• Register Today It's free! This box and some ads will disappear once registered!

Cummins First Gen Build Thread (no really)


Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
I was going to ask you about the cross member interfering with the engine, but you already answered that. Would it be easier for you to swap in a solid axle for the front, or are you set on using a TTB? Mine is a radius arm based swap. Its more stable than it ever was on the highway, and flexes like crazy off-road. I use it for every type of off-roading except mud, I hate mud. You can build a engine cross member around the engine. A D60 or HD D44 would give you the correct bolt pattern, and there are hundreds of swaps listed in the Offroad Projects forum to guide you.

SAS would be easier, but I prefer TTB. I'm not 100% set on it, but I am like 80% lol. I haven't found a hugely compelling reason NOT to do TTB yet so at this point that's the direction I'm looking. I don't do much rock crawling, don't want 40's, and I'd rather lean into the black magic of suspension design then lean away from it haha (seems a lot of people avoid TTB for its "complexity"). Unless I find something at this point that is a big enough drawback to not do TTB I think that's the way I want to go.

If tomorrow I find out that a TTB dana 44 will break and noone offers the parts I need for a TTB dana 50 or some silliness like that then SAS would be the next thing to consider. Still in the early stages on figuring out the axles.
 


Join the Elite Explorers for $20 per year. Gets rid of the ads! New $5 per month "try out" option.

Explorer Forum has probably saved you that much already, and will continue to save you money as you learn how to diagnose fix problems yourself and learn which modifications work without having to experiment on your own. Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private Conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




1991 sploder

Active Member
Joined
October 5, 2016
Messages
519
Reaction score
172
City, State
Lompoc
Year, Model & Trim Level
1991 eddie bauer
Really liking this thread it's going to be insane....

Have u seen that show diesel brothers where they put military axles on everything? When they put those military axles on a Polaris razor I just couldn't take it anymore. But this is great.
 








sandsprayer

Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2014
Messages
139
Reaction score
79
Location
Not far enough from Seattle!
City, State
Kent WA
Year, Model & Trim Level
2005 Sport Trac Adrenalin
Hey no pictures... Just wondering I'm thinking this could be done with a cowl hood and some cutting under the hood denting firewall ECT... Also a frame with the Cummins now that u got the body off.. That stock frame is going to need alot of custom work. Might be easier to get a frame and hack it and box it in
Been wondering the same thing, one thing is for sure-- really enjoying the gumption.
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
Hey no pictures... Just wondering I'm thinking this could be done with a cowl hood and some cutting under the hood denting firewall ECT... Also a frame with the Cummins now that u got the body off.. That stock frame is going to need alot of custom work. Might be easier to get a frame and hack it and box it in

Since a couple people are asking I may as well answer now haha. I think it would be possible how you're saying with just modifying the hood and firewall, in fact that's how 12valvepower did it in his 2nd gen I believe. However the reason I'm messing around with the front of the car is for a few reasons, first I want to TRY to use the cummins radiator support, rad, evaporator, and intercooler since it all bolts together in a really nice package and would give me the stock cummins cooling and everything (the headlights are very much in the way of doing this, still need some figuring on this) but two, I also want to make sure I'm not burying the rear two cylinders in the body so deep that I can't adjust the valves or do a head gasket in the car. Three, I want to be able to pull the engine/trans without pulling the body so if I DO endup using the stock front bodywork and such I still want it to be fastened to the rest of the body work in a way that it can be removed for service, so I wanted to remove the stock spot weld job anyways. So I haven't figured out exactly what I'm doing on the front end yet (whether it will endup moving forward or I'll be able to use it in its stock location but heavily modified to take the cummins rad support) but no matter what I wanted to be able to remove it so the work I've done so far on it shouldn't have been wasted - even if I endup putting it back to stock locations.

