Extras on the Mountaineer vs Explorer axle?

[SoNic67]

Usually I would agree with you, the designers/engineers know whats best for their application, but they also do make mistakes, and they work under multiple constraints - cost cutting, fuel economy, in addition to functionality / durability.

So... in your opinion, here they made the mistake of specifying a too cheap part too - Synth 75W140 - as opposed of what OP uses based on his "mechanic" suggestion?

 

[FourBinLabs]

Being the OP, I did not pick my gear oil based on a mechanic suggestion. I picked it based on my knowledge of lubricants and specific application for the vehicle that it was being used in, something the ford engineers could know nothing about.

Just as so many members choose to run tire sizes that are not specified by ford. Different application, different equipment.

 

[masospaghetti]

So... in your opinion, here they made the mistake of specifying a too cheap part too - Synth 75W140 - as opposed of what OP uses based on his "mechanic" suggestion?

It would be for fuel economy reasons, not expense (since the synthetic is obviously more expensive).

Some folks claim that a conventional gear lubricant provides better protection than synthetic with agrees with what my mechanic told me. See here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2876523

and

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/926/gear-oils

Do I believe them? Maybe, but my point was just that Ford engineers 1) can be wrong and 2) may have priorities other than durability in mind.

 

[SoNic67]

Well then... in this case the cost argument obviously is not correct.
Then it remains that they are just stupid and they spec randomly the 75W140 (extremely hard to find) when a 80W90 it was better. Really?

I guess everyone can have an opinion today, regardless of their technical education... I already explained that what might be true for a open diff is not true for a LS. Using thinner oil in it will severely affect the LS capability. Your 'mechanics' probably didn't perform any real tests (like those stupid engineers), it just repeats what he heard from others...

 

[masospaghetti]

Well then... in this case the cost argument obviously is not correct.
Then it remains that they are just stupid and they spec randomly the 75W140 (extremely hard to find) when a 80W90 it was better. Really?

75w-140 is not hard to find. I was comparing 85w-140 conventional, not 80w-90.

I guess everyone can have an opinion today, regardless of their technical education... I already explained that what might be true for a open diff is not true for a LS. Using thinner oil in it will severely affect the LS capability. Your 'mechanics' probably didn't perform any real tests (like those stupid engineers), it just repeats what he heard from others...

You are really quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees as an idiot. If you compare Valvoline 85w-140 conventional to 75w-140 synthetic the conventional is thicker and more viscous. Will this harm fuel economy? I'm sure it does.

Cst @ 40 C (conventional / synthetic): 394 / 171
Cst @ 100 C (conventional / synthetic): 28.1 / 25.8

 

[SoNic67]

Come on now...
The original discussion was about 80W90. This is the first time when 85W140 is mentioned.

 

[masospaghetti]

A local shop recommended non-synthetic 80w-140+LSD additive instead of the synthetic oil, they said it provides better protection. Just FYI, the shop seems like they know what they are doing and have a good reputation here.

Quoting myself from post #7 .

To be fair, I said 80w-140, not 85w-140, but I think the point is still valid.

 

[Carguy3J]

If this vehicle in question is used exclusively in the winter, then all the more reason to use the specified 75w140 Synthetic. After an overnight cold "soak" the 75w140 synthetic will begin to flow and lubricate much quicker/sooner then a higher viscosity conventional.
Also, Ford did ORIGINALLY specify the 80w-90, but they then realized that it was leading to increased warranty claims (ie, things were wearing out too quickly), so they issued TSB's with updated specs, to the 75w140.
Besides the technical reasons, full-synthetic gear oil does not have that signature perma-stink that conventional gear oil does. That alone is worth it.

You should be running the 75w140 synthetic, if you care about doing things the "right" way when it comes to your vehicle. If you are of the hillbilly engineering, "run it till she ain't gots no 'mor liiiffe ta geeeve" then throw whatever you want in it. What the hell, use dish detergent. Its kinda slippery right?

