What is the limiting factor to lowering an AWD/4WD?

[JoshT]

I know that the first limiting factor is the torsion bars. Once the adjustment bolts are out that's kind of it. Allegedly you can flip the keys for a little more, but again that's the limit. So let's drop torsion bars in favor of coilovers.

What's the next limiting factor? Control arms? CV angles? ??

If it's the control arms I'm thinking the next step would be longer upper control arms? Would either need custom arms made, or scrounge up a pair of two piece Ranger arms and space them out.

If it's the CV axles what is going on that causes a problem? Is it something that an extended travel CV like the Trakmotive extended travel axles would fix?

I'm getting ready to start lowering my 99 Ranger 4x4. Future plans include a 5.0L AWD swap and likely a coilovers conversion. For now I'll just be doing a torsion de-twist. I'm getting a little ahead of myself by worrying about going lower than that, heck I might be happy there and not want lower, but somewhere between this first round of lowering and my next set of tires I'm going to convert the truck to live axles. Doing so will require new CV axles.

Normal CV axles for the conversion are around $50/side. The Trakmotive are closer to $150/side. If the CV axles are going to be a limiting factor before the control arms and the XTT axles will fix it then I don't mind spending the money. If the arms are the limiting factor then they don't make sense, because I'll probably stop there rather than buy arms to go lower.

Just for general knowledge, if one were to go low enough.to encounter binding, would the extended range arms help like with binding from lifting?

 

[CDW6212R]

The CV angles are the main serious limiter to lowering or lifting these 2nd gens. About three inches down, or up, is okay and excess CV wear is probably a bit more than that. I never noticed any issues with my Mountaineer, which I got down about three inches in front.

The real problem is getting a good alignment, which usually is not possible when the lowering get beyond about one inch. You have to use the camber washers and bolts, but usually the truck still won't have enough camber even with them. I don't know what percentage of trucks will be okay at greater changes, my Mercury is fine where I lowered it to. But my other three 2nd gen's won't go much lower than stock, each of them I had to let them lift it back up enough for a good alignment.

So likely the frames and spindles vary enough to limit the camber that is possible. Longer UCA's would solve that, but you don't want to know how much those cost.

 

[JoshT]

The CV angles are the main serious limiter to lowering or lifting these 2nd gens. About three inches down, or up, is okay and excess CV wear is probably a bit more than that. I never noticed any issues with my Mountaineer, which I got down about three inches in front.

I'm sorry, but that's clear as mud.

You say that CV angles are the serious limiters. You say +/- 3" is ok, beyond that excess CV wear is more likely. Then below you say that camber adjustment is the limiting factor.

Which is it? CV axles or Camber adjustment?

It already has camber adjusters installed. As the trucks sits now it's got a TT lift. Unfortunately, I don't know/remember how much of one. I installed the camber adjusters for alignment many years ago. Might need different ones, but we'll start with what's there.

If the Ex/Mounty in your profile is the 3" then I think I'd be happy there. Pictures I've seen of the old Explorer Express kit installed would probably be a happy place for me, and it was 2" IIRC.

I'll actually start the lowering alignment process before I do the live axle swap and need CVs, so I'll be able to see how low I can get first. As such I guess this would be a more accurate question:

If I get to -3 inches or the point that CV angles become an issue, would those XTT axles be a solution?

I am aware that it is also possible that frame interference could become an issue before CV angles do. If that's the case, that's where I'm stopping. the rest doesn't matter.

So likely the frames and spindles vary enough to limit the camber that is possible. Longer UCA's would solve that, but you don't want to know how much those cost.

I kind of do want to know, but IMO I've got an even better question that that. If you'd gotten longer arms to fix the problem and allow alignment with the greater drop, how much longer would the upper control arms have needed to be?

I've already had the truck for near 20 years and with new plans I'm likely never getting rid of it. (It's probably going to be one of two, maybe three, forever trucks.) I've spend thousands on fixing 4.0L engines in it over the years. I'm already committing to a 5.0 AWD swap with non-stock 5.0L next time that either the engine or transmission fails. I'm getting ready to facelift, update bumpers, and do a full paint job in the next year or so. I'm going to be swapping to live axle, upgrading to "sport trac" brakes, and likely doing a coil over conversion among other suspension upgrades. Will probably end up with a disc brake 8.8 LS swap and gear change in there somewhere. All new lighting is in the works to go with other cosmetics. New wheel and tire package somewhere along the way. Full interior color change with seat and center console swap.