As far as the frame I THINK you're suggesting I use the ram 2500 frame (or atleast bits of it) and then put the explorer body on that, is that correct? This would again be a very good way of doing it, however IMO you would endup with a vehicle that's more ram 2500 then explorer, and I'd prefer more explorer then ram 2500. I like the way the explorer behaves on the street, the way it behaves bombing dirt roads, the way its narrow enough to get onto most of my local trails and short enough to navigate in areas a full size truck really couldn't and I also think a 4 door explorer for me is the perfect compromise on wheelbase. Something like a wrangler or 2 door explorer is more nimble on the trails but is short enough wheelbase it makes towing a trailer more dangerous and you can't put a bed in the back for camping. Whereas a truck is too long for my type of wheeling, so the 4 door explorer checks both boxes for trail and utility for me. Basically the explorer frame because I actually like how the frames setup. I would want to copy its exact dimensions if I were to use the ram frame, so make it less wide and shorter, and then my only front options would be a solid front axle which again I don't prefer. Also the ram 2500 parts truck I have was a 2WD ;) . If I were building a pure rock crawler I think explorer body on a modified 2500 frame would be the way to go for sure though.
 




Rick

Pumpkin Pilot
Staff member
Admin
Elite Explorer
Joined
February 8, 1999
Messages
32,741
Reaction score
1,323
City, State
Wayoutin, Aridzona
Year, Model & Trim Level
'93 XL Pumpkin Edition
Callsign
AB7FH
One of our members put his Explorer on top of an F250 chassis. He cut out a section of the F250 chassis to get the wheelbase right. He used the inline six from the F250 which probably isn't too different from the Cummins length wise.

 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
One of our members put his Explorer on top of an F250 chassis. He cut out a section of the F250 chassis to get the wheelbase right. He used the inline six from the F250 which probably isn't too different from the Cummins length wise.
That's a SUPER cool build! Thanks for sharing. I do think it makes my point though about it being more truck then explorer though lol.
 








Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
So I spent all weekend crawling through junkyards with no luck until I ultimately ended up finding a transfer case on craigslist (no bellhousing yet though). Only caveat was I had to pull it myself. The truck I was pulling it out of must've been a farm truck because it was covered in mud and smelled like cow pie (probably wasn't all mud I was digging away from the TCase ). In the end it probably saved me $500 or more off getting one on ebay though so I can't complain too much.

1606340437794.png


The good news is that it turns out it's an np241DHD, the heavy duty one. I was expecting a DLD the light duty one, so that's great. However the bad news is that it has a 29 spline input and since I have a nv4500 out of a v8 truck the output on the tranny is 23 spline. This happened because I had a mixup on my part numbers, apparently in 98 they changed the DHD's ending in 7 to be a 29 spline not a 23 and I wasn't aware of this change (should have noticed it was 7AC on the # though not 7AB like I was expecting). Not too big a deal, just need to put a new input shaft into the transfer case, worth doing that and having the better case IMO (HD not LD). Also means I'll be forced to go through it and freshen it up as well which is good since I don't know the mileage.

Anyways, I think I should address the frame issues because they keep being brought up (not only here but especially IRL haha, I want to have some numbers on hand).

WARNING: the following post contains math 😝. Yall didn't think I was just going to YOLO this and hope it worked did you? Oh you did, well fair enough ;).
On a more serious note none of this is really necessary. It would be perfectly fine to just box the whole frame and call it good, don't need to get this technical especially not for a build like this, but like I said I want to have actual numbers in mind for my own sake.

Here are the measurements on the explorer and cummins frames. The cummins frame is boxed on the entire front up to about the firewall then followed by C channel, whereas the explorer frame is boxed up to the engine crossmember and no further, C channel after that. Notice the explorer frame uses .167" plate whereas the cummins frame uses 1/4" plate.
Explorer Frame.JPG

To compare the frames I drew them up in CAD (computer aided design) and did some quick and dirty finite element analysis (FEA), note I'm not using a legit simulation suite or anything like that, just the back of the napkin "trial" sort of version - simulation express for solidworks. What I wanted to do was compare the amount of twisting force, torsion, on the two frames. The way I did this was I drew up 1 of the framerails and added a beam which represents the engine crossmember, I then added half the weight of the engine to this beam and fixed the end of the frame to get a simple beam in torsion. Note the actual values and setup aren't that important here, I just want to compare numbers between the two frames. The goal here is to get an idea of one, if boxing the explorer frame could make it adequately stiff/strong enough compared to the ram frame, and two how much boxing is necessary to do so (can I get away with only boxing part of the frame).