Same as the genius and his buddies running 15w40 in the motor specifying 5w30. Unless your motor is ALREADY shot and knocking, using an oil that thick IS harmful, and will lead to premature wear. Especially in winter/cold weather. It takes much longer to flow to and lubricate critical surfaces at startup. It puts more pressure on seals, and makes your motor work harder to overcome increased internal drag. Its fine for a "big truck" diesel, designed for it. But if the oem says 5w30, then you can bet that the oil passages and various clearances are tighter, and intended/designed for that viscosity oil. The seals are meant to seal under the oil pressures the system is designed to produce. You go and throw such a "heavier" oil in there, and you just raised the pressure significantly, possibly leading to premature seal failures/leaks. Of course, then you'll just think you need even thicker oil, or "motor honey", to stop the leaks you caused.

 

[Carguy3J]

Fyi you can order them new from the dealer and at a pretty good price($49)most of the ones around the bushing is shot or worn real bad on one side(see SoNic67 pictures above) .I believe it was the 2wd and with the m5hd.

Good thread with pics


http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3213259#post3213259

I wonder if they could be adapted to a '93 Ranger, and if there would be any benefits?

 

[jd4242]

I wonder if they could be adapted to a '93 Ranger, and if there would be any benefits?

You mean like this↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ you have to move them inward from where they are on a ex tho.ranger frame is narrower. Big benefits over stock.I cut my mounts on the plasma table, same specs as stock..o only will work if your spring under tho..if your spring over its best to just run the james duff ones..

 

[koda2000]

oooo, pretty!

 

[Carguy3J]

Cool. Are the mounts themselves still available new? (Especially the frame mounts) Is it me or do those links look an awful lot like the stock swaybar end links (for a '93 Ranger)?

 

[jd4242]

Cool. Are the mounts themselves still available new? Is it me or do those links look an awful lot like the stock swaybar end links (for a '93 Ranger)?

The mounts you will have to get from jy.check edit also..you gota be sua for them to work otherwise its best to run james duff bars...end links?? Which ones? Thats a 98 5.0 explorer rear end, leaves and sway bar.it uses jeep sway bar end links and was totally rebuilt with ford racing partsexplorer sway bar links wont work,too wide/offset and long.and thats a B2 gas tank

 

[Carguy3J]

I was referring to the stock '93 Ranger rear sway bar end link :
http://www.autozone.com/autozone/catalog/common/enlargedImageOverlay.jsp?prodDescription=Duralast/Sway+Bar+Repair+Kit&imageURLList=%5Bhttp%3A//contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/ksm/SL549/image/%5D&prodImageURL=http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/ksm/SL549/image/

What about a "wrap around" mount, for SOA, where the mount actually attached to underside of the axle tube, but then wrapped around the whole tube/spring/spring plate, so the link itself was still attached in the same position as yours? Would that work, or would the physics be different?

 

[jd4242]

I was referring to the stock '93 Ranger rear sway bar end link :
http://www.autozone.com/autozone/catalog/common/enlargedImageOverlay.jsp?prodDescription=Duralast/Sway+Bar+Repair+Kit&imageURLList=%5Bhttp%3A//contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/ksm/SL549/image/%5D&prodImageURL=http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/ksm/SL549/image/

What about a "wrap around" mount, for SOA, where the mount actually attached to underside of the axle tube, but then wrapped around the whole tube/spring/spring plate, so the link itself was still attached in the same position as yours? Would that work, or would the physics be different?

93 rangers dont come with rear sway bars(edit I guess they do...its a very rare option, that pic from autozone looks to be same as a explorer link).most people run a b2 sway bar..

I cant visually see what your referring to.they make so many different ways of attaching bars tho.I know the jd ones are cheap and direct bolt on..or you talking about sway bars not track bars?sorry its been a LONG 3 days..

 

[Carguy3J]

93 rangers dont come with rear sway bars...its a very rare option and dont think it was available till like 98ish.most people run a b2 sway bar..

