1st Gen or 3rd Gen Ranger SAS

[fl0w3n]

Maybe this is better in chit chat, I’m just looking to get ideas for a potential next build.

Other than the obvious electronic and aesthetic differences, what’s the low down on 1st Gen and 3rd Gen rangers

Any motors to avoid, or just go for 4.0?

I would prefer a manual for this build and probably reuse my doubler behind it, if I could figure out adapting a Jeep 6 round pattern.

Anything frame or steering wise on either generation that makes a solid axle any harder to swap and stay lcg? 3 link or radius arm with coils. I don’t see many 3rd gens SAS and not sure if that’s just because of price range or complexity. Trying to keep it simple straightforward

General goal would be basic 38s/40s and tons full bodied and lcg, drive to the trail, camp, and back. 05+ and 14b with tube style radius arms, coils to stay cheap, and leafs out back.

What am I missing or need to think about

 

[arse_sidewards]

The rolling chassis of all TTB-era rangers is the same or close enough to the same (bumper brackets and little shit like that) that I never bothered to remember every difference.

I suspect you don't see 3rd gens because they lasted long enough that by the time they would have been a cheap beater to SAS we were well into the recession era and prices skyrocketed so fewer of them got hacked up.

 

[Rangerrod]

the easiest ttb ranger swap is radius arm it’s about as bolt in as it gets. James duff radius arms 3.5” coils and James duff sells coil buckets that take the weird frame bump on drivers side into account. I used a 76-77 bronco 44 with mine and later swapped in a 88-91 Dana 60 using wedges off a Ford axle.

I agree 4.0 5 speed started in 91? I believe.

2nd gens we’re the best looking though.

 

[arse_sidewards]

I think Superduty D50 + 10.25 has some merit for builds like this due to availiblilty, price and the fact that a D50 is "enough" for a lighter rig.

 

[fl0w3n]

the easiest ttb ranger swap is radius arm it’s about as bolt in as it gets. James duff radius arms 3.5” coils and James duff sells coil buckets that take the weird frame bump on drivers side into account. I used a 76-77 bronco 44 with mine and later swapped in a 88-91 Dana 60 using wedges off a Ford axle.

I agree 4.0 5 speed started in 91? I believe.

2nd gens we’re the best looking though.

Good point on the TTB, I forgot about that. I’ll do some reading on the James Duff stuff. I’ve heard the name before but usually equate it with the era where 6-8” of lift was the goal to fit 35s and no trimming.

what tcase do they come with? Any major differences that would make a 2wd much harder to start with?

 

[fl0w3n]

I think Superduty D50 + 10.25 has some merit for builds like this due to availiblilty, price and the fact that a D50 is "enough" for a lighter rig.

That’s a good point and worth considering. 10.25 just because it’s a set or why not 14b?

Ideally I’m grabbing either from a junk yard and the price is the price for an axle, doesn’t matter.

 

[willis_racing]

10.25 just because it’s a set or why not 14b?

If you're putting a D50 in the front, the 14b becomes a moot point.
The 10.25 is plenty strong for anything you'd do with a D50 rig, has the same bolt pattern, and more clearance under the diff.

ETA: I think "plenty strong for what you want" doesn't do the sterling proper justice. The gap in strength between a 14b and a 10.25 is way smaller (if indeed it's actually a gap without considering $$$ aftermarket parts) than people think it is.

 

[arse_sidewards]

That’s a good point and worth considering. 10.25 just because it’s a set or why not 14b?

Ideally I’m grabbing either from a junk yard and the price is the price for an axle, doesn’t matter.

14b will be more money and work for less clearance and you're not gonna break the 10.5 with a Ranger until it's more tube buggy than Ranger.

The 10.5 already has discs, matches the bolt pattern on the 50 and can use a cheap factory E-locker.

 

[TrikeKid]

The only engine to avoid in a Ranger is the 4.0 SOHC in the later models (started in 2001). They make a little more power but the timing setup is a fuckin joke.

 

[fl0w3n]

If you're putting a D50 in the front, the 14b becomes a moot point.
The 10.25 is plenty strong for anything you'd do with a D50 rig, has the same bolt pattern, and more clearance under the diff.

