I-Beam 2wd to SAS 4wd?

[JoshT]

I'm sure that this has been covered before but my search skills seem to be failing me.

I've got a idea popped into my head recently. Something that I don't need, and honestly probably won't happen. Unfortunately once an idea gets in there it's hard to let it go. So here's the situation...

I have an 86 Ranger short bed 2wd that I tore down a decade ago to restomod and V8 swap. Project was abandoned and currently exists as a bare frame and the shell of the cab (with other body panels stashed around). V8 ended up going to the 99, and I've got a complete 85 for the eventual resto. Doesn't mean I just want to scrap it and I've been thinking about what else to do with it.

Among the ideas that's popped into mind recently is building it into an off road toy. I really don't need it, all three of my currently registered trucks are 4wd and there are no offroad parks in driving distance. That said the '70 will eventually be restored and I won't wont to do much wheeling in it at that point. The F-250 will probably be sold once the 70 is restored, won;t have much need for two full size trucks unless something changes. The 99 is only technically a 4wd at this point, it's got an AWD transfer case and is getting lowered like when I can arrange all the right parts. So in the future there could be place for a dedicated hunting and trail rig that is also somewhat street legal.

Staying TTB would be nice, but I don't think that would work out too well using the 2wd frame. My understanding is that not only are the beam pivot brackets different, but that the crossmember differences won't work either. I recall a thread discussing converting a 2wd TIB Ranger frame to 4wd TTB in the past and the subject of changing the pivot brackets being mentioned, but I can't seem to find it since. I do recall I argued against the conversion for reasons, but I don't recall the reasons I gave or what others said.

Thought right now would be to install an EB D44 using James Duff swap components. For the rear, probably the Chevy leafs with a Ranger or Explorer 8.8 (I have a couple) and an adapter for lug patern. 4-link and coil-overs would no doubt be better for articulation, but for what I'm doing I'm not interested in putting in that much to design and build it. Those can come later if I actually used the truck enough in situations where it would benefit. Beyond the suspension, I'd probably run flared fenders in the front, and chop off the frame right behind the rear spring hangers with a simple flat bed built on top.

My questions is about SAS on the 2wd frame. I know that the frames are different between the TIB and TTB Rangers, atleast where the pivot points are concerned. I seem to recall that the engine crossmember is different as well. I'd most likely go the EB D44 route with James Duff parts for installing it, and those should mount to the 2wd frame without issue.

So are there any major issues or concerns with SASing a 2WD TIB frame?

The alternative to using the 2wd frame was to pickup a trashed BII. Use that frame with full width TTB and F-150 axle. Set the standard cab on it, and a custom flat bed to round out the back. Unless I stumbled onto someone practically giving me a BII frame, that's going to be more that I was putting into this idea.

 

[4x4junkie]

If you're SAS'ing, whether you use a 2WD or 4x4 frame won't really matter. Other than the front crossmember, the frames are pretty much the same.

SAS IMO is the more practical way to go converting a 2WD to 4WD vs trying to sling a TTB under there.

Do you already have the early Bronco Dana44? (I would think those have all but vanished from the used market)

What engine to you have in mind for this project? You said it's a short bed... Reg Cab?

 

[JoshT]

SAS IMO is the more practical way to go converting a 2WD to 4WD vs trying to sling a TTB under there.

Agreed. The only way this idea would happen is either SASing the existing 2wd frame, or getting a BII frame and going full width D44 TTB.

Do you already have the early Bronco Dana44? (I would think those have all but vanished from the used market)

No, but my F-100 has a D44. I occasionally search Craigslist and FBMP locally for a 78-79 F-150 disc brake D44 to swap into it. In those searches, I have come across the EB D44 a few times.

Now I'm about certain that I prefer the disc brake conversion on the F-100, but I still search and see the EB axles occasionally.

Since it mounts the same, I'm not scared of getting another F-100 D44 and narrowing it to EB specs.

What engine to you have in mind for this project? You said it's a short bed... Reg Cab?

Yes, a short wheel base first gen. Regular cab, short bed if I were to put the bed back on.

To be politically correct I guess you could say it's "engine fluid". Not engine fluid like Bobby's truck where he runs which ever engine suits him that week. Engine fluid like I don't know yet.

First iteration will probably be 2.8L. I have a pretty fresh one that I want to do womething with eventually. It's already sitting in a totaled 2wd manual transmission Ranger, so I have everything needed to install it in this one. I'd probably go with a M5OD and manual transfer case.