I'm looking at sinking thousands more on this thing over the next few years, so what's a few hundred or thousand more to get the stance how I want? Will I scoff at the price? Probably. I'll also probably pay it if it gets me where I want to be.

 

[CDW6212R]

You are on the path I've been working towards for 10+ years, but I've been stopped by work and other things, plus I'm slow.

My Mountaineer has the EE kit in it, since 2004,and gone through four sets of tires, 130k miles. The back is 2 3/8" lower with the EE blocks. The front has cut down Limited bump stops, to go low you will have to accept cutting them.

When you get that low, the CV joints aren't the big problem, how much shorter their lifespan will be is minor. So I shouldn't have used the terms "main serious", but minor instead. Others kept pushing that CV issue, I just did it and never had a problem with any CV axles.

I think the UCA's are short by very very little, maybe 1/4" would be great for any lowering. More would probably not align well with any lift, and barely at stock height. So the need is very small.

I will get my project Explorer low similar to my Mountaineer, but I'm not sure if it will be from the BTF UCA's, I'm trying to wait until I swap to coil over shocks, and no torsion bars. That hopefully will improve the ride enough to make those low levels soft enough. Then I can narrow down the details of ride height and suspension stiffness.

So buy your choice of the best CV axles, any but cheap brands should last well, unless you go far from stock(4+" etc). The rear suspension can't go very low due to the rougher ride, which gets tougher when you go below 3", it bottoms out more so you end up going to much stiffer springs and shocks. I'm pondering an IRS project if something would fit well.

 

[410Fortune]

So once the suspension is on the bump stops then what?

Doesn’t it ride like total crap with no available up travel?

I don’t care what spring you have t bar or coilover there is only like 7” of wheel travel and once you are at the upper limits (on the bump stops) it would require lowering spindles or metal fabrication to go lower, correct? I mean it sounds like you are asking how to get the truck down lower then what is a possible with the ifs suspension. I would think a body drop and frame mods (like a notxh for the rear axle)n would be needed to go any lower

 

[JoshT]

So once the suspension is on the bump stops then what?

Doesn’t it ride like total crap with no available up travel?

I don’t care what spring you have t bar or coilover there is only like 7” of wheel travel and once you are at the upper limits (on the bump stops) it would require lowering spindles or metal fabrication to go lower, correct? I mean it sounds like you are asking how to get the truck down lower then what is a possible with the ifs suspension. I would think a body drop and frame mods (like a notxh for the rear axle)n would be needed to go any lower

For starters I don't know how low I'm going. That's one of my issues with people saying you can only drop them X amount. With the torsion bar suspension you don't know what height it's at to begin with. I can tell you that I can easily drop the front of my truck 5" (and I might be happy there), but I can also tell you that it doesn't sit at stock height. I know for a fact that it is lifted because I did the TT myself, but no before and after measurements since I just adjusted the up until I liked the fit of the wheels I had at the time.

So yes, I'm lowering it. I'm going lower than stock height. I don't know how low I'm going because I'm not stock now and I don't know what stock was.

Bumpstops cam be trimmed or replaced for more clearance there. Also when going lower and staying on nice surfaces, you don't need near as much articulation or wheel travel. I'm not going so low that frame notching would be required on either end. If I wanted to get that low I'd be building a certain 2wd first gen. I've got no interest or use in having something that low.

 

[410Fortune]

Copy! Then the lowering limits of how low you can go is a result of:
Tire clearance
Shaving the bump stops for slightly increased up travel (bump/ stuff).

You are still in the limits of what the ball joints tie rods and cv axles can handle at that height.

 

[CDW6212R]

FYI, you should choose tire sizes carefully, I have bought 29-30" tires for my work trucks for over 15 years. The 30" size was stock for 16" wheels, the 15" stock size was 29" tall. So the tire size can help you to get lower by a small amount. A 29" tire will allow you to make it 1/2" lower than a 30" tire will, and the tire clearance is the same given that difference in tire size. So try to pick a somewhat short tire with the width you want.

The stock 235/75/15 tires are 29" tall, and note that the most accurate diameter for the speedometer, is 30" exactly. So shorter tires will read faster on the speedometer. I have been using 245/70/16's(29.5" tall) most of the time, it's typically cheaper than 255/70/16's(30" tall), and the speed is fairly close to accurate.

