- Joined
- February 9, 1999
- Messages
- 11,923
- Reaction score
- 133
- City, State
- Vail, Arizona
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 1992 XLT 4x4
JayR,
The rancho shocks for a stock first generation explorer are the same shocks you use for the Rancho 2.5" lift. That is why they look the lame length.. They are.. (at least for the Rs9000's).
As for putting Add-a-leafs and the Warrior shackles.. We have a James Duff lift. It comes with an add-a-leaf and a 6.5" long shackle (stock on our '92 was 5.5").. We replaced the Duff Shackle with the Warrior shackle and ended up with a 3"ish lift. We would have had more but with over 150k miles on the orig springs they were sagging quite a bit.
We now have the Warrior Shackles and OME springs.. We have about 3.5" of lift (closer to 4) over what we had when we were stock. The front is now only using the Duff brackets and 2.5" springs but we like the look with the rear higher than the front. This is mainly due to the front bumper which makes the front look higher than it really is.
The rancho shocks for a stock first generation explorer are the same shocks you use for the Rancho 2.5" lift. That is why they look the lame length.. They are.. (at least for the Rs9000's).
As for putting Add-a-leafs and the Warrior shackles.. We have a James Duff lift. It comes with an add-a-leaf and a 6.5" long shackle (stock on our '92 was 5.5").. We replaced the Duff Shackle with the Warrior shackle and ended up with a 3"ish lift. We would have had more but with over 150k miles on the orig springs they were sagging quite a bit.
We now have the Warrior Shackles and OME springs.. We have about 3.5" of lift (closer to 4) over what we had when we were stock. The front is now only using the Duff brackets and 2.5" springs but we like the look with the rear higher than the front. This is mainly due to the front bumper which makes the front look higher than it really is.