When that goes south or gets old, I'm pretty much open. I could refresh the low oil pressure 5.0 that I just pulled out of the 99, but I don't think I want it to be V8. The M5OD would have me set for a 4.0L, but I just pulled an OHV out of the '99 and don't really want to mess with another. Maybe an SOHC that goes in preped for an eventual Moddbox install?

 

[bobbywalter]

2wd is better for sas.
the 2wd chassis allows more engine options with minimal work with a sas.

for axles i would suggest to just use stupiddoodies and just run them as is full width. or a jeep xj axle or later d44 or the newest m220 or whatever the fawk its called.. 5x5 bolt pattern though kinda sux .... the earlier d44 while still pricey isaround..

i dont like the eb axle. it puts the diff in a stupid spot and the low pinion sux for driveshaft angles.... and that centering bias of the diff makes the front driveshaft a potential problem depending on what powertrain you end up running ...the driveshaft will want to hit the transmission.

unless you go full custom and completely toss the engine k member... the 70s full width 44 and 60 work the best with the stock k member ttb chassis.

i have both. i would rather have ttb then a eb axle on my ranger if wanting to stay narrow... its acceptable on the bronco 2. but made the ranger useless on the freeway. the dana 60 are way better .

 

[JoshT]

For the 2wd Ranger frame it's going to be the EB width SAS or not at all. I'll say EB width because I've got no issues with getting another F-100/150 axle and cutting it down to width. It would be a first for me, but I ain't skerd. If I screw it up, oh well.

Won't be any superduty axes for this. I've already got one set of those and they are staying planted under the F-250. Might would consider them for an upgrade on the F-100 somewhere down the road, but even that is a long shot.

Nah, if I go the full width route it's going to be with a BII frame and Dana 44 TTB. Since I don't have said frame, it would defeat the purpose of this brain storming session. Wouldn;t rule it out if someone practically gave me the frame, but I'm not going to buy one (or even another Ranger) to strip apart for a 4wd frame. This project idea isn't serious enough to warrant all of that.

 

[901wd#2]

Ended up scrapping my eb44 housing after selling the knuckles with new ball joints. Only the width makes sense. The bolt pattern diff placement and caster are all wrong for an rbv.
Everyone I talked to said it came out taller than they wanted, and I realized buying a bare housing expecting to piece it together was dumb.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Why are you so firm on staying EB width?

Just kinda curious. Especially with going full width if you built a BII frame, that insistence just doesn’t quite make sense. Especially because the older Jeeps had the same bolt pattern and a narrow width so you don’t have to stick with an EB axle.

Besides that, my Choptop got more stable when I let it get a little wide. I’d be sort of inclined to see if I could use Superduty axles on my next off-road build and just deepen the backset on the rims to narrow it up some.

 

[JoshT]

Not firm on EB width, but don't particularly want to go full width. I will if it comes to that, but don't want to. I wouldn't particularly even want to SAS, but it seems to be the easiest option for the 2wd frame. If it were simple matter to bolt a TTB into a Ranger 2wd frame I wouldn't have even posted the thread.

I hadn't really looked at the axle widths before, just new that EB was a close match for the Ranger. I just checked EB axle is about the same width as the stock TTB. The F-100 D44 I was talking about is only about 5" wider than the stock TTB. At 2.5" per side, there's really no reason not to go with the full width axle. Wheels alone could make that much difference. Using that axle would give commonality with axle parts between them. A set of raised flared fenders (or maybe just cutout flares) would handle the added width on front and flat bed could be built to cover the rear.

I'm not even sure why I brought BII frame and D44 TTB into the conversation.

Using a BII frame did come to mind because they've all got the 4wd TTB mounts and they are short. When I started thinking standard cab flat bed it was also with a super short wheel base. Thinking about it, I'd rather stick with the Ranger frame and chop it behind the rear leaf spring mount. Longer wheel base does seem to have some advantages on and off road as long as the breakover isn't too bad, to include better ride and stability. The chopped frame would provide just as much departure angle as using the BII frame. If I used a stock fuel tank, I'd be able to retain midship tank tucked up inside the frame, instead of the rear low hanging BII tank potentially bouncing off stuff

The D44 TTB because I was looking at beam pivots on Autofab and seeing what was available, they have got some made for a D44 TTB swap on a 4x4 frame. Also because I was already looking at them with EB axle, and it is comprable in strength to the solid D44. Don't particularly want the width, and standard width D35 would probably be more than adequate. Doesn't really matter because the only way I'd end up TTB is if I used a different frame that I have. I'm not going to go buy something to strip for the frame, or likely to find someone giving away a bare frame, so that's not likely to happen

In this instance I don't care about lug pattern. I've got Rangers with 5x4.5 and I've got the F-100 with 5x5.5. I'm going to have wheels around for both patterns and I've got no problem running adapters if needed.

