88’ Raingutter Ranger

[MTSuarez]

Might be the angle but the track width looks nuts..

It’s too wide. Don’t know how my measurements got messed up when I bought the same beams but wider to account for the wider rear end. I’ll be shortening the beams.

 

[MTSuarez]

If he is actually going for 88 wms to wms like he said above, that’s super wide. My 4.5 over A arm kit puts me at 69” (haha no really) wms to wms on my 1G Tacoma.

Widest kit I know of pushes a 92” track width. I’d be fine with getting 88-90” which seems to be the new “standard” on rangers

 

[the bodj]

I’m at 82ish” on my +4.5” sonoma and it fits on trails really nicely.

 

[4xFoorOffroad]

Ok track width makes sense - WMS is the wheel mounting surface (hub / rotor face etc.)

 

[MTSuarez]

Ok track width makes sense - WMS is the wheel mounting surface (hub / rotor face etc.)

Correct, I misspoke

 

[4xFoorOffroad]

But to the original comment - these 80’s / 90’s era designs are so much narrower than even trucks from the 2000’s they can make parts look super large yet still have almost the same track width as the newer models.

 

[MTSuarez]

Update for the build so far:

Dropped the transmission off at Culhane over in Lake Elsinore to get torn down for maintenance.

While that is getting worked on, sat down at the computer and started designing my rear pivot boxes. I had drawn up something similar a few years back for my ranger, went back and altered different measurements to find an anti-squat number I was content with. I had already welded up two different sets of lower/upper link mounts and tossed both out. Anyone with a ranger knows achieving decent triangulation is quite difficult when mounting upper links within the frame rails, and with my lower links being 60" the spread was even worse.

I had planned on utilizing the kicked frame rails/fuel cell carrier I welded together from Haddon Motorsports (which would have been a lot easier). Hoping this is the right direction even though it puts me several steps backward.