Bench build/hypothetical shock set up for first gen explorer

[HarrisConcepts]

Hey all,
So i have been pondering some different shock/ suspension options for a 4 door 4wd first gen explorer. For the sake of discussion, d44 full size swap on the front, traditional 4 link in the rear. Primary use will be trail exploration, light pre-running/ chase/ spectating for 4 full size adults and a cooler etc. im wondering if a single 3” coil over, and air bump would be sufficient? Maybe stepping up to an IBP option? I remember some of the older si/newline/kibbe/plank rangers and f150’s ( grey truck/ big bird maybe) ran a single c/o up front and some on the rear also. They may have had a super wazoo race shock im not familiar with. Im not looking to smash Barstow main, but just thinking about packaging limitations with the suv. Any thoughts and opions are appreciated.

 

[the bodj]

It doesn’t take much to get these to work awesome. A single coilover will do a lot, an IBP will do even more. Cookcraft has been developing stuff for this platform that seems to work great.

 

[84projectFORD]

Very hard to beat a single 3.0 king ibp. That’s all I’m running on the front of mine with a 2.0 bump to help out but even then, I don’t know that it’s really required. I just had them from a previous purchase years ago

 

[HarrisConcepts]

Absolutely! Ive seen several builds with a single shock up front, but was curious if a larger diameter, single shock would hang on the rear. And i get there are a ton of factors ( motion ratio, vehicle weight, tire size, driving style etc) that will play into the performance/ longevity etc. thanks for the input

 

[DialedShockPrep]

Absolutely yes. Two of my good friends have built fullsize trucks that ran a single 3.0” coilover in the rear with a 4” bump and they worked very well. Granted you don’t get the progression through the travel like you do a bypass shock but with that said they could both still go down Main at a decent pace, and cruise thought most stuff pretty comfortably. Really rough square edge hits they don’t favor too well due to not having a “bump zone”, and big rolling G outs same deal. BUT as long as you have +12” up travel in the rear from ride height it’ll work well regardless. Definitely better than a leaf setup

 

[HarrisConcepts]

Thanks for the info! I will shoot for the 12” mark on up travel, i am planning on staying with 35’s for now, but will most likely will try to trim/build for 37”s so i have the option in the future. From what i can tell, full bump on a big tire will be REAL close to the bottom of rear side windows. So we’ll see how that goes

 

[Chancegoodman]

I mean if you are up for a challenge you could go with a mezzanine arm set up on the rear I’ve seen a few suv type run them and they work really well

 

[HarrisConcepts]

I have thought alot about some type of mezzanine arm or a bellcrank set up, and depending on how far the snow ball rolls out of control, it is somthing i may look at more seriously. I remember a couple explorers from SD area, i caro fabworks built one and trac performance the other that were both mezzi armed, and were pretty cool. This will all be garage fab (Cardboard Aided Design), so i am a bit leary of the geometrical nightmare of mezzi/ bellcrank/ cantilever stuff, but it may be a good option