ETA: I think "plenty strong for what you want" doesn't do the sterling proper justice. The gap in strength between a 14b and a 10.25 is way smaller (if indeed it's actually a gap without considering $$$ aftermarket parts) than people think it is.

14b will be more money and work for less clearance and you're not gonna break the 10.5 with a Ranger until it's more tube buggy than Ranger.

The 10.5 already has discs, matches the bolt pattern on the 50 and can use a cheap factory E-locker.

For some reason I thought the 10.25 was as big or slightly bigger than a 14b. Outside pumpkin dimensions.

The e-locker would be sweet if I can find one in a JY. I would probably still lean towards the 05+ 60 because I can just keep the radius arm setup on the axle side with some (name your choice WFO/ruff stuff/etc) tube radius arms and pin the upper bolt on one upper arm for extra flex if needed.

 

[fl0w3n]

The only engine to avoid in a Ranger is the 4.0 SOHC in the later models (started in 2001). They make a little more power but the timing setup is a fuckin joke.

Good to know.

What about transmissions? Mainly applies to 1st Gen I think, looks like there’s several manuals.

 

[TrikeKid]

There are a few manuals in the early years, after a while they all ended up with the M5OD which is a decent transmission. The only real odd ball is the 4 speed. I'm sure a guy could swap the M5OD into an earlier rig for better parts availability if needed.

 

[fl0w3n]

pretty much either the green one or blue one is what I’m going for. I notice the green one has a front half, so not sure his reasoning for that. I’m trying to keep it simple, so maybe a 1st gen is the way to go. Can anyone tell if those are factory coil buckets on the 1st Gen.?

 

[Rangerrod]

I think these guys had build threads on the old site if I’m not mistaken. They aren’t running factory coil buckets. The ttb coils are smaller diameter and much higher spring rate.

I used early bronco buckets and cut the “step” out of the drivers side and plated the frame so it was flat. I also used an fj60/80 steering box outside the frame to move the axle forward.

Rangerrod 2.0

www.pirate4x4.com

 

[fl0w3n]

I think these guys had build threads on the old site if I’m not mistaken. They aren’t running factory coil buckets. The ttb coils are smaller diameter and much higher spring rate.

I used early bronco buckets and cut the “step” out of the drivers side and plated the frame so it was flat. I also used an fj60/80 steering box outside the frame to move the axle forward.

Rangerrod 2.0

www.pirate4x4.com

I’ll dig through your thread for inspiration, thanks.

Are FJ boxes forward swing or just outside frame?

 

['84 Bronco II]

I personally prefer the 1st gen ('83-88) trucks for their interior and exterior styling. The 1st and 2nd gen trucks ('89-'92) are about 3" narrower than the 3rd gen ('93-'97) trucks which is nice for getting through tight spots. The chassis for the first 3 generations are pretty much the same and all the drivetrain bits swap pretty easily between them. They all have the same steering boxes that Ford used all the way up to the F350 with a coil and radius arm suspension. They are easy to solid axle swap compared to most IFS vehicles.

The 2.3Ls are complete dogs, so I would skip any of those unless you are planning on a complete drivetrain swap or crazy turbo stuff. If going for a 1st generation, I would focus on the '86-'88 trucks to get the 2.9L instead of the 2.8L for the fuel injection and 25 HP 20 FtLbs. The 2.9L is really easy to replace with a 4.0L since they use the same motor mounts and bellhousing pattern and the fuel system is pretty much identical. Speaking of the fuel system on the 2.9L or 4.0L, they are compatible with a return-style 5.0L as well. The 3.0L is pretty much the same power-wise as the 2.9L, but it is part of the Vulcan engine family instead of the Cologne like the 2.8L, 2.9L, and 4.0L. They aren't horrible, but they aren't great. The 4.0L is the engine to get. It isn't a crazy powerhouse, but has decent torque (160 HP 225 Ft Lbs). 4.0L started in '90 and ran through the end of 3rd gen production. Some of the early ones had issues with heads cracking (as did the 2.9Ls), but by now, they should have all been fixed with the later castings or aftermarket replacements that address the cracking.