When you begin to get closer to final decisions about the height, remember that going lower will require stiffer springs. That's not easy to change fast in the front, and it takes a while to choose and get stiffer torsion bars. I picked a "B" bar for the front of my Mountaineer, which stiffened it quite a bit in 2007 when I rebuilt the suspension. That is stiffer than I'd like, and the Mercury had fairly soft springs to begin with. I expect to aim for something a little softer when I upgrade to coil over shocks and springs. I hope the guys here with experience with those, will help me choose.

 

[JoshT]

Copy! Then the lowering limits of how low you can go is a result of:
Tire clearance
Shaving the bump stops for slightly increased up travel (bump/ stuff).

You are still in the limits of what the ball joints tie rods and cv axles can handle at that height.

Bingo. From what CDW6212R is saying, it looks like to start with my limit may be camber adjustment limited due to upper control arm. Once that is addressed then torsion bars and bumpstops.

Bumpstops can be addressed by shaving or relocating.

Torsion bars may be the limiting factor. Seems like it's a toss up as to how low they can go. I'll go as low as they will allow for now, and convert to coils later. Probably going to convert to coils regardless of height, just not doing it right now.

That's what I was trying to figure out. Most of the times if seen this topic come up the first/only responses are about CV axles not handling it. Those responses aren't coming from people that have tried, and frankly it doesn't make sense because of the ability to lift "x" amount before they become an issue. That response makes sense if the goal is to slam it, but they don't seem to pay attention to, or care about, the fact that slamming isn't the goal. I haven't been too concerned about balljoint angles or tieroda because of information I've found and read about lowering 2wd torsion bar (aka Edge) Rangers.

I want to @CDW6212R posts next, but my phone isn't cooperating well enough, so it'll have to wait until I get on the computer at home tonight.

 

[JoshT]

You are on the path I've been working towards for 10+ years, but I've been stopped by work and other things, plus I'm slow.

My Mountaineer has the EE kit in it, since 2004,and gone through four sets of tires, 130k miles. The back is 2 3/8" lower with the EE blocks. The front has cut down Limited bump stops, to go low you will have to accept cutting them.

And it's a path I'll probably be on for another 10+ years. Especially with the news I got a few minutes ago. My goal is to have a shop built in the next few years. I've got 3 acres on which to build but 2+ acres are plated pines that'll have to go first. Unfortunately they arent big enough or enough quantity to bring in a timber company. Got my first quote today for land clearing... $12k! I might have to make some adjustments in scale and/or time frame to that project. Maybe just get half cleared which would give me 2 acres to work with and about half the price.

Bumpstop modifications are expected, and good to hear on the CV axles. I expect to spend several hundred plus on UCAs if it comes to that.

I'm almost positive that I'd be happy with it if I got my Ranger to a similar attitude as your Mountaineer, and that shouldn;t take too much to reach.

Not familiar with UBX control arms. Where can I find more information about that?

In case you want to check into it, Michigan Metal Works has made control arms for the Edge Rangers before. I emailed them last night about them and this is the reply I got.

Yea, we have made them in the past, and we can still make them, we have taken them off our site currently but plan to offer them again soon as we expect material for them possibly in the next few weeks so we can run a batch of the upper shafts

I see where they have made both flat plate and adjustable control arms for Rangers and do custom work. The normal 2wd coil spring flatplate UCAs are listed about $450 on their website. I'll wait until I know its going to be an issue before pursuing that line of inquiry.

Regular CV axles it is. Actually that opens up a lot of possibilities. The goal is to convert to live axle. That doesn't need to be done before it's time for tires again. At current usage, I've got at least a couple of years before I'll need those, unless I decide to change sooner or a bad alignment kills them. I got plenty of time to shop and collect parts. I might end up wrapping a front end gear change in with it depending on how I like it in the rear.

Majority of my driving is highway and interstate. The truck currently has 4.10 gears. I've got a 3.73 Ranger axle at my disposal. I'm thinking about swapping it in and trying it out. Easy as changing a few bolts and bleading brakes. Why speculate when I can gain first hand experience? If I like 3.73, I'll be tracking down a front differential to swap and can probably source the other live axle parts from same donor. Maybe some spindles and "Sport Trac" brakes too.

