1st Gen 4wd to 95-97 Ranger Brake Swap Info/Parts List

[Carguy3J]

..It is still a common error about Rangers throughout the parts industry that the Ranger continued with the D28 after 90...They did not...

This thread has some useful info on the Hybrid Dana 28/35 differences..
http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256656&highlight=hybrid




This mis-information in the parts guides can also be found sometimes when looking up stock parts for the 91-94 X..

..Ford had an inventory of Dana 28 gears and what better way to use them up than make a Hybrid..

..It is also hard to convince people that Ford also moves parts over to the new models of a transition year in order to use them up and it also explains why transition year wiring doesn't always match up with the color charts..

Oh I know all too well how screwed up many parts listings are. (rear axle bearings - Ranger 8.8, for instance). I also have no trouble accepting that Ford (or any other car company) would gladly make a few years worth of franken-trucks/cars to save a few pennies each.

From the page you linked:

Side Note:
It is common for the vehicles that have the Hybrid Dana 35 to also have a 7.5 rear axle while the vehicles with the true Dana 35 will have the 8.8 rear axle


What years had the "Hybrid"

...The "Hybrid" Dana 35 can only be found on 93-97 Rangers with 2.3L and some 3.0L engines and they usually had 3.73 or 4.10 gears...The "Hybrid" can also be found on 90 - 97 Ford Aerostar AWD's...The hybrid is a considerable upgrade from the old Dana 28, as that from the first U joint out of the pumpkin, it is all Dana 35.

So, it sounds like I was right, in my suspicion that what Hollander lists as a D28, is the hybrid, and is most likely going to show up in the 2.3L, and possibly 3.0L trucks.

Of course, the other issue is that Hollander does not list interchange info for the KNUCKLE. They only list the SPINDLE. Now, in most vehicles these terms refer to the same part; being the big "chunk" of suspension we call the knuckle. (At least within the auto salvage industry) In the case of the Ranger/Explorers, while the spindle does fit/interchange between both vehicles, and through a wider variety of years, the knuckle does not. Its difficult to try to explain to the "knuckle" draggers at most salvage yards that the almighty Hollander is wrong. I would highly recommend not even trying to explain that it is for a swap project. Many of them, once they hear you want it for an "experiment" they will refuse to sell it.


What about the questions I posed, regarding ABS? Any info on that?

 

[Tbars4]

..I have gone to Ford to get a schematic of my front knuckle and out and it read for a 95 Ranger as needed...

..The picture is of a 91-94 Explorer knuckle with slide pins and I had to explain it tothe rep that those parts are not for my 95 Ranger..

..as for the ABS question I'm not sure...I know I swap parts out between the Ranger and the X and neither truck knows the difference..

 

[Scott B.]

...Also, '95-'97 came with and without Front ABS. I would be installing this on a '93 Ranger without ABS, so does it matter if I get ABS or Non-ABS donor parts? If I get the w/ ABS donor parts, can I just leave off the ABS parts (sensor and "tone" ring behind rotor), or are they somehow not compatible?

The difference in knuckles between ABS and non-ABS is the presence of a hole to mount the ABS sensor. On a '93, without front ABS (the '93s have rear ABS) either knuckle should work just fine.

I am not positive, but am pretty sure all '95 and up knuckles have the ABS sensor hole (I can't check mine, as they are in the shop being blasted.)

 

[adamsbro2]

The difference in knuckles between ABS and non-ABS is the presence of a hole to mount the ABS sensor. On a '93, without front ABS (the '93s have rear ABS) either knuckle should work just fine.

I am not positive, but am pretty sure all '95 and up knuckles have the ABS sensor hole (I can't check mine, as they are in the shop being blasted.)

Mine are from a 95 mazda b4000 same as ranger and have the abs hole but it works just fine. I have removed all the abs front and rear from mine.