The A4LD automatics suck. The C5s were good, but only 3 speed and available only on the '83-'84 models which have the undesirable 2.8L. There were several different manuals used over the years. The Mitsubishi FM 145 ('85-'87) and 146 ('88-'92 2.9L) are less desirable due to being weaker than the Toyo Kogyo/Mazda transmissions. The Toyo Kogyo 4 ('83-'84) and 5 ('83-'87) speeds are pretty stout and have the lowest first gear of all the transmissions that were offered (3.96:1 vs. 3.77:1 for the Mitsubishi transmisions, 3.72:1 for the non-4.0L M5OD, and 3.40:1 for the 4.0L M5OD). The M5OD is strong, but the first gear in the 4.0L version sucks.

The transfercases are either a Borg Warner 1350 or 1354. The BW1354 is a little stronger, but both are pretty tough with a 2.48:1 low range. The early BW1350s had a slip yoke in the front output. The electric shift versions of either are notoriously unreliable, so make sure you geat a manual shift version. Behemoth makes a nice stubby doubler (only ~4" long) that will give you clocking options and a compound low range of 6.15:1.

If I were to start from scratch on another RBV, I would get a '86-'88 regular cab short bed Ranger, put an Explorer 5.0L with the 4R70W that comes with it or a ZF S5-42/47, run a Dana 20/300, NP205, or Atlas, and '05+ Dana 60/Sterling combo. I had one with a 5.0L, NP435, BW1356, HP Dana 44 and full float 60 combo on 38s that worked alright for what it was. Even the 4.0L is going to be a pooch with one tons and 38-40" tires on the menu.

 

[Rangerrod]

I’ll dig through your thread for inspiration, thanks.

Are FJ boxes forward swing or just outside frame?

Outside the frame forward swing. It was tough to get track bar length long enough to not experience bump steer. Mine had slight bump steer but was masked with hydro assist.

I agree with the post above a 5.0/4r70w swap is cheap and there’s great resources on wiring it’s not hard. Eventually I pulled the mustang setup and went to that in my truck and it never ran better and I sold it.

 

[fl0w3n]

I personally prefer the 1st gen ('83-88) trucks for their interior and exterior styling. The 1st and 2nd gen trucks ('89-'92) are about 3" narrower than the 3rd gen ('93-'97) trucks which is nice for getting through tight spots. The chassis for the first 3 generations are pretty much the same and all the drivetrain bits swap pretty easily between them. They all have the same steering boxes that Ford used all the way up to the F350 with a coil and radius arm suspension. They are easy to solid axle swap compared to most IFS vehicles.

The 2.3Ls are complete dogs, so I would skip any of those unless you are planning on a complete drivetrain swap or crazy turbo stuff. If going for a 1st generation, I would focus on the '86-'88 trucks to get the 2.9L instead of the 2.8L for the fuel injection and 25 HP 20 FtLbs. The 2.9L is really easy to replace with a 4.0L since they use the same motor mounts and bellhousing pattern and the fuel system is pretty much identical. Speaking of the fuel system on the 2.9L or 4.0L, they are compatible with a return-style 5.0L as well. The 3.0L is pretty much the same power-wise as the 2.9L, but it is part of the Vulcan engine family instead of the Cologne like the 2.8L, 2.9L, and 4.0L. They aren't horrible, but they aren't great. The 4.0L is the engine to get. It isn't a crazy powerhouse, but has decent torque (160 HP 225 Ft Lbs). 4.0L started in '90 and ran through the end of 3rd gen production. Some of the early ones had issues with heads cracking (as did the 2.9Ls), but by know, they should have all been fixed with the later castings or aftermarket replacements that address the cracking.

The A4LD automatics suck. The C5s were good, but only 3 speed and available only on the '83-'84 models which have the undesirable 2.8L. There were several different manuals used over the years. The Mitsubishi FM 145 ('85-'87) and 146 ('88-'92 2.9L) are less desirable due to being weaker than the Toyo Kogto/Mazda transmissions. The Toyo Kogyo 4 ('83-'84) and 5 ('83-'87) speeds are pretty stout and have the lowest first gear of all the transmissions that were offered (3.96:1 vs. 3.77:1 for the Mitsubishi transmisions, 3.72:1 for the non-4.0L M5OD, and 3.40:1 for the 4.0L M5OD). The M5OD is strong, but the first gear in the 4.0L version sucks.