 

[JoshT]

FYI, you should choose tire sizes carefully, I have bought 29-30" tires for my work trucks for over 15 years. The 30" size was stock for 16" wheels, the 15" stock size was 29" tall. So the tire size can help you to get lower by a small amount. A 29" tire will allow you to make it 1/2" lower than a 30" tire will, and the tire clearance is the same given that difference in tire size. So try to pick a somewhat short tire with the width you want.

The stock 235/75/15 tires are 29" tall, and note that the most accurate diameter for the speedometer, is 30" exactly. So shorter tires will read faster on the speedometer. I have been using 245/70/16's(29.5" tall) most of the time, it's typically cheaper than 255/70/16's(30" tall), and the speed is fairly close to accurate.

When you begin to get closer to final decisions about the height, remember that going lower will require stiffer springs. That's not easy to change fast in the front, and it takes a while to choose and get stiffer torsion bars. I picked a "B" bar for the front of my Mountaineer, which stiffened it quite a bit in 2007 when I rebuilt the suspension. That is stiffer than I'd like, and the Mercury had fairly soft springs to begin with. I expect to aim for something a little softer when I upgrade to coil over shocks and springs. I hope the guys here with experience with those, will help me choose.

View attachment 438962

I don't remember if I said it, but 17s or 18s and 29-30 inch tires is the current goal.

I'm already halfway there. I've already dropped the tire size back down to a 255/70R16 IIRC, although they are still Falken Wildpeak all-terrains. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was a 255 on a 16 and about 30" overall diameter. I haver thought about doing this with the truck a lot over the years, but that time (a few years ago) I was not as comitteed to this course of action and was questioning keeping it, as such I was aiming to return it to stock when I bought tires. Lots had happens before, and lots has happened since. I'm now pretty comitted to keeping it and making it into a fun, usable toy. I should probably stay on topic though.

So yes the truck is already on 30 inch tires and I was already figuring on 29s as being about the smallest I wanted to go.
I'm not too concerned with speedometer accuracy. If it is on great, if not I'll either take steps to correct, or just remain concious of it while driving. It's nothing new. The speedometer wasn;t exactly accurate with the taller tires, it wasn;t correct in my 84 Ranger, and it isn;t correct in my 68 F-100. I just make mental note of it and keep that in mind while driving, though I do have a digital GPS speedo on the dash of the F-100 when it works.

That's another plus to the coilover conversion, much better control over ride and larger range of options on spring rate. I'm hoping to avoid any replacement T-bars and go straight to coil overs when the time comes, but we'll see how that works out.

The rear suspension can't go very low due to the rougher ride, which gets tougher when you go below 3", it bottoms out more so you end up going to much stiffer springs and shocks. I'm pondering an IRS project if something would fit well.

I'm a little more fortunate in the fact that I'm working on a Ranger not an Explorer.

Talking nice round guestiomate numbers here. I can get 7" off stock height in the rear without touching the frame. Remove the factory lift block for 2". Flip the axle for 5". Not a lot of room for travel at that point, but it is doable. That's factory though and I'm not factory or going for 7 inches.

I've currently got approximately 6 inches of clearance between the tire and wheel arch. I've currently got a taller explorer spring pack in palce of the stock pack with block, going back to stock pack without the block will drop 2". I've got extended lifting shackles, removing those will get me about another two inches. It is a truck so a little rake is appropriate and I may stop there which will drop me down to about 2" of fender clearance. I can also install short shackles for about another inch of drop, putting me at 5 inches.

If that isn't enough I've got a couple of routes to take. Either I can continue with the axle under the springs, or I can flip the axle.

Keeping the axle under the springs, next I can flip the rear hangar and chackle. If I'm still running the short shackle this will gain about another inch of drop so I'm down about 6 inches, or 7 inches if I'm using the stock shackle. By reinstalling the extended shackle with the flipped hanger I can get that down to around 8 or 9 inches of drop from curent height and the only thing I've touched on the frame is 8 rivets.

If I take the other route of flipping the axle I'll need to undo a few things. Start by keeping the Explorer springs and extended shackles, but flip the axle to spring under and I'm down almost 5 inches right off the bat. After that its similar progression. Remove the extended shackles for 2" puts me at 7" drop. Changing for stock springs puts me at 9" drop, adding short shackle is about 10" drop. I'd absolutely have to be notching by this point, but I could get 11-14 after flipping the hanger or 16 if I put the lift block back in as a drop block.

