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.

 

[MTSuarez]

Alright, been a good minute. Decided to take on the challenge of designing a "full tube" chassis for the ranger that will allow the parts I have to bolt directly on. Got tired of dealing with out of square frame rails and the cage work was subpar in regards to safety. Ill be uploading the work I've done over the last few months.

Current Parts:
- 302 Small Block/C6 Transmission
- Threat Motorsports Beams, Custom Radius Arms, Blitzkrieg Knuckles, Camburg 2.5" Snouts/Hubs
- 4.0" Camburg Housing with 2.5" Snouts/Hubs
- King 2.5"x14" Coilovers, King 3.0"x16" Coilovers, King 4.5" 9 Tube Bypasses
- TE Designs 60" Lower Links

Attempting to keep all suspension mounts and tube work flush to the bottom of the cab. Ranger will retain the original 125" wheelbase and a track width of 86-88". Have a scanned 88 Ranger Cab that this is being designed around and started with DIY Offroad's cage for the ranger. In hindsight I didn't need to since 95% of the tubes from the file I deleted to redesign the layout.

 

[FasterNU]

60" links are super long... you going to do a single piece driveshaft?

pivot boxes gonna be in the cab too?

 

[85Yota]

Yeah 88" WMS to WMS is super wider. Dually fullsize trucks are usually 72" WMS to WMS. 88" wide WMS to WMS will result in close to 100" wide outside tire to outside tire, which is unacceptable.

 

[FasterNU]

I have notes of course. lol.

WMS:
A stock 94 ranger was 66.375" Front and 67.75" Rear

**EDIT: pretty sure I took those measurements above.. but i find info online showing the WMS on the ford 8.8 to only be 58.5"!? hmmm

G4 is 74.125" Front and 72" Rear.
With my wheels/tires I am at 86.875" front and 84.75" Rear. It's pretty wide. I needed 10" McNeil glass to clear everything without kicking bedsides out.

 

[MTSuarez]

Yeah 88" WMS to WMS is super wider. Dually fullsize trucks are usually 72" WMS to WMS. 88" wide WMS to WMS will result in close to 100" wide outside tire to outside tire, which is unacceptable.

It’s 88 Track width, not WMS

 

[MTSuarez]

60" links are super long... you going to do a single piece driveshaft?

pivot boxes gonna be in the cab too?

Single piece. Transmission will be mounted such that the u-joint is in line with the link mount pivots. Pivot boxes will be in the cab correct. I can upload another photo with the cab scan so you can better visualize it.

 

[85Yota]

depending on wheels that's still width WMS at around 75" WMS to WMS with method's and 12.50 tires

 

[MTSuarez]

depending on wheels that's still width WMS at around 75" WMS to WMS with method's and 12.50 tires

Correct. Not much of a change for me since my last front end was already 84”. Even at a 86” trackwidth, some ranger “kits” are as wide as 92” (ie. Quixotic Motorsports)

 

[85Yota]

Yeah my Tacoma kit is 86" wide. My 68 ford is 94" wide and I need a wider rear axle since that's too narrow compared to the front as well.

 

[MTSuarez]

Yeah my Tacoma kit is 86" wide. My 68 ford is 94" wide and I need a wider rear axle since that's too narrow compared to the front as well.

Yea I was almost in the same boat, honestly the only reason why this project snowballed so fast. Got a new rear end that was wider than my front, went to match it by fabricating wider beams. Quite the love/hate relationship

 

[MTSuarez]

As I went through the design phase, realized that most work relied on having the front mocked up. I had a less accurate file I made for the Threat Beams but wanted to ensure it was all to spec. Ended up using a free 3D app called "KIRI Engine" and although it wasn't pretty, the STL file was easy to slice and get an accurate model of the beam. Scaled it to size and rechecked measurements within a 1/16" or so. I already had designed my radius arms (in previous post) in CAD so I was able to use them to start cycling suspension and locate where the mounts need to go.