, 390cfm Holley carb, Comp cam (can't recall which one anymore), long tube headers. It would motivate the Ranger prety good. I went so far as to track down a company that would still produce conversion compoennts to put one in an MG B. Ultimately decided that it wasn't really the project I wanted. That as much as I wanted to do something with it, it isn't really the engine I want. Still got it, but sometime in the next few years I'll probably be getting it running again and offering it up to a new home.

 

[Lefty]

I actually thought about doing that with the 2.8L that was/is in the '84 I totaled. Had 5k miles, maybe less, on as fresh rebuild when the truck went sideways into a pecan tree. Refreshed bottom end, ported heads, offy intake, 390cfm Holley carb, Comp cam (can't recall which one anymore), long tube headers. It would motivate the Ranger prety good. I went so far as to track down a company that would still produce conversion components to put one in an MG B. Ultimately decided that it wasn't really the project I wanted. That as much as I wanted to do something with it, it isn't really the engine I want. Still got it, but sometime in the next few years I'll probably be getting it running again and offering it up to a new home.

If you decide to do this, your 2.8 liter v6 would need a 2 barrel Holly or a new manifold and a 4 barrel. If possible get a performance Schneider cam as well. Mine had dual exhausts with turnouts. The 2.8 will not set the world on fire, but it will certainly make for a lot more power. The real benefit seemed to be handling. Those old MGs were made with heavy 4 cylinder tractor engines. The 2.8 weighs a lot less.

I put oversize tires on my wire wheels which barely cleared the wheel wells. They were actually tubeless radials. Since wire wheels would leak air, I put inner tubes inside them. They worked just fine. The tires looked good, and made for greatly improved traction, allowing the driver to throw the car into seemingly impossible turns.

I drove that MG for 17 years and loved every minute of it.

 

[JoshT]

To clarify my 2.8L has an Offenhauser 4bbl intake and a Holley 390cfm vacuum secondary 4bbl carburetor. I've also got an older 390cfm double pumper sitting on a shelf somewhere that needs rebuild.

I don't have an MG B, I was thinking about getting one for the purpose of putting that engine into. I've since realized that I like the 2.8L only because it's what I had. Don't get me wrong, it was a good engine, but it will never really be what I want. If I hadn't totaled the '84 Ranger, it would have been engine swapped by now. If not something bigger (5.0L), at least something newer and more efficient.

Instead of building something else with the 2.8L, I'm going to focus on building my F-100 and the '99 Ranger. Someday I might get back around to the '85 that I had big plans for when I bought this year, but it was hiding issues I'm not prepared to fix right now. That will probably be 2.3 turbo, or if the truck is too far gone I might build something like a Locost Seven around the engine, but that's way down the road.