I already own all of the parts to do any of those configurations save for the short shackle, the hardware for hanger flip, and materials to notch the frame. Please keep in mind that all of those are rough guestimates from current rear height and taking cut bumpstops as a given. Also everything past about 7 inches is completely pointless since I couldn't go more than 5-6 without tucking tire and I don't like the a$$ dragger look.

Most likely scenario is stock Ranger axle, stock Ranger springs and short shackle for 5" of drop from current height. Next up would be an Explorer axle in spring under with Explorer springs and extended shackles for about a 5" drop from current, or different shackles if I need a little more. That would be a drop in 31 spline LS disc brake 8.8" (got that already too) install, take advantage of the Explorer's anti-wrap bars, and I think I've read in the past that spring under has some performance advantages to spring over.

I've got my rear end covered (pun intended), I just need to figure out the front.

Wow this post got long. I probably should have split it into a third.

 

[JoshT]

Just to show what I'm working with here's the truck as it currently sits. Also some next to a stock 2wd that happened to be sitting in the parking lot at work today.

Doesn't look like I've actually got to go all that far to get what I want. Basically imagine someone taking my diameter tires and stuffing them under that white truck, but the white truck retaining about the same ride height. Maybe a tad lower. I guess that the white truck would technically have to be lowered to pull that off. Installing a 2005+ front bumper will also help a lot in pullling off the look I want to achieve.

Here it is next to what I thought a year ago was going to be my project. Turns out that first gen is a lot worse off than I first thought and I need a place to blow it apart and do some serious metal work first. It'll probably still happen someday, but instead of the V8 hot rod it was going to be it will probably be a little turbo 4 round town beater. That would be more in line of the spirit I was originally trying to capture by building another first gen.

That last one is all three project/forever trucks in one shot.The 99 of course, it's the one I'm hoping to finish first and relatively soon. Then you can see the 68 F-100 peaking out behind (well in front of) the 99. The 68 is the true passion project and the one that WILL NOT be going anywhere unless something catastrophic (sp?) happens. It was my dad's from the first I can remember, atleast back into the late 80s when he got it from his step dad. I intend to enjoy it as a woods truck while I collect body panels for a full restomod and consider a drivetrain swap from the 360 FE. The 85 is a future project and for down times when I can't make progress on the other two, it's intended as a replacement for the totaled 84 hiding behind the shed.

FWIW, I'm the sole owner/driver of all the junk pictured in my yard, and some that isn't.

 

[CDW6212R]

Excellent, I love the space and full of parts plans. That's also about the Ranger I might try to look for after I finish many of my other cars. I'd love a Splash bed on one of those with the OEM Gold paint, AWD, and at that point maybe the 3.7/6R80 will be possible. That for just a fun little truck, I've never had a truck(just my three Ranchero's).

The UCA's I mentioned was a wrong guess at brand, I never can recall it, and I meant to look it up and edit that but forgot. Here's a link to them now, and they were $599, now $699; It's BTF, they've been making them for a long time, a few have shown them on here before. Now I see many more brand choices, someone should be able to make them with just slightly more length.

Ranger Uniball Upper Control Arms - Coilspring Truck

Upper arms are slightly longer than stock to correct camber issues on lifted trucks. Polyurethane bushings increase handling performance on and offroad, 1” uniballs replace weak stock balljoints for strength and reliability on and off road. Parts are made to order, lead times vary depending on...

btffabrication.com

 

[410Fortune]

nice rangers !!!
Will be a nice
Project for sure

Ditch the t bars asap you will not be disappointed

 

[CDW6212R]

What brand of UCA do you like now Jamie? There are a lot more to choose from, and some of those BJ's don't survive as well long term due to contamination. I'd like a stronger BJ, but lifespan is important too.

 

[410Fortune]

Yikes

Well I do like the Mevotec ttx for
Most daily use seems to
Hold up well. However for more extreme use a better ball joint is needed, spicer is my favorite. Ac delco professional series are good, Moog seems to offer a decent joint now as does precision.
Carquest has a new
Line of house name parts made in USA seems good so far

Btf upper control arms are nice
I avoid anything with a uniball or spherical bearing they just do not hold up to the elements, (if you are all street and minimal water, no snow mud sand then uniball is do able)

For lowering is all new territory to me
I would choose one that has a high angle ball joint and a tough one that that. Like
Camburg but those are big $$$$$$$

So basically what we are saying here is when we set the ride height down low we are still in the arc of travel or “usable” travel the suspension was designed to operate in. If correct camber cannot be achieved at this low height then correction shims are available (up to 2.5 degrees I think on the sla?) if that doesn’t do it then a uca with correction built in is needed right?
For a good ride I would want at least 2” of stuff travel available at any given time anything less they ride pretty rough hahahahaha

 

[JoshT]

Excellent, I love the space and full of parts plans. That's also about the Ranger I might try to look for after I finish many of my other cars. I'd love a Splash bed on one of those with the OEM Gold paint, AWD, and at that point maybe the 3.7/6R80 will be possible. That for just a fun little truck, I've never had a truck(just my three Ranchero's).