 

[Carguy3J]

OK, cool. Good to know. I won't be doing this anytime soon, as I am flat-broke, and not working, but at some point I will. The front rotors and pads were done recently, and both calipers are less then a year old, so I'll have to wait at least until it needs brakes again. I'm also not really in the mood for another alignment, so there's that too.

But, like I said, its good to know for future reference.

 

[jd4242]

Ok, now someone else said that the Mazda trucks would work also, which makes sense. BUT, I'm still confused on some details. According to car-part.com (which uses the Hollander interchange), the '95-'97 models came with either a D28 or a D35 front axle. Now, are those D28's actually all hybrids, using the same knuckles as the D35? I'm guessing yes, since I doubt the 2.3L trucks would have come with a true D35, and its said that the 2.3L trucks are valid donors. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Also, '95-'97 came with and without Front ABS. I would be installing this on a '93 Ranger without ABS, so does it matter if I get ABS or Non-ABS donor parts? If I get the w/ ABS donor parts, can I just leave off the ABS parts (sensor and "tone" ring behind rotor), or are they somehow not compatible?

Are you talking about putting this on your 2wd ranger, because all that info would be different. Also you can use 12"sport trac rotors instead of stock 10.25" but would need a bracket.

 

[Carguy3J]

Are you talking about putting this on your 2wd ranger, because all that info would be different. Also you can use 12"sport trac rotors instead of stock 10.25" but would need a bracket.

No, my Ranger is 4x4.
Tell me more about these Sport Trac 12" rotors.
What years fit?
By needing a bracket, I assume you mean a caliper bracket? What would be a good donor for that?
Will these 12" Rotors fit inside a stock '93 Ranger 15" aluminum wheel?

What about calipers? Are they different too?

If the calipers/pads are the same as the 10.25" rotor, then I don't see a whole lot of benefit. The "swept" area would stay the same, so braking power won't improve. The extra mass would dissipate a bit more heat, and improve fade resistance, but ultimate stopping power would stay the same, or maybe even decrease due to the extra rotational mass.

 

[Tbars4]

..A thread of it's own would be great as it would be an awesome new topic and it would keep from mucking up this awesome thread too..

 

[jd4242]

..A thread of it's own would be great as it would be an awesome new topic and it would keep from mucking up this awesome thread too..

agreed,sorry

2wd 12" swap
http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3161701#post3161701

 

[Tbars4]

..I just updated this threads title as there is now another similar thread title for the 2wd Explorer's, and in hopes to lessen the confusion of the two similar titled thread's..

 

[Carguy3J]

So, to clarify, there is no 12" rotor option (using stock parts) for the 4x4 vehicles, right?

This would makes sense, since anything later, that might have come w/ 12" rotors stock, is going to have a "late-model" hub/bearing assembly, as opposed to the bearings being in the rotor like the earlier trucks.

 

[jd4242]

So, to clarify, there is no 12" rotor option (using stock parts) for the 4x4 vehicles, right?

This would makes sense, since anything later, that might have come w/ 12" rotors stock, is going to have a "late-model" hub/bearing assembly, as opposed to the bearings being in the rotor like the earlier trucks.

03-05 ST and sport were the only ones to get 12" everything else I believe are 11.25" as far as I know there is no "big" rotor option for the first gen 4x4

 

[Tbars4]

...Well..:scratch:..You could do a Dana 44 TTB outers upgrade to a first gen 4wd and get 13" rotors but we'll save that for another thread...

..The first post of this thread has a link to a brake upgrades discussion and it holds some other information too..

 

[Carguy3J]

Ok guys. I think I am going to be doing this shortly. I need at least one ball joint, and a wheel bearing or two, thanks to a local road that might as well have been a bombed out runway, prior to the completion of paving last week. So, might as well do it now. Plus, my current pad/caliper guides are pretty beat.

So, I'm getting the knuckles from a salvage yard later today. Ball joints and wheel bearings are the same as my '93 4x4, so I'm good there. Brake pads are easy enough.