Here is the stock explorer frame. The safety factor was .445 which implies it's about half as strong as it needs to be not to break (note this is mostly due to the loading conditions, this doesn't imply the frame would break if I put the cummins in it unless I found a way to hold the whole vehicle horizontally cantilevered by it's rear frame rail, numbers are for comparison purposes only). Additionally I just picked a generic alloy steel, for all I know Ford used something much better then that and it'd be fine - comparison purposes only haha. The maximum stress in the center of the beam was approximately 6-9MPa. Note the bending is exaggerated for illustration purposes only.

1606340419394.png


Here is the rams frame. The safety factor was 1.25 making it much stronger then the explorer's .44, which is what we expected. We have some strengthening to do ;). The max stress in the center of the beam is on the order of 2.5 MPa.
1606340380164.png


Here is the fully boxed explorer frame. The difference is outrageous. Notice that there's no noticeable twisting of the frame, fully boxing makes a HUGE difference. This safety factor is 3.85 compared to the rams 1.25 and the stress is between 0.8-1.2MPa. A fully boxed explorer frame would resist twisting way more then even the ram's frame. Part of the reason why is due to the ram frame being longer, but the biggest reason is just that using thicker plate makes much less of a difference compared to having a closed cross sectional geometry. This is a similar reason to why a solid driveshaft wouldn't be THAT much stronger then a hollow driveshaft and why noone uses a solid driveshaft. In fact with say a 2" diameter driveshaft if you drill a 1/4" hole or bigger in the center and look at the torsion, you'll find no depreciable loss in strength (for a huge increase in material cost and weight). Note this isn't the same for all failure modes, this may resist twisting better but may not necessarily carry large compressive loads as well.
1606340334544.png

The last analysis I ran was boxing only sections of the frame. There are parts of the frame that have crossmembers or would just be impractical to box. Additionally fully boxing the frame removes all my options for running fuel or brake lines inside the frame rails and fully boxed frames can have serious corrosion issues since its hard to protect the inside of them (hard to paint adequately). The last analysis showed I can make the frame as strong as I'd need it to be with boxing, and the next analysis shows how much boxing I can do and still have a frame on the same order of strength as the ram's frame.

1606340279935.png


I cut 3 12-18" holes in the boxing and achieved a safety factor of 1.35, still slightly stronger then the ram's frame. The stress was 2-2.5 MPa. This is the frame geometry that I will use, boxing the areas that I can get to easily and won't be in the way, and leaving gaps where it's impractical not to or where I want to add things like fuel and brake lines or fuel filter access. These gaps will also make it much easier to paint the interior of the frame.

As always if you want more detail I went into it on my youtube page, here's the playlist:
Cummins Explorer Offroader Build! - YouTube


So that's the plan on the frame! Box the sections I can do so easily, leave gaps where they serve a practical purpose, and I should still be able to come up with an explorer frame as stiff as the ram frame. I ignored things like how much actual compressive load the frame can take but keep in mind this is an explorer, it'll never pull a gooseneck or be loaded with a ton in the bed, for my application I think this will work just great ;).

If my parts truck had been a manual 4wd then like someone else said, it probably would have been much easier to just use the trucks frame and the explorer's body (mostly considering the suspension and drivetrain, the actual boxing of the frame shouldn't be too hard), however people think THOSE trucks are made of gold where I'm at and noone wants the cheapy 2wd haha, so that's what I ended up with.