The UCA's I mentioned was a wrong guess at brand, I never can recall it, and I meant to look it up and edit that but forgot. Here's a link to them now, and they were $599, now $699; It's BTF, they've been making them for a long time, a few have shown them on here before. Now I see many more brand choices, someone should be able to make them with just slightly more length.

Ranger Uniball Upper Control Arms - Coilspring Truck

Upper arms are slightly longer than stock to correct camber issues on lifted trucks. Polyurethane bushings increase handling performance on and offroad, 1” uniballs replace weak stock balljoints for strength and reliability on and off road. Parts are made to order, lead times vary depending on...

btffabrication.com

The splash/flareside beds looks good, but I prefer my styleside. I think if I were going to change the bed it would be for a Mazda STX bed, but then I'd want the STX grill and bumper to match. Those seem to be unobtanium.

I'm trying to resist the urge to buy yet another parts truck. A silver 03 FX4 LII popped up on Facebook marketplace yesterday for $2000 obo with lost title. Dad has a silver 2002 and has talked about a repaint due to clear coat failure in fenders and swapping from flareside to style side bed. This truck could donate all those parts, not needing paint and in the right color. It would give me the front end parts I need to facelift mine. Could provide a factory all black interior, rather than stripping and dying the tan interior from my parts truck. Buckets and shorty center console. Get the 31 spline, torsion differential, 8.8" rear. Has all the parts required to do the live axle conversion. The engine could be a spare for dads truck and the transmission a spare for either one. Probably a bunch of other parts I can't think of right now.

Got you, I have seen the BTF brand before. Infact I think I just bookmarked some of them the other day. Watch out about which ones you look at. What you linked is for a 2wd coil spring truck which I understand won't fit the edge/4x4 on both the frame and spindle side. IIRC the arms are different width where the mount to the frame, and the balljoint stud is different size. BTF does list an Edge/4x4 arm as well, it's listed as being slightly longer too, but they don't say how much.

What brand of UCA do you like now Jamie? There are a lot more to choose from, and some of those BJ's don't survive as well long term due to contamination. I'd like a stronger BJ, but lifespan is important too.

I can't speak to survivability of the uniball off road, Jamie would be a lot more knowledgeable than I there. I can understand his concern about them holding up to the elements in the terrain he drives, but I wonder if it would be much of a concern for us on-road folks.

Both the BTF and the MMW arms that I mentioned use a uniball style joint, that theoretically allows more angle than a traditional balljoint.

 

[CDW6212R]

Good stuff here, all of it.

The uniball BJ's I gather are not doing well in mild use, over a year or two. The one Greg mentioned comes to mind, hardly using his truck he had to clean them well and try to lubricate them more. The issue with those is the exposed joint, there isn't any seal at all, so basic usage gets them dirty. I would prefer any high quality BJ with a good street seal.

I like the Mevotec TTX UCA's so far, I hope the BJ's and seals are a little better than Moog(I'm not thrilled yet with the tiny BJ boots of the LCA's). A slightly longer UCA with a nice BJ would probably last as long as the BJ boot, on the street. I have low mileage on my Mountaineer CA's now, all Moog, and the boots have been toast for years(it's on jack stands since I swiped the front diff/axles/hubs for my black 98).

I'm familiar with using race brake calipers which have no street seals. Those you have to take the SS backing plates out where the pads go, to keep them clean. They will grow corrosion behind those SS backing plates, which applies pressure to the pads, making them stick. I learned that about the 3rd time I did pads, the new pads wouldn't go into the calipers. I had to R&R that SS hardware and clean it well, which works fine if you do it every time. The pistons on those have just single seals also(race seals), so the long term life isn't known(mine have about 60k miles and 15 years on them so far(not driven in three years now)).