-
Ford Explorer Community - Maintenance - Modifications - Performance Upgrades - Problem Solving - Off-Road - Street
Explorer Forum Covers the Explorer ST, Explorer Sport, Explorer Sport Trac, Lincoln Aviator,
Mercury Mountaineer, Mazda Navajo, Ford Ranger, Mazda Pickups, and the Ford Aerostar
Register Today It's free!
FAKRWEE Navajo 44 swap
- Thread starter FAKRWEE
- Start date
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!.
Kirby N.
Elite Explorer
- Joined
- February 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,654
- Reaction score
- 465
- City, State
- Colorado Springs, CO
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 1991 Ranger
Heres two pictures of my set up:Seats Folded Opened Box
FAKRWEE
Elite Explorer
- Joined
- April 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,252
- Reaction score
- 4
- City, State
- Carlsbad, Ca.
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 2010 Jeep Rubicon
Setup looks good Kirby. Makes a nice bed also. Which makes me think, if I eliminate the rear seat I can make one long box instead of two. What kind of wood did you use?
What trail was that you were on? Looks like a great time
What trail was that you were on? Looks like a great time
Kirby N.
Elite Explorer
- Joined
- February 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,654
- Reaction score
- 465
- City, State
- Colorado Springs, CO
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 1991 Ranger
I used 3/4 inch plywood for the majority of it. The piece under the main hinge is a 2x4 and I put a bottom in it too out of 1/4 inch plywood. it would be cool to take out the rear seats, but I use mine pretty often.
I thought you were building 1 exterior box and 1 interior. I thought your tank was an addition to the stocker- Did you do that only for stability? I Kinda like the stock placement. Doesn't it hang up on junk? My Brothers drive Cherokees and they are always bashing theirs. It looks like yours will take a beating
and be fine though!
The Trails are Baldy Mountain and Hackett Gulch here in Colorado. They were fun, but I think our trucks have outgrown them! A little snow and ice makes them more interesting. The Part that sucks is my Auto Tranny bit it hard at Baldy, when I get $1600 and get it going again were going to hit penrose and then Moab come summer.
I still dig your truck the mostest, the only part I don't understand is the 17s. I see people going to those and I am like "do you like spending alot more on tires!" The big rims are expensive too, and less side wall flex. I keep thinking that it might be for roadability, then I remember that everybody who runs them does so on thier rock truck, them I am back to square 1!! I like the pics with the pumkin. I want to see it in person though.
I thought you were building 1 exterior box and 1 interior. I thought your tank was an addition to the stocker- Did you do that only for stability? I Kinda like the stock placement. Doesn't it hang up on junk? My Brothers drive Cherokees and they are always bashing theirs. It looks like yours will take a beating
and be fine though! The Trails are Baldy Mountain and Hackett Gulch here in Colorado. They were fun, but I think our trucks have outgrown them! A little snow and ice makes them more interesting. The Part that sucks is my Auto Tranny bit it hard at Baldy, when I get $1600 and get it going again were going to hit penrose and then Moab come summer.
I still dig your truck the mostest, the only part I don't understand is the 17s. I see people going to those and I am like "do you like spending alot more on tires!" The big rims are expensive too, and less side wall flex. I keep thinking that it might be for roadability, then I remember that everybody who runs them does so on thier rock truck, them I am back to square 1!! I like the pics with the pumkin. I want to see it in person though.
FAKRWEE
Elite Explorer
- Joined
- April 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,252
- Reaction score
- 4
- City, State
- Carlsbad, Ca.
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 2010 Jeep Rubicon
Kirby, I relocated the tank to the rear for 2 reasons.
1- To balance the weight of the rig more in line with the center of the rig and not on the sides.
2-Add some more weight on the rear axle for better traction.
No the tank doesn't bash on rocks due to the design. If you look at the picture you can see that the bumper has taken some hits but not the tank. When we designed the bumper we measured the angle of departure from the bottom of the tire to the bottom of the bumper and copied it on to the tank. We measured the angle from the middle of the axle to under the rig and that gave us the angle for the bottom of the tank skidplate. I hope this makes sense
The reason your brothers are always bashing their tanks is the angle of departure on their tanks is less than the bumpers. Bang getting off a ledge.
I gave a lot of thought to the issue of spending the extra money on the 37x17x12.50 due to price and what would I gain besides looking cool and came up with the following reasons. Justifying the 37's was easy but justifying the 17in. rims was harder.
1-The first one sounds simple but a lot more complex than it sounds. The bigger the tire the smaller the rock, the less stress on your rig. Take a 35in. and a 37in. tire and draw an imaginary line on the front where the curvature of the tire is neutral. Beneath that line the tire curves down and above the line the tire curves up. Any rock below the line you roll over, any rock above that line you meet resistance. The advantage is you can pick different lines when rock crawling with bigger tires. The other reason for going to 37's was better clearance under the pumpkins. I now have almost 12 in. underneath.
Picking the rim size was a different matter. The price of 17's over 15's is crazy. When I had the 35x15's I liked the amount of sidewall flex it had. The Navajo drove great on highway and great on the rocks, it was very stable. I was afraid if I went to 37x15 this extra sidewall flex would be a problem both on highway and offroad. Going with the 17in. gave me the same ratio. Sidewall flex is good but too much creates sway, specially on short wheelbase rigs. I'm very happy I went with the 17's.
Hope this answers your question
1- To balance the weight of the rig more in line with the center of the rig and not on the sides.
2-Add some more weight on the rear axle for better traction.
No the tank doesn't bash on rocks due to the design. If you look at the picture you can see that the bumper has taken some hits but not the tank. When we designed the bumper we measured the angle of departure from the bottom of the tire to the bottom of the bumper and copied it on to the tank. We measured the angle from the middle of the axle to under the rig and that gave us the angle for the bottom of the tank skidplate. I hope this makes sense
The reason your brothers are always bashing their tanks is the angle of departure on their tanks is less than the bumpers. Bang getting off a ledge.I gave a lot of thought to the issue of spending the extra money on the 37x17x12.50 due to price and what would I gain besides looking cool and came up with the following reasons. Justifying the 37's was easy but justifying the 17in. rims was harder.
1-The first one sounds simple but a lot more complex than it sounds. The bigger the tire the smaller the rock, the less stress on your rig. Take a 35in. and a 37in. tire and draw an imaginary line on the front where the curvature of the tire is neutral. Beneath that line the tire curves down and above the line the tire curves up. Any rock below the line you roll over, any rock above that line you meet resistance. The advantage is you can pick different lines when rock crawling with bigger tires. The other reason for going to 37's was better clearance under the pumpkins. I now have almost 12 in. underneath.
Picking the rim size was a different matter. The price of 17's over 15's is crazy. When I had the 35x15's I liked the amount of sidewall flex it had. The Navajo drove great on highway and great on the rocks, it was very stable. I was afraid if I went to 37x15 this extra sidewall flex would be a problem both on highway and offroad. Going with the 17in. gave me the same ratio. Sidewall flex is good but too much creates sway, specially on short wheelbase rigs. I'm very happy I went with the 17's.
Hope this answers your question
Explorer Features
Explorer Features