EDIT: screwed up all the pictures again, should be fixed now.
 




sandsprayer

Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2014
Messages
139
Reaction score
79
Location
Not far enough from Seattle!
City, State
Kent WA
Year, Model & Trim Level
2005 Sport Trac Adrenalin
If my parts truck had been a manual 4wd then like someone else said, it probably would have been much easier to just use the trucks frame and the explorer's body (mostly considering the suspension and drivetrain, the actual boxing of the frame shouldn't be too hard), however people think THOSE trucks are made of gold where I'm at and noone wants the cheapy 2wd haha, so that's what I ended up with.
Sorry Kiliona, I must have missed the 2wd part in your earlier posts. With that knowledge, and the mock ups, I am no longer able to wonder.:cool:
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
Sorry Kiliona, I must have missed the 2wd part in your earlier posts. With that knowledge, and the mock ups, I am no longer able to wonder.:cool:

No worries at all! You're not the only person to suggest it so I just thought it'd be worth reiterating there. Both in the youtube comments and on 4btswaps people were saying to do this, and its a good suggestion!
 




1991 sploder

Active Member
Joined
October 5, 2016
Messages
519
Reaction score
172
City, State
Lompoc
Year, Model & Trim Level
1991 eddie bauer
Okay, okay... Okay....where did u get your engineering degree/ wtf
......hahahah I've never seen commitment like this lol u need to have a t.v. show... I "maybe could" show the frame spec like that would take me like a week...idk... Either way spectacular job!👍👍also where/how idk u got a t case covered in poo lol as a guy that does alot of labor 👍👍👍
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
Quick update, and a question for anyone that has some suspension design experience.


I was able to get the new input shaft for the transfer case so I can fit it to my transmission. The only issue was that there's a bearing INSIDE the input shaft and the new shaft had too small a diameter for this bearing. Everything else was the same, so I just turned a bigger inside diameter on the new shaft in my lathe to get it to fit. Didn't want to spend $80 on a new shaft especially when I wasn't sure why this difference was there in the first place and how I'd go about ordering one without this issue. I essentially just copy'd the ID from the old shaft exactly with lots of passes and lots of test fitting the bearing to make sure I didn't go too far. Fits perfect! was able to snug the bearing in with a hammer, then press it in the rest of the way.
1608782503288.png

1608783170390.png



As you can see after getting the case rebuilt it bolts up nicely to the nv4500 transmission.

1608782610224.png


I shifted it through all the gears and everything seems to work great. Biggest issue was that Idaho got REAL cold so I ended up finishing rebuilding it on my kitchen table 😝 . You'll have to watch the video on youtube (link on my first post) if you want to see those shenanigans. I bought one of those mr heater big buddy propane heaters after this so hopefully I can keep the garage at a serviceable temperature (they have a low oxygen sensor, tip over protection, all that stuff, relatively safe for indoors but I'll still be careful of course).

Anyways next up is the front suspension. I want to get it sorted so that all the mounts and everything are in their final position before I start welding any drivetrain mounts on. Would hate to mount the cummins then realize my new suspension needs to be mounted where the oil pan sits. I ended up deciding on a dana 50. I know I was leaning towards a dana 44 before, but I think a 50 is the way to go. I already picked it up from the junkyard, cost me $200 for the axle and sway bar. In this picture you can see it already came with a manual locking hub (and a huge one at that) and 8 lugs which will match the dana 70 8 lugs on the back (before 98 or so Ford and dodge used the same 8 bolt pattern, ford had bigger center holes in some cases though).
1608782924332.png

As a reminder since I ended up with the dana 50 that means I'll be converting it to work with coils since they only came with leafs. I'll have to make some coil perches, move the pivot brackets on the frame, and fab up some radius arms to make it work.

In the back of that picture you can also see some boxes on the ground. I got a ton of parts in including a clutch, master slave cylinder, bell housing for the nv4500 (ended up getting one new from advance adapters since I couldn't find a used one anywhere >.<) etc. I have basically every major component I need to put this baby together! Only missing some raw materials such as some 1/8 sheet and a bit of tubing and such.