Couple things I need clarified, as well as looking for opinions:

ROTORS:
I do NOT have ABS on my '93 Ranger 4x4. NONE, not even rear ABS.
So, front rotors listed for a '95 Ranger either with OR without ABS will work, correct? I think the ones WITH the ABS ring are actually cheaper though, so I can just yank out the ring right? (Do I HAVE to remove it? I seem to recall somebody saying something about it rubbing on something?)

No way my existing '93 rotors will work right? (I was hoping to maybe minimize the initial cost and use them for a little while)

I was leaning towards the Centric C-TEK drilled and slotted rotors (which are listed as rear ABS only anyway). Any thought on these? I put a lot of weight in the truck, so I thought maybe drilled/slotted would help with heat dissipation. Has the old issue of drilled rotors cracking been resolved? Should I just stick to a good quality "regular" rotor?

BRAKE HOSES:

I THINK what I gathered from all this in the post, is that I can retain my existing '93 front hoses, but grinding a little off the corner on the caliper end will allow for a different "clocking" and easier installation. Is this correct? I also looked at some info on TRS, which seems to contradict, requiring '97 only non-abs hoses? If I DO need to replace the front hoses, can someone please clarify, exactly what application I need, for my '93 4x4 Ranger, NO ABS.

MASTER CYLINDER:

I think I will kind of need a new master cylinder soon anyway. The reservoir has a slight leak at the seam between the top and bottom half of the plastic "casting". I guess I could just do a new reservoir, but I don't like the idea of messing with those seals. So, do I use a '93 m/c, or a '95?
I know people in this thread have said they kept the older one, BUT, the older m/c is listed as a bore diameter of 1", whereas the later '95 master cylinder is listed as 1-1/16" This makes sense, as the dual pistons have a larger "swept" area/volume then the older single piston. Hence, they need more fluid movement from the master cylinder. Does anybody see any problems with switching to the later master cylinder? Will my existing pedal/pushrod be ok? Is the firewall mounting the same? The bolt location, from pictures, looks the same, but what about the mounted angle? Are the brake line fittings the same, and front/rear reservoir in the same location?

 

[Benjam]

Any rotor will work,ABS or not. I have the abs rotors on with no abs and no issues with the tone ring or anything.

IIRC the new rotors are thicker so I'm unsure if you could use your old rotors..I'd suggest getting the proper rotors for the application.

I can't say on the brake hoses because I had and kept my stainless braided hoses.

You can use your master cylinder with no problems. I ran into problems with a low pedal because my rear drums were out of adjustment.

Best of luck! It's pretty straight forward and a great improvement.

Benjam

 

[Naasau]

Rotors will have to be changed. The hat height is off by about an inch. The brake lines should be fine, my stainless for a '93 fit great.

Remember to get new bearings and races for the new rotors, it is totally worth it.

As for the MC, I have done the disk conversion on the back, and the dual piston up front, and kept the stock MC. With 16" steelies holding 33" MT's, I can lock up all four wheels easily. . . Enough that I have to be careful driving in winter.

 

[Carguy3J]

Rotors will have to be changed. The hat height is off by about an inch. The brake lines should be fine, my stainless for a '93 fit great.

Remember to get new bearings and races for the new rotors, it is totally worth it.

As for the MC, I have done the disk conversion on the back, and the dual piston up front, and kept the stock MC. With 16" steelies holding 33" MT's, I can lock up all four wheels easily. . . Enough that I have to be careful driving in winter.

Thanks for the confirmation on the rotors/hoses.

Part of your early lockup could be due to the old m/c. Drum brakes require more PRESSURE, whereas discs require more VOLUME. So, keeping your drum rear m/c is sending more pressure to the rear calipers then they were meant to have. Same with the front, in that the 2 piston calipers will require more VOLUME, and slightly less pressure then the equivalent single piston. Running more "normal" size tires, with less rotational mass to resist lockup, would probably be even worse.