I wouldn't want to run front leafs, rather stay with coils and radius arms. Also wouldn't want to fab my own linkages and mounts. Companies already make what is needed to bolt in a solid axle using the wedge style radius arms. The Jeep axle doesn't have wedges, and I'm not interested in trying to fab them on. Parts exist to make a Ford axle, wide or narrow, practically bolt in. If it happened, this would be a relatively low effort (but possibly expensive) assembly project. Buy all the pieces and bolt them together.

 

[bobbywalter]

full width d44 ttb is definitely a great way to go.. you can cover the tires with flares or fat fenders and dodge wheels so its not really full width.... if the full width tire stickout is a thing..

i have a set of pivot brackets that allow either or. though you can easily modify the stock drivers beam bracket with weld washers and redrill/mount the passenger beam bracket to fit the d44 ttb. coil buckets from there are achievable a myriad of ways as well..or just run the rbv units and deal with it.



with a set of extended arms its all win.


the stability of full width is hard to explain. even with inset wheels its way better. converting for the reasons mentioned this gets the best for least sort of thing.



the eb axle is actually narrow for an rbv an inch or so and the frame offset from eb to ranger makes the steering offset even worse unless you build the clearance into the arms. whether that is by mounting the arms inside the ranger framerails or the deep curve in the arms it brings potential for steering issues and various types of death wobble or jacking on turns.


one thing i see alot is narrowing a high pinion d44 to eb width and being totally fawked with driveshaft angle with larger transmissions. then dialing in caster and camber and bump steer trying to keep max turning radius usually ends up getting trashed...sold or abandoned. that is why most of them get trailered. i know at least ten people that went full width and either sold or gave their eb or smaller jeep axle away after driving a jeep or ranger with a full width axle.

spring rate and ride height...bushing and trac bar type and tire size/weight all have major affect on this result...

that is why i live with the limitations of a bolt in swap. my bronco is literally just an eb axle bolted in with eb stuff using the stock rbv buckets and stock bronco coils... it does not have full turning radius and handles like a pos early bronco....but does not have the issues i have seen and battled with some of the conversion kits. costs nothing but a few drilled holes and bolts to install with some scrap rec/box tube. literally 4-5 hours to do.

or course the full width swap works out way better....way more stable...full lock steering but can have some more work using 2wd f100 buckets, spaced stock buckets or inverting the coil seats needs to have more attention.... so more work

certain scout and old school waggoneer j10/j20 axles are a real decent compromise but those are setup with leafs and more work to use radius arms with.

but they allow you to cut down a full width hi pinion 44 to a compromise and still run a shelf axleshaft if you pay attention.

in the case of cost effective easy play toy narrowing an axle is none of that....

.doing a ttb 44 with a 2wd chassis is a meh. not cost or time effective.... but certainly easier then narrowing a full width axle...


bolting in a leaf yj axle......cake. and cheap

coil tj or cherocar axle..... cake and cheap

wagoneer / J axle.....depending on what powertrain you choose.....maybe you want a 360 mopar....you can go driver or passenger drop....regardless...cake. finding one....

that is where the stoooooopid doodies come in. but those things are too heavy....

and a cherocar axle definitely is a win for a simple play rig in regards to cost and time....you dont even need new wheels. you can get hi pinion.....and do fine with 35's.

 

[JoshT]

Well, there is another reason to use the full width solid D44 from an F-100 or F-150. I'm probably going to be buying one anyway.

As mentioned my F-100 uses the solid D44. I'm going to be restomodding it. That includes a complete rebuild on the drivetrain. It's notgoing to be a hard offroader and I want to stay "stock" axles, D44 front and 9" rear, but they are going to get a rebuild/refresh as well. I'm thinking that the front D44 is going to get upgraded with a wilwood brake kit which means I need to start with a 71+ axle to get the right spindles (per instructions). The 9" on the 67-72 F-100 is almost 4" narrower than the front axle and I don't like the look, so I'll be swapping in a wider 9" rear. Once done that's going to leave me with a full set of spare axles in the 5x5.5 width.

Considering that the axles are wider than the truck they'll be under I don't think that the width difference will bother me as much. Going flat bed should help hide the width difference as well.

Main thing holding up that course of action is deciding what I'm going to do with the rest of the drivetrain in the F-100 and selecting gears to suit. Doesn't mean that I can't acquire the spare axles and stuff them under the Ranger frame in the interim.