Things are moving along! It felt a little slow since I've spent so much time shopping for parts and stuff and not enough time building haha, but hopefully I've done most of that now. Suspension question incoming next post.
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
Question for anyone that is familiar with TTB design, or radius arm suspension design in general. On the stock radius arms the way it mounts to the axle is essentially a hard mount. Every aftermarket setup I've seen thus far it is this way as well. However the problem that I would think this would introduce would be that as the radius arm swings there would be a change in caster, and the longer your travel the more severe the issue (enough so that I would think with long travel you could likely have your 6 degrees at ride height and then even go negative at droop, yikes I'd think). This is similar to the camber issue in TTB, but I'm talking about the radius arms here that go front to back on the car, not the TTB members that go side to side. Here's a mockup to show what I mean. The blue box represents a side view of the TTB members as seen looking at the wheel for example. The radius arms are setup essentially like the stock setup but longer and using tubes. The red line would represent caster. Notice the angle of the red line in the first photo compared to the second? This would be assuming a 30" length radius arm which is about 9" longer then stock and going through 20" of travel, obviously that's ALOT of travel but I'm just using these numbers to illustrate the point that even with longer arms the caster would change tremendously.
1608784241517.png

The above configuration seems like it would be an issue to me (again, similar to the camber issue with TTB but here its going front to back on the chassis not side to side). In the next picture the passenger TTB member is mocked up on the car with the stock radius arm sitting on it, the dotted line represents the axis of the TTB member. The entire beam would want to rotate as shown and the only thing stopping it is the rubber pivot bushing!
1608785583692.png


Here's my proposed solution, use a parallelogram 4 link setup for the radius arms (2 links in the radius arm, 3rd link is the ttb member, 4th link is the frame, I know in the offroading community the naming convention on linkages is a little different, bear with me defaulting to engineering dialect over offroad dialect). See the below picture.

1608784492760.png

The box in the above picture again represents the TTB member as viewed from the side, as if you were looking at the lug nuts. The key here is that there are 2 linkages making up the radius arm, not just one, and the difference in the height where the radius arm links attach to the TTB member is the same height as where the links would attach to the frame (it forms a parallelogram). What this means is that no matter how much you cycle the suspension the caster would not change, the orientation of that box stays the same, parallel to the mounts on the frame - the TTB members do not want to twist against the pivot bushings. I again did 20" of wheel travel but this time with 36" members since this is what I'd endup fabbing up if I do this (requires 30 degrees of rotation to achieve 20" travel with 36" radius arms).

Here's my question, has anyone ever seen a radius arm setup like this? Is it just accepted that this caster/member rotating thing is a nonissue and that's why noone worries about it? I would think at the very least it would put a lot of stress and wear on the TTB members pivot bushings... I can understand not worrying about it on a stock vehicle but if you're going through the hassle of doing extended radius arms and such anyways why not deal with the issue of the member rotating? I feel like I must be missing something since I don't see anyone do this.

Has anyone seen a setup like this? Is there any reason I'm missing why I shouldn't do my radius arms this way? In the end I actually think it'd endup being cheaper for me since I could use smaller heims and tubing and such, since I'm doubling up on each (about $200-$250 in materials including heims and tubing from mcmaster by my reckoning).
 




410Fortune

SLUSH Season
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
August 3, 2000
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
2,199
City, State
NORTH IDAHO, 7B
Year, Model & Trim Level
B2 "Slightly" Modified
Callsign
FOURTEN
the ttb does travel in arcs, two of them and the caster does change throughout the travel cycle
You will have more like 6-8" of wheel travel with that dana 50 however, so the changes are not nearly as extreme as your drawing.
With the ride height set so you have like 4" of droop travel and 4" of bump travel the caster and camber changes are minimized

Yes the beams pivot and twist on the pivot bushings

The longer the radius arms the less twisting = the more usable wheel travel

TTB's do not use a "wristed" radius arm like you are suggesting because the beam WANTS to travel in an arc
The leaf spring Dana 50 TTB setup you snagged from the junk yard is a very poor example of a ttb suspension, the dana 50 ttb with leafs flexes about 4" total at the wheel because the leaf spring travels in one arc and the beams want to travel in another, to make things worse the leaf springs trucks had the shackle at the front of the spring!! So all the forces are working against each other = 4" of usable wheel travel
It does ride nice though under a plow truck
Also you should be aware by now there are about 5 variants of the dana 50 ttb under these trucks, about 3 maybe 4 different center diffs and axle shafts setups that were used on those d50 ttb setups.... I know because I own a 1986 F350 plow truck and I have snapped a diff in half and two axle shafts now, finding parts gets interesting because some of the f250 had a d44 diff on d50 beams and then some had the actual dana 50 diff and then some use 1310 U joints and some use 1330 series, I can go on!