I understand many of you are using the old 1 piston/drum rear m/c with 2 piston fronts and/or disc rear. You may be "getting away with it". Technically, though, there are good solid technical reasons why its the wrong thing to do. Disc and drum brakes have different hydraulic requirements, and truly custom "proper" aftermarket brake systems have carefully selected/sized m/c , factoring in many variables.

So, can anyone offer some good semi-technical discussion, regarding the difference in m/c sizes I mentioned previously, and how it may affect this swap? Also, solid comments on any differences in the '93 vs. '95 m/c mounting,etc...?

While I appreciate the input, I don't think more of the "I did it and I didn't die, so it must be perfectly ok." type of stuff is really going to add much here. How about explaining/defending WHY you did and WHY/HOW it works, from a technical standpoint?

 

[Naasau]

When I was looking into it, the '95 ranger and 93 explorer had the same part number for the MC. Seeing that, I called it a day.

If that isn't correct, and there is a difference in the sucker, than doing the change sounds like a solid choice.

 

[Carguy3J]

When I was looking into it, the '95 ranger and 93 explorer had the same part number for the MC. Seeing that, I called it a day.

If that isn't correct, and there is a difference in the sucker, than doing the change sounds like a solid choice.

I'm not sure about '93 EXPLORER. I compared '93 Ranger, to '95 Ranger. According to Rock Auto (and the numerous manufacturers of m/c they offer), they are definitely different part numbers. There are further breakdowns for w/ or w/o ABS and w/ or w/o cruise control (not sure why on that one?)

Also, according to all the listings on Rock Auto, the '93 Ranger has 1" bore m/c, while the '95 Ranger has a 1-1/16" bore. While I'm not an expert, from what I recall of previous related research/reading a long time ago, that 1/16" difference in m/c bore size can actually cause a significant change in brake systems characteristics. For the same amount of pedal stroke, the larger bore will move more volume of fluid, but at a lower pressure.

 

[jd4242]

Thanks for the confirmation on the rotors/hoses.

Part of your early lockup could be due to the old m/c. Drum brakes require more PRESSURE, whereas discs require more VOLUME. So, keeping your drum rear m/c is sending more pressure to the rear calipers then they were meant to have. Same with the front, in that the 2 piston calipers will require more VOLUME, and slightly less pressure then the equivalent single piston. Running more "normal" size tires, with less rotational mass to resist lockup, would probably be even worse.

I understand many of you are using the old 1 piston/drum rear m/c with 2 piston fronts and/or disc rear. You may be "getting away with it". Technically, though, there are good solid technical reasons why its the wrong thing to do. Disc and drum brakes have different hydraulic requirements, and truly custom "proper" aftermarket brake systems have carefully selected/sized m/c , factoring in many variables.

So, can anyone offer some good semi-technical discussion, regarding the difference in m/c sizes I mentioned previously, and how it may affect this swap? Also, solid comments on any differences in the '93 vs. '95 m/c mounting,etc...?

While I appreciate the input, I don't think more of the "I did it and I didn't die, so it must be perfectly ok." type of stuff is really going to add much here. How about explaining/defending WHY you did and WHY/HOW it works, from a technical standpoint?

When I did it I did rear disc at the same time.I have always preached that you need to run a different mc (95)when doing the rear swap.I did it for the same reasons you listed.also I do have some technical info somewhere about it.its not just about volume but something like pre-pressure or stroke length of the mc plunger and how much is sent to where and timing. I forget the hard facts.the dual pistons don't equal much more than the single if I remember but the rear is totally different. May be why some get away with pre95 for just front swap.

All I do know is that if you do the rear swap the 95mc works perfectly and does feel different. The pre-95 will work but its just not right.if you do it with pre 95mc and compare the life and feeling your understand, compared to a 95mc truck.

To me I would use a 95+ ranger mc for the front swap and a explorer 95mc when doing rear or both at same time.