If the length of the rear shock absorber remains the same, is there any reason you know of why I can not relocate the bottom mounting point of the rear shocks UP to a point where they are above the bottom of the axle housing?

Yes, I do realize I am talking moving the top up also or compensating via some other method (shorter OAL shocks?).

Example of concept: http://www.canopy.net/temp/shockless.jpg

TIA.
P.S. I thought of posting this in the suspension area, but that place is like morgue. Besides . . Ranger & B-series folks are a lot smarter

 

Spent a few years fabricating for off road and mud boggers and anytime you alter the suspension you have to compensate in other areas to keep the center of gravity verses travel at an equal...There were times I added another shock to where you had one before and after...Aftermarket shocks allow for length changes because unless your doing some kind of lift to this truck theres no feasable way I can see where the length can stay the same...There are shocks with the same characteristics but less travel....But for a driver everyday truck don't expect it to drive the same down the road....Maybe there's an aftermarket suspension change kit somewhere for that...Good luck....

 

Thanks for the feedback prophet.

I did some measuring and actually 3" would be plenty of room to get them up out of harms way.

~If~ the truck bed was raised 3" more up off the frame rails (actually 2 1/2" would do), the top shock mounts could easily be moved up 3" without penetrating the bed in any way. So my tiny mind tells me a 3" body lift just might be in my future though I don't generally like the idea because of - as you mentioned - the adverse effect on the center of gravity.

But I figured with the bottom of the shocks mounted in such a %#$^ stupid place in the first place, there had to be a mathematical or geometric reason for it.

'know what I mean?

Just how hard was it to figure out that this is a 4x4 truck that will *most likely* be used in an off road environment sometimes thus sticking those ends down below the axle housing was not a good idea??

Please, does anyone know what I am missing here?!?

This is a daily driver that will need to maintain high speed suspension stability. . . but I'm ~really~ sick of beating the crap out of my shocks (and mounts).

TIA.

 

Ok, devil's advocate here for a second (holy cow - am I discussing this issue with myself here on the board? ):

I could see one reason for the lower mounts to be in the current location MAY be to help combat spring wrap. Moving the shock mount down and leaning the top forward - or backwards a little - is undoubtedly CHEAPER than adding some other type of devise to help address this issue.


. . but anything else to explain what appears on first flush to be something really really dumb from this end users prospective?

 

you can stop spring wrap by installing something like the road master spring. http://www.activesuspension.COM

I have them on my 01 ranger and it takes almost all the bunny hops out on bumpy roads.

Dave

 

Thanks for the reply Dave.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gal...=16750&width=0

(photo credit: proeliator)

here is an alternative solution to the spring wrap that I *suspect* is considerably more cost effective.

So, I have mentally dealt with that issue (if it is indeed one that needs to be dealt with) but I can not help but think there must additional reasons for mounting them below the axle housing that I am simply not smart enough (experieced in geometry enough?) to "see".

Any hints/input/thoughts would be greatly appreciated folks.

 

Personally I think the locale is pretty boneheaded too, but there are some reasons for doing it that way, I'm not saying that these are the reasons, just that there are some reasons.


Here goes.
1) The low mounting of the shocks might reduce pressure on the axle housing. By shifiting them lower perhaps there is less of a direct jolt to the housing. I don't personally buy this, but its a possibility

2) The low mounting allows for a change in the moment arm of the shock. I don't see what they were trying to do if this is the reason, but by putting the lower mount out and away from the housing there is a moment arm created that is much different than a normal shock mounting.

If you were to change the mount position, you may alter the moment arm of the suspension and cause some damage in places that you wouldn't have expected it.

3) The engineering team at Ford was smoking crack and that's just how they designed it. As someone who works with large manufacturing teams I have come to understand that sometimes designs end up strange and weird because that's just how it ended up.

4) Given design limitations and placement problems with other vehicle designs that was the best place that they could find for the shock mounting that matched all the variables that they had to work with. If you can find a better locale then that's fine, it just so happened that Ford designed it to suit all their vehicles with that configuration. So there may be a better place, Ford just didn't want to have to customize their truck assembly line for all the various types - so they compromised.

 

This is a great example of one of the hidden potential "gotchas" I am concerned about.

While I was under there measuring I also noticed they are mounted far more laterally, layed over at the top, than I could see a reason for *besides* being able to use a longer travel shock (allowed for more OAL). That part I can buy - the rear end of this little guy is surprisingly . . . articulate, for a stock conventional leaf & shackle baby truck.

Huummmm. I sure wish I could have a talk with them engineer guys.

Anyway, thanks a million for the ideas and the feedback, it is greatly appreciated!

. . keep it comin fellow Ford folks - pleeeeezzzzz

 

I think 4 is the most likely possibility. Knowing how manufacturing firms think, the idea of changing the part rather than changing the assembly line, or changing the spec of a subcontractor makes more sense to them.

They have direct control over how their part is designed, subcontractors may be limited to what they have on hand (who makes the stock shocks on new Ford trucks anyway???) and an assembly line has so many interlinked variables that its a major pain in the *** to modify them once they're up and running. Simpler to tell Joe/Jill engineer to jury-rig something on the rear housing to match.

I bet if you looked at it you could make a heck of a better placement for those shocks.

 

Generally speaking the lower the shock - the less the axle wrap, the less the angle - the better the shock works, the more it is on the outside of the axle - the more effective the shock.

On most Fords that looping parking brake cable will cause more grief off-road than your shock mounts. Which is why one of the first things I do is take it off and reroute the cable over the outside of the spring pack and then through the frame.

On a 1998 Ranger you are just starting to play with for off-roading, I would forget about the shocks. Start thinking 8.8/lockers/disc brakes for the rear and straight axle for the front.

imo (which aint much)
A 98 Ranger is too nice a looking vehicle and sort of new to go cheesing it up with a body lift !!!

What I think would be worth while money spent is a good front bumper because the stock bumper is weak, hangs down low, and will get taken off on the ends if it hits something low. I would go with a nice 1/8 steel metal bumper or winch bumper made just for the 98 Ranger. Keep the OEM bumper in case you ever sell the truck or wreck the winch bumper and need a replacement fast. Plus, then you can throw a winch on easy later on, but, benefit from the protection now. Even in parking lots.

From someone that has owned a 1997 Ranger (plus 84,86,87 Bronco IIs and other Fords) I think worrying about shock mounts sticking down is very minor when there are much larger issues to tackle on a 1998 Ranger to make it worthy off-road. I think tail pipe location matters more off-road then shock mount location.