If your diff has the extremely rare bolt on pass side axle shaft bearing and axle retainer then your diff is worth a bunch of $$$$ to desert racing dudes in CA Just thought I would throw that out there.

Do not overthink the TTB too much, it is a great suspension, still used by Ford today (2wd superduties and econolines still use beams) but if you try to make it work out perfectly on paper you will lose much sleep, it does not cycle cleanly, the coils arc, the beams arc, and the steering geometry can all make for one funky front end. Keep it simple, keep factory alignment specs, keep the steering tie rods in phase with the beams and their pivots, and enjoy your 4-8" of usable wheel travel! Extended radius arms are a GREAT idea, tall drop brackets are NOT
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
the ttb does travel in arcs, two of them and the caster does change throughout the travel cycle
You will have more like 6-8" of wheel travel with that dana 50 however, so the changes are not nearly as extreme as your drawing.
With the ride height set so you have like 4" of droop travel and 4" of bump travel the caster and camber changes are minimized

Yes the beams pivot and twist on the pivot bushings

The longer the radius arms the less twisting = the more usable wheel travel

TTB's do not use a "wristed" radius arm like you are suggesting because the beam WANTS to travel in an arc
The leaf spring Dana 50 TTB setup you snagged from the junk yard is a very poor example of a ttb suspension, the dana 50 ttb with leafs flexes about 4" total at the wheel because the leaf spring travels in one arc and the beams want to travel in another, to make things worse the leaf springs trucks had the shackle at the front of the spring!! So all the forces are working against each other = 4" of usable wheel travel
It does ride nice though under a plow truck
Also you should be aware by now there are about 5 variants of the dana 50 ttb under these trucks, about 3 maybe 4 different center diffs and axle shafts setups that were used on those d50 ttb setups.... I know because I own a 1986 F350 plow truck and I have snapped a diff in half and two axle shafts now, finding parts gets interesting because some of the f250 had a d44 diff on d50 beams and then some had the actual dana 50 diff and then some use 1310 U joints and some use 1330 series, I can go on!

If your diff has the extremely rare bolt on pass side axle shaft bearing and axle retainer then your diff is worth a bunch of $$$$ to desert racing dudes in CA Just thought I would throw that out there.

Do not overthink the TTB too much, it is a great suspension, still used by Ford today (2wd superduties and econolines still use beams) but if you try to make it work out perfectly on paper you will lose much sleep, it does not cycle cleanly, the coils arc, the beams arc, and the steering geometry can all make for one funky front end. Keep it simple, keep factory alignment specs, keep the steering tie rods in phase with the beams and their pivots, and enjoy your 4-8" of usable wheel travel! Extended radius arms are a GREAT idea, tall drop brackets are NOT

Thanks for the input. The only reason I'm worrying so much about the radius arms is since I will need custom radius arms anyways to fit the dana 50 beams (not as tall as the dana 35) I figure I might as well improve the design if its simple enough to do so, especially since in this case I think it will endup being cheaper since I can use more smaller joints rather then less bigger joints, and same with the tubing. That's why I'm asking the question is it seems like such a simple fix so I'm surprised I don't see it haha. I don't plan on going crazy with the suspension yet, but if I'm making parts anyways I figure I may as well make them upgradeable for the future which is why I'm thinking starting off with extended radius arms, and parallelogram style if there aren't any drawbacks I'm missing. These radius arms will be super overkill on travel capability with the size springs and everything I intend to use for now, but if I go bigger in the future I don't want to have to remake them again.