 

[bobbywalter]

i would have a hard time not putting a godzilla in a clean f100.

 

[bobbywalter]

or maybe.....a eco whizzer

 

[JoshT]

...and that's where I derail my own thread...

i would have a hard time not putting a godzilla in a clean f100.

It's far from clean, but that's definitely on the list of possibilities.

The truck came with (and still has) the 360 FE backed by an NP435 and Dana 21 transfer case. Not a bad engine, not the best either. Currently estimated to be 300k+ miles and it's still running strong (albeit well worn), but the sniper EFI that I installed could stand to be tuned by someone that knows what they're doing. I'll run it til it quits, but I hope to have a plan in place when that happens. Given that I currently only drive it a few hundred miles a year, it'll hopefully last a long time.

In the interim I'd like to add overdrive and two speed transfer case. A quirk of the F-100 4x4 w/ NP435 is that it actually uses the 2wd version of the transmission. There isn't aaren't any good transfer case options that will bolt up in place of the Dana 21, so to get two speed transfer case I'm changing transmissions anyway. If I've got to buy a transmission I might as well buy something newer, with overdrive, and easier to source.

Easiest options for a manual OD transmission behind the FE appeart to be the NV4500 and the ZF5/6. I can definitely get an adapter for the NV4500. Nothing is directly marketed as being for the ZF-5/6 transmissions, but I can get an adapter to other bell patterns. The ZF5 was found behind the 460 and SBF, or alteast the 351w, and I can definitely get an adapter for those. The ZF6 was available with the modular motor pattern (possibly the ZF5 too) and could be found behind the 5.8L V8 and 6.? V10 int he F-250 and F-350. I can definitely get adapters to any of those transmissions.

Part of me wants to keep an FE in it. Either do a basic rebuild to a 390, or go crazy and build up to a 428/445 stroker. Keep some of the old school. My major concerns is parts availability. I wany to be unconcerned with hopping in it and driving across country. If I broke down somewhere needing engine parts for the FE, I'm liable to be waiting a day or two for parts, and that's kind of a best case. Worst case, it's much longer or I have to rent a uhaul truck and trailer to tow it back home. Then there's the price, any way I build it, by the time I throw the parts I wanted at it I'd have near or over 10K invested in the engine.

Alternatively, I could buy a low miles 7.3 godzilla, drop it in stock and probably be happy with the performance for quite a while. I could probably do it for the same price as the rebuilding the FE and have some change left. I'd trust it more driving cross country and it would get better gas mileage on the way. If I did encounter any issues, I could get parts at almost any parts store.

Now bringing it back around to the transmission. I'm leaning towards the ZF6 although many people might say that the NV is better. Primary reason? The 7.3 Godzilla also uses the mod motor pattern. If I do the swap on the FE now, I could use the same transmission with the 7.3 later. It's more than strong enough in stock form, and I'm already used to the shift pattern from having one behind the 7.3 PSD in the F-250. I shouldn't have too much trouble selling off the adapter when the time comes.

 

[bobbywalter]

divorced 205. or a divorced 203 for fulltime.


there is no comparing a fe to a godzilla in standard forms....even a scj. maybe a properly constructed 428. i did like my 428 i put in a 77 cougar. it was mild...but too many years have passed to really be solid on opinion. it ran some high 12's in the 80s which was super hero stuff then. but it gobbled fuel down at a terrible rate. the cuda was quicker and easier on fuel.


compared to godzilla though. bone stock godzilla would just clobber it.


dollar for dollar and time being key. but. a haltech or holley hp tuned by someone that is top tier with a 428 build would be something to smile about. i suspect with a 10 speed behind it its possible to give godzilla a run.

tough call.

 

[JoshT]

or maybe.....a eco whizzer

I have given some consideration as to where to stick one of those as well, but it isn't in the F-100. The 85 Ranger in my signature is a 4 banger. I haven't started messing with it yet and will try to get it running wit the stock 2.3L 4 cylinder.

I want to build a Lima 2.3t for it. I've never played with forced induction and I want that to be my guinea pig. Honestly at this point the ecoboost would probably be cheaper and easier, but that's just installing an already built package. I want the experience of prepping the engine and doing the turbo swap. The formula has already been pretty well worked out for the Lima, so it should be relatively easy if I can follow the existing examples. When/if that fails, I'll definintely explore putting an ecoboost in it.

Hell, it might succeed then I get tired of the transmission options and ecoboost it anyway.