91 expo on full widths | Page 3 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

91 expo on full widths

this is my 91 ford explorer on 79 braonco axles. full size dana 44 and 9 inch. i used the cage early bronco coils in the front and the stock leafs in the rear with a shackle. i extended the radius arms 12 inches and added a 1 1/4 hiems at the end. hope ya like. any quesation please ask.

brandonexplorer-2.jpg

brandonexplorer.jpg

b4.jpg

b5.jpg
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Your face should only change when your on one tire....lol

Keep telling yourself that burns...i only had one in the air two weekends ago and i practically **** my pants :D, but it was basically at a standstill on three tires sideways on a hill for five minutes opposed to driving right through it like it looks happened in this guys picture.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





i was meaning more on how much lift are the springs rated at?
 












Keep telling yourself that burns...i only had one in the air two weekends ago and i practically **** my pants :D, but it was basically at a standstill on three tires sideways on a hill for five minutes opposed to driving right through it like it looks happened in this guys picture.

Hey i have done that before....lol I have been on two and its just weird. :thumbsup:
 






Word on the street is Brandon is selling this beast. :cool: If anyone is interested.
 






actually i decided to keep it. just got done with the gears and lockers, besides the broken shaft i love it. so im going with some 37's and doing a little fixin up and gonna roll with it
 






Cool truck. I live in sac too and am in the middle of my SAS. We should go wheeling sometime.
 






quick ? ive built a few rangers now and sased all of them but i have small blocks in them. my 87 had the stock drive train and i snapped the front output inside the t-case because the ds slip slid to far out. do they make a syi kit for there t-cases or is there a t-case with a fixed front output or an i fuked.
 






a manual 1354 t-case has fixed yokes.
 






so does my electric one
 






mine dosent. Nor does anyone else I know. Post pics.
 






quick ? ive built a few rangers now and sased all of them but i have small blocks in them. my 87 had the stock drive train and i snapped the front output inside the t-case because the ds slip slid to far out. do they make a syi kit for there t-cases or is there a t-case with a fixed front output or an i fuked.

You have a 1350. Get a 1354.
 






mine dosent. Nor does anyone else I know. Post pics.

really? i wonder why...this is the electric 1354 right? im putting my 8.8 in on sunday ill put up a pick of the yokes...
 






really? i wonder why...this is the electric 1354 right? im putting my 8.8 in on sunday ill put up a pick of the yokes...

there are 1354 manual shift cases too...

from 84-88 all had the 1350 with the slip yoke front shaft..
from 88-92 its mixed but almost all 4.0L had a 1354 fixed yoke some manual some electric
92-96 all had fixed yoke..some manual some electric..(from what I can find)

the other diffrences are the cases themselves..slight diffrences in the 1354 cases..and some had 6 gear planetarys but most had 4 gear planetarys..
 






Any close up pics on how you build your arms ?
 






What is the advantage of going full width axles versus chopping the front axle down and keeping it close to the same width as stock? I'm talking more than just the obvious, like roll over prevention and center of gravity. Is it just personal preference, or is there something else?
 






wider is better, you answered your own question

wider track width = lower center of gravity

when you shorten your full width axle you also require custom parts like an axleshaft, keeping them full width you do not
 






Wider has some drawbacks -- like its more difficult to move around on tight trails (between trees for example). The wider the axle, technically the greater chance it has of hitting the differentials on a rock because there's less chance that the tires are straddling the same rock that the differential is about to run into. Look at rock buggies, their track width is VERY narrow and both of their differentials are often very close to one of the tires to minimize the chances of a rock hitting the diff. However, these principles does not necessarily work for an Explorer because, unlike a rock buggy, an Explorer's center of gravity is a lot higher.

I probably have one of wider Explorers on here with full widths + 2.25" backspacing and during our last run @ Rausch Creek, it was somewhat a challenge to get my Explorers between three trees. But the driver also has some influence because he/she should know the best line for his/her vehicle.
 









Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





It seems like there would be more fabrication work for spring mounts and radius arm mounts and such. Wouldn't it be a much more straight forward install to just keep it simple and keep it EB width? I like the fact of having the passenger side EB width and only having to buy EB axles. Do any of you know the exact measurement to chop off the passenger side to get it to equal the length of an EB passenger side? If I can get a housing for cheap, I would put in all new internals, and wouldn't want to get the stock shaft cut and re-splined.
 






Back
Top