??? lowering rear '94 expl | Ford Explorer Forums

  • Register Today It's free!

??? lowering rear '94 expl

davyc94

Member
Joined
February 20, 2004
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
City, State
Macon, Ga
Year, Model & Trim Level
'94 sport
I was wondering if anyone has lowerd the back of their ex by drilling a hole in the already existing rear hangers and move the leaf springs up closer to the frame. I have a '94 sport that has been dropped 3" front by i-beams and 2" in the back but I'm looking for maybe another inche and a half in the back. thanks for the help.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year or try it out for $5 a month.

Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





not going to be a good idea. strange as it may sound this will greatly affect ride quality. shackles are made to move to allow the spring to flex. what you want to do will prevent as much travel.
 






sounds like a bad idea..... you may wnat to just to to a larger block in hte back.... i had 3" blocks on my toyota... now they are in my toolbox at work.....
 












is it a 4x4?
 






no, it's 2 wheel drive. I just don't see why it wouldn't work, not to dispute anyone's advice, but by using lowering blocks you would be doing the same thing, losing travel. The bottom line is I spent $30 for the 2in. blocks and would hate to throw them away and get more for another inch if there was an alternative route.
 






Where did you buy them from most places will take them back like if you said they were the wrong size you could bring them back and pay the difference. unless u have had the 2 inch ones on there for awhile and want to know now if there is any way to go lower?
 






I bought them from Truck Performance but the bad thing is when I lowered my car they were too big. They were orginally 3" blocks but I machined them down to 2". I cut them down so the rear would not be lower than the front. Now i need that inch that I cut off because of the i-beams.
 






Featured Content

Back
Top