Thinking of building a 2nd gen lift kit...

[JMan689]

Do it, then come back out here for some winter Cliffs as a test run

 

[chriswells78]

my buddy and I have been pondering how to lift the IFS front with drop brackets and coil overs, eliminating the tortion bars. the joint angles are the biggest concern we can't seem to get around. You can get more width out of backspacing on your wheels if you really want it.

 

[Ritsui]

So... someone convince me to make this project a reality. The more I think about the type of wheeling around where I live, and the future use of the explorer, as it pretty much isn't my daily driver anymore, a linked SAS looks like a much better option...

That's fine for your own use, but the average 2nd gen Ex is going to be a DD more than a wheeling rig, so an IFS kit which keeps the ride nice and doesn't cost $2500 is exactly what a lot of us would like.

There are plenty of SAS'd 2nd gens and that's great for wheeling, but there are exactly zero of them I would want to drive on a mountain highway at 50+mph.

 

[mounty71]

I would be more interested in this than a solid axle too, if/when i have a 4wd in the future.

 

[IZwack]

\There are plenty of SAS'd 2nd gens and that's great for wheeling, but there are exactly zero of them I would want to drive on a mountain highway at 50+mph.

Because no one has built an Explorer specifically for rock racing .


But to be honest, I don't think it would be very difficult to make most of these SAS-ed explorers handle better on the road. My approach would be:

1) Weld on another set of tabs for the limit straps thats higher up on the chassis. When you're done with the dirt and ready to hit the pavement, unbolt the upper limit strap's bolt and move it up to this higher position -- which should act as a crude but effective anti-sway bar allowing the axle to move only a few inches which would reduce body roll.

2) Hook the front winch to the front axle's housing -- this allows you to suck the front of the vehicle down which would therefore stiffen the springs or air-shocks and also lower the vehicle a few inches.

3) Mount a smaller winch on the back and do the same as the front axle (suck it down).

4) Stick with the radial off-road tires, and maybe try to stay away from the Interco's because most of their tire cross sections are very round-ish, as opposed to the more square-ish ones like the BFGs


Of course the other suspension and steering concepts still apply, like bump steer and the proper amount of caster (which requires cutting and turning the knuckles and should have been done anyway whether or not the vehicle is for off-roading or not).

 

[MountaineerGreen]

I am going to throw this out there-

If I were to SAS and want to keep it daily driveable, I would get a D44 out of a Rubicon. Here is why: Nearly the same width as an 8.8, and same 5 on 4.5 bolt pattern, you can keep your current wheels. ABS sensors as well so theoretically, the ABS system could still function. I would run 33's or 34's and 4.10 gears with the V8, 4.56's for a V6. Keep the ride height low, maybe just slightly higher than mine sits now with the superlift. No, there won't be big tires for clearance, but there will be awesome suspension travel and rugged axles. I think it could be wheeled and driven reliably.

 

[FROADER]

Jefe's was a DD for a few years after the SAS. Still could be. Mine would be fine for a DD.

 

[Turdle]

I am going to throw this out there-

If I were to SAS and want to keep it daily driveable, I would get a D44 out of a Rubicon. Here is why: Nearly the same width as an 8.8, and same 5 on 4.5 bolt pattern, you can keep your current wheels. ABS sensors as well so theoretically, the ABS system could still function. I would run 33's or 34's and 4.10 gears with the V8, 4.56's for a V6. Keep the ride height low, maybe just slightly higher than mine sits now with the superlift. No, there won't be big tires for clearance, but there will be awesome suspension travel and rugged axles. I think it could be wheeled and driven reliably.

Yeah baby!

 

[MountaineerGreen]

A set of 44's with air lockers and pumps for 2k on ebay right now..... All these things to buy and so little money. Don't need the rear 44 though-

 

[kert0307]

Well, the thing with axles is that there are tons of old 4x4's laying around up here. If I really wanted to get this going, I'm 80% sure I could get a D60 for next to nothing... and no, I'm not telling where, lets just say I know a few old farmers with old p/u's sitting out in the weeds. Unfortunately, whatever I do will have to wait 6 months because then I'll have graduated and have a garage.

 

[Exploderpilot]

i think a center mount a arm setup with porsche 934 cv's and a howe steering rack would survive 35's and 200+ HP.

 

[Burns]

Jefe's was a DD for a few years after the SAS. Still could be. Mine would be fine for a DD.

My sas explorer is a dd. 15000 miles a year.

 

[IZwack]

i think a center mount a arm setup

Thats a little difficult to do because the engine is in the way (for the upper arms). And if only the lower arms are moved in, then the vehicle will have very bad camber angles during suspension cycle.

 

[IZwack]

For those who are interested in ABS, even if you swap in an axle/knuckle or whatever with ABS sensors, that doesnt mean that that ABS system will work properly.

Like any other hydraulics system, the ABS actuators must be balanced and with larger diameter tires, the ABS system on the Explorer will probably be too small as it is designed for 29-29 inches of tires. The larger the tires you use with the stock ABS system, the less effective the system becomes. You might be forced to somehow figure out how to swap in the ABS from larger trucks.

 

[Exploderpilot]

in order to get center mount a arms to work with a front-engine vehicle, you have to incorporate an engine cage. it would definitely not be a bolt in setup.....

 

[IZwack]

in order to get center mount a arms to work with a front-engine vehicle, you have to incorporate an engine cage. it would definitely not be a bolt in setup.....

I guess I'm confused.

By center mount, I thought you meant the A-arm's chassis pivot points as close to the centerline of the chassis as possible.

The 2nd gen's upper arm pivots are pretty much as close "in" as they can be -- allowing enough room to still work around the exhaust manifold and a few other doodads around that area (steering shaft for example). You can probably move them an inch and a half further in but not too much because the exhaust manifolds must slide outwards and away from its studs.

 

[Exploderpilot]

yeah, but when you use an engine cage, you can mount the upper arms up higher, and drop the motor down. they are huge arms, and you can incorporate droop into the ends, to get the right angle at the spindle. uniballs or hiems instead of balljoints allows for way more travel as well.

 

[IZwack]

Interesting -- got any pics of the engine cage + upper arm concept?

 

[Exploderpilot]

hold on i'll look

 

[Exploderpilot]

here's a couple, i'll try to find better upper mount pics. these are both front engine trucks.