I cant visually see what your referring to.they make so many different ways of attaching bars tho.I know the jd ones are cheap and direct bolt on..or you talking about sway bars not track bars?sorry its been a LONG 3 days..

Ummm. I have to call you on that one. My '93 Ranger most definitely did come with a rear sway bar. Its been off for about a year, as the original one rusted under the bushing and snapped in half. I have a junkyard replacement though, just haven't got around to installing it. It was pretty easy to find (on similar year Rangers.), leading me to believe that it was a fairly common option.

The end link looks very similar to your track bar link. That's what I was commenting on. If you click on the autozone link in my previous post, you'll see what it looks like. The "captured" stud on one end goes in a hole, on the outside of the frame rail. The driver side one is right about inline with the back of the gas tank. The other "open" bushing end is attached to the sway bar with a bolt.

 

[colintrax]

This thread has taken a few turns huh? Haha
On the ranger sway bar, it was an option but not standard. My ranger doesn't even have a front sway bar, much less a rear. Then again, it didn't come with a radio or carpet either.

On the oil argument. A full synthetic is superior. It's not a question, it just is. Feel free to run whatever the hell you want, but don't complain when you're replacing the axle and mine is still going strong coming up on 200,000 miles

 

[jd4242]

Ummm. I have to call you on that one. My '93 Ranger most definitely did come with a rear sway bar. Its been off for about a year, as the original one rusted under the bushing and snapped in half. I have a junkyard replacement though, just haven't got around to installing it. It was pretty easy to find (on similar year Rangers.), leading me to believe that it was a fairly common option.

The end link looks very similar to your track bar link. That's what I was commenting on. If you click on the autozone link in my previous post, you'll see what it looks like. The "captured" stud on one end goes in a hole, on the outside of the frame rail. The driver side one is right about inline with the back of the gas tank. The other "open" bushing end is attached to the sway bar with a bolt.

Yea I edited my post.I haven't seen one on a ranger before and when I was searching I did have them pull one and it looks exactly the same as a explorer so assumed it was labeled wrong..they must have a smaller sway bar then because no way would the explorer ones fit.they are about an 1.5" to wide.im trying to find a picture or specs of the ranger rear bar right now but having trouble. ...so we dont get to far off original topic..if you have a picture of the bar, mounts or specs can you PM me with them..love to see them

 

[jd4242]

Ummm. I have to call you on that one. My '93 Ranger most definitely did come with a rear sway bar. Its been off for about a year, as the original one rusted under the bushing and snapped in half. I have a junkyard replacement though, just haven't got around to installing it. It was pretty easy to find (on similar year Rangers.), leading me to believe that it was a fairly common option.

The end link looks very similar to your track bar link. That's what I was commenting on. If you click on the autozone link in my previous post, you'll see what it looks like. The "captured" stud on one end goes in a hole, on the outside of the frame rail. The driver side one is right about inline with the back of the gas tank. The other "open" bushing end is attached to the sway bar with a bolt.

Ok I found some pics and info.it does seem rare tho.they attach in front of the axle and attach to the axle by means of u-bolts..correct? It is a different bar, smaller width and smaller dia than a explorer.links are just about the same tho.it attaches like a b2 but a b2 has a 1" dia bar, thats why people swap them out.lol learned something new, why I love this forum!!

 

[Carguy3J]

Ok I found some pics and info.it does seem rare tho.they attach in front of the axle and attach to the axle by means of u-bolts..correct? It is a different bar, smaller width and smaller dia than a explorer.links are just about the same tho.it attaches like a b2 but a b2 has a 1" dia bar, thats why people swap them out.lol learned something new, why I love this forum!!

I just dug mine out and took some pics. It appears to be 5/8" diameter.
I'll post a couple pics shortly.
I still have to disagree with them being rare though. As I said, I found my replacement easily. The yard I got it at, had 3-4 more Rangers with them. Several other yards I called said they had them too. I THINK anything with the 4.0L-OHV had them.