The transfercases are either a Borg Warner 1350 or 1354. The BW1354 is a little stronger, but both are pretty tuff with a 2.48:1 low range. The eartly BW1350s had a slip yoke in the front output. The electric shift versions of either are notoriously unreliable, so make sure you geat a manual shift version. Behemoth makes a nice stubby doubler (only ~4" long) that will give you clocking options and a compound low range of 6.15:1.

If I were to start from scratch on another RBV, I would get a '86-'88 regular cab short bed Ranger, put an Explorer 5.0L with the 4R70W that comes with it or a ZF S5-42/47, run a Dana 20/300, NP205, or Atlas, and '05+ Dana 60/Sterling combo. I had one with a 5.0L, NP435, BW1356, HP Dana 44 and full float 60 combo on 38s that worked alright for what it was. Even the 4.0L is going to be a pooch with one tons and 38-40" tires on the menu.

Now that’s a great fricken readers digest.

I thought through 90 it was still square headlight first Gen.?

Does your fuel system comment apply to all motors in 1st Gen. In regards to swapping with 5.0? I’m in CA and would want to keep it smog legal.
Is the ZF-5 the same as in the big trucks? Not too big?

Any frame difference between 2wd and 4wd to be aware of in regards to a SAS?

Your recipe is basically what I’m thinking except an extended cab. I’m taller and would prefer the extra room. I also would probably use the doubler setup I have for the Jeep, ecobox-i/300 with 4:1, and use the 5 to 6 bolt adapter. Cheaper than a new doubler setup.

Last question… for now… why’s it called an RBV

Outside the frame forward swing. It was tough to get track bar length long enough to not experience bump steer. Mine had slight bump steer but was masked with hydro assist.

I agree with the post above a 5.0/4r70w swap is cheap and there’s great resources on wiring it’s not hard. Eventually I pulled the mustang setup and went to that in my truck and it never ran better and I sold it.

You had a mustang 5.0 setup and then went to explorer 5.0 setup?

 

[Rangerrod]

You had a mustang 5.0 setup and then went to explorer 5.0 setup?

Yes. Painless harness. It developed a miss. It was electronic and I couldn’t find it for the life of me.

Hooked up with “efiguy” on classic broncos forum. He was flashing everybody’s ecm and building stand-alone harnesses out of the explorer harness. He quit doing the harness and has a series of YouTube videos. He still flashes the ecm’s as far as I know. The explorer motors have better heads and more power than the mustang motors. They also don’t have the problematic Tfi modules.

If I was to build another ranger I’d keep the 4r70w as the overdrive would be nice. I probably would have kept my truck if it had overdrive.

 

[arse_sidewards]

Now that’s a great fricken readers digest.

I thought through 90 it was still square headlight first Gen.?

90 is 2nd gen

Does your fuel system comment apply to all motors in 1st Gen. In regards to swapping with 5.0? I’m in CA and would want to keep it smog legal.'

You're fucked. Keep it stock.

Is the ZF-5 the same as in the big trucks?

The fullsize ZF and M5OD are the same dimensions. IIRC the RBV one is a hair shorter.

You cannot get a ZF5 in anything less than a small-block pattern, BBF and IDI are your other two options.

Any frame difference between 2wd and 4wd to be aware of in regards to a SAS?

no

extended cab.

Last question… for now… why’s it called an RBV

Because the Ranger isn't the only thing built on that platform.

 

[fl0w3n]

Ranger Bronco Vagina?

 

[arse_sidewards]

Ranger Bronco Vagina?

Close enough.

 

[posford]

Ranger Bronco Vagina?

Ranger Based Vehicle

 

['84 Bronco II]

Now that’s a great fricken readers digest.

I thought through 90 it was still square headlight first Gen.?

Does your fuel system comment apply to all motors in 1st Gen. In regards to swapping with 5.0? I’m in CA and would want to keep it smog legal.
Is the ZF-5 the same as in the big trucks? Not too big?