As for the dana 50 I picked up it came out of a 96 f250 I believe. Barely hits the cutoff for sharing a lug pattern with the dodge axle, but new enough I don't have to worry that it's a dana 44 in disguise (I think what you're referring to is the dana 44HD which came on 80-86 trucks?), I did see one of these in the yard but luckily I knew the difference and avoided it (actually really obvious when you see the 44HD and 50 side to side, 50 hubs are monstrous). I heard about the bolt on axle ones you're referring to, I think thats 80-83. Importantly its also a 3.54 so again, matches my dodge axle.

Additionally yes I agree it's a bad example of TTB, especially on the stock leafs, but that's why I'm swapping it over to coils. If travel were my #1 concern and not strength then I would have likely done a dana 44 swap due to the longer driver beam. Thanks for looking out though, I think the following link describes the dana 44/HD/50 differences well if anyone else is crazy enough to swap TTB into their rig like I am.
Dana 44 & Dana 44HD TTB Front Axles – Blue Oval Trucks

Additionally here's a link to do a hybrid dana 35 dana 44 TTB axle which interestingly ends up with even stronger axles allegedly then even a dana 44, since there's a neckdown on the 44 axles. If I didn't want 8 lugs this would have likely been the way to go.
The Ford Ranger Dana 28 & Dana 35 Front 4x4 Axle (therangerstation.com)
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
Also, since you mentioned keeping factory alignment specs I should point out that was another consideration with the parallelogram style, if I use a righthand thread heim on one side and a lefthand on the other I get the ability to adjust the position of the TTB beams forward and back a couple inches as well as setting an adjustable base setting for the caster through the radius arm. More importantly though this base caster setting would be the same at full droop as it is at ride height, which simplifies the alignment some. Much more servicable setup IMO haha, I've tried doing alignments on lifted explorers with the stock dana 35 and caster + camber being changed through the same bushing can be a little frustrating haha, lots of guessing and checking, this setup should simplify that a lot.
 




BKennedy

Elite Loser
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 29, 2000
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,244
Location
USA
City, State
San Diego, PRofK
Year, Model & Trim Level
1994 XLT
I think you will need to solid mount the radius arms to the axle beams. There needs to be more stability at one end of the arms or it will be undriveable.
 




Kiliona

Elite Explorer
Joined
July 12, 2013
Messages
205
Reaction score
17
City, State
Idaho
Year, Model & Trim Level
1992 Ford Explorer XLT
I think you will need to solid mount the radius arms to the axle beams. There needs to be more stability at one end of the arms or it will be undriveable.
Hmm.. I'm not sure what exactly what you mean. From the front of the car to the back it should be just as stable, and since I'm using two arms each with heims rather then 1 arm with heims the beam should be just as stable from rotating (If there were only 1 pinned connection you'd be correct, but since there's 2 it should be as stable as a solid mount from rotating). In what way do you mean it would be less stable?

Additionally in doing more research I figured out the offroader nomenclature haha, DIYers would refer to what I'm thinking of doing as a parallel 4 link. Obviously its different due to it being TTB and not a solid axle, but same sort of setup if using that term helps anyone visualize what I'm talking about.
 


Join the Elite Explorers for $20 per year. Gets rid of the ads! New $5 per month "try out" option.

Explorer Forum has probably saved you that much already, and will continue to save you money as you learn how to diagnose fix problems yourself and learn which modifications work without having to experiment on your own. Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments in all forums, and Media Gallery, create and save more private Conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.




BKennedy

Elite Loser
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 29, 2000
Messages
7,705
Reaction score
1,244
Location
USA
City, State
San Diego, PRofK
Year, Model & Trim Level
1994 XLT
The TTB when modified has a tendency to death wobble when lifted. I don't think a 4 link has ever been done, since it would be a 6 link with the TTB? It seems to me that they use radius arms to stabilize the beams since they use a bushing at their mounting points. A solid axle is much more stable. I completely understand what you are considering, I am just not sure it would work well with a TTB or it would have been done before.
 




Top