Any frame difference between 2wd and 4wd to be aware of in regards to a SAS?

Your recipe is basically what I’m thinking except an extended cab. I’m taller and would prefer the extra room. I also would probably use the doubler setup I have for the Jeep, ecobox-i/300 with 4:1, and use the 5 to 6 bolt adapter. Cheaper than a new doubler setup.

The '89-'92 are frequently referred to as 2nd gen since all the front end sheet metal and interiors are different from the '83-'88 which are referred to as 1st gen.

The 2.8L ('83-'85) will require a new fuel system to be compatible with 2.9L/4.0L/5.0L fuel injection systems. 2.3Ls were fuel injected, but I haven't worked on one enough to know if ford used the same fuel injection setup as the larger engines. I have no idea what the laws are in California, but I was under the impression that as long as the engine was from the same year or newer with all of the applicable emissions components in place it could be legal. Explorer 5.0Ls ran from '96-'01. The ZF s5-42/47 came in F250 and F350s from '87-'97, and to mate to a 302, you will want one that came behind a 351/5.8L since the bell housings are integrated and the Windsor pattern is different than the 460 and diesel patterns. I have never put one into an RBV, but people put them in early Broncos fairly regularly. I can't imagine it is any worse than the NP435 that requires hacking the tunnel.

 

[Rangerrod]

There was build thread on the old side with a zf swap in a 96-01 explorer. Not sure you could make it cali legal as you would need to delete 4r70w stuff.

 

[fl0w3n]

I know it’s the Ford section, but comparing Ranger options to the other options (s10/Sonoma/Dakota or super unique Toyota ) is it just pick your flavor? Are frames of one or the other better to work with as a starting point?

Toyota is obviously going to be the easiest with something like a WFO kit, but at a premium for a starting point base vehicle price.

The 4.3 gm has a good reputation

and the Dakota could be found factory v8 to start, but that also probably comes at a premium

 

[arse_sidewards]

I know it’s the Ford section, but comparing Ranger options to the other options (s10/Sonoma/Dakota or super unique Toyota ) is it just pick your flavor? Are frames of one or the other better to work with as a starting point?

Ranger has the best frame of any compact pickup by a mile. 7.5", 7.25" or something ridiculous like that under the middle whereas every other compact pickup uses some tiny garbage you'd expect to find under a Jeep.

TTB and A-Arm Rangers have basically the same frame except at the front but the A-arm Rangers have a Dodge style splice out back which is subject to rust in areas with road salt.

Toyota is obviously going to be the easiest with something like a WFO kit, but at a premium for a starting point base vehicle price.

And you're gonna throw out most of that base vehicle....

The 4.3 gm has a good reputation

And a V8 swap is stupid easy since the chassis was already built for an oversized 90deg V6.

 

[posford]

I know it’s the Ford section, but comparing Ranger options to the other options (s10/Sonoma/Dakota or super unique Toyota ) is it just pick your flavor? Are frames of one or the other better to work with as a starting point?

Toyota is obviously going to be the easiest with something like a WFO kit, but at a premium for a starting point base vehicle price.

The 4.3 gm has a good reputation

and the Dakota could be found factory v8 to start, but that also probably comes at a premium

I liked the TTB era ranger as a starting point because it was so easy to swap a coil front axle in.

I thought that S10 front frame section was pretty flat due to A arm suspension that you need to be BGTL tall for any up travel, or cut the frame. The 4.3 is an awesome little motor, but I had no complaints on either my 2.9 or 4.0 in Rangers

 

[posford]

Ranger has the best frame of any compact pickup by a mile. 7.5", 7.25" or something ridiculous like that under the middle whereas every other compact pickup uses some tiny garbage you'd expect to find under a Jeep.

TTB and A-Arm Rangers have basically the same frame except at the front but the A-arm Rangers have a Dodge style splice out back which is subject to rust in areas with road salt.




And you're gonna throw out most of that base vehicle....



And a V8 swap is stupid easy since the chassis was already built for an oversized 90deg V6.

Commiefornia, no motor swap

 

[fl0w3n]

Commiefornia, no motor swap

Pretty much, unless I hit the lotto and do a legal R2.8 swap