Can a ranger be made to handle?

An early, non IFS ranger, that is. Got a line on one, thinking it may be a challenge project. Question is, can they handle decent? What can you do to help them not go all camber crazy in the cones?

Get the suspension stiff enough, and camber will not be an issue. Bouncing around may become an issue though.

New issue of GRM showed that a Jeep Cherokee won the autocross challenge. So maybe anything's possible?

If a jeep can be made to handle.....

I think it's Colin Chapman that said:"Any suspension will work if you don't let it."

Low and stiff should work, but I wouldn't want to DD it. A stock Ranger is uncomfortable enough, I can't imagine one that can handle.

In reply to fanfoy:

didn't someone here drop a buick supercharged 3800 front drive train in the bed of one?

icaneat50eggs wrote: In reply to fanfoy: didn't someone here drop a buick supercharged 3800 front drive train in the bed of one?

I'm pretty sure that you're thinking of the Toyota pickup from $2011

In reply to BoostedBrandon:

Simple answer, yes.

Bone jarring ride that fanfoy claims? No. You can get them to turn without excessively lowering it.

Saleen thought the Ranger could be made to handle well enough to race it.

This was in the SCCA ITT Sport Truck series I have no idea what they did as far as preparation, but you can probably find some info by googling. Saleen had a street version of this too. I remember seeing something about a Ranger set up for autocross somewhere too, but don't remember where.

Edit: the Ranger I was thinking of was getting set up for road course duty, but it was a 95. Here's a link to the build thread, though a lot of the pictures aren't showing up (it was last updated in 2007).

http://youtu.be/ZnSYj1hAPs0?t=8m54s

Not a whole lot of prep

Schmidlap said: Edit: the Ranger I was thinking of was getting set up for road course duty, but it was a 95. Here's a link to the build thread, though a lot of the pictures aren't showing up (it was last updated in 2007).

For me, a stock Ranger has a bone jarring ride, and if you look at that build thread, he mentions 1200# front springs .

I stand by my first comment.

fanfoy wrote: I think it's Colin Chapman that said:"Any suspension will work if you don't let it."

Dunno if the source is right but that's informally referred to as the "go-kart theory of suspension design" and it's generally correct.

Yeah, Chapman's statement was the first thing I though of, but I didn't have time to look it up and get it right when I posted.
My 2001 B2500 (Ranger with Mazda badges) has a really conventional suspension, SLA front with coils, live axle rear with leafs.
I'm sure that it would respond well to the usual treatments; poly bushings, lower stiffer front springs, re-arched stiffer rear springs, good shocks, rear ARB, thicker front ARB, panhard/watts rear, etc.
Having said that, I'll wait until after swapping in the turbo Bird motor.

fanfoy wrote: For me, a stock Ranger has a bone jarring ride, and if you look at that build thread, he mentions 1200# front springs .

I'll agree if you are talking 4x4's, since the TTB's aren't close to anything near your ideal Cadillac ride you require.

So what about 1200# springs? They are overkill? Maybe, but controlling a 10" wide wheel and a 315 wide front tire isn't easy.

If I recall, my 4 cyl. S10's had 1000 lb springs stock. 1200 lbs is pretty standard for a short track street stock.

Remember. Spring rate is not wheel rate.

Well, from what I can read from the interwebs, a 4 cyl. S10 should have a spring somewhere between 500 lb to 700 lb. And for that kind of double wishbone design, the wheel rate would be somewhere around 200 lb because of the high leverage of that design.

The Ranger's I-beam's suspension is essentially a live axle split in two. They lengthen the arms to reduce the crazy camber gains. Now I don't have the exact dimensions of the Ranger I-beam, but if I had to guess, with a 1200 lb spring, you probably end up with a wheel rate somewhere between 800 lb to 1000 lb. That's crazy stiff. For comparison, an 80's ground effect F1 car (with no suspension mouvement at all) had wheel rates around 1500 lb.

You basically take the crappy suspension out of the equation. If you have tires with a lot of sidewall, that can do the job quite well.

From a performance application, I would rather have the live axle from the Jeep with its higher unsprung mass, but better camber characteristics.

So for the OP, I still say, if it's stiff enough and the road's not too bumpy, it can be made to handle.

Remember. Spring rate is not wheel rate.

Yes but any time the wheel rate is massively lower than the spring rate, the rate that was lost in translation turns into bad ride quality. Basically.

fanfoy wrote:

Schmidlap said: Edit: the Ranger I was thinking of was getting set up for road course duty, but it was a 95. Here's a link to the build thread, though a lot of the pictures aren't showing up (it was last updated in 2007).

For me, a stock Ranger has a bone jarring ride, and if you look at that build thread, he mentions 1200# front springs . I stand by my first comment.

Great, I'm glad you stand by your comment, but please show me where the OP once mentioned giving a damn about the ride quality of his potential challenge racer?

Schmidlap wrote: Great, I'm glad you stand by your comment, but please show me where the OP once mentioned giving a damn about the ride quality of his potential challenge racer?

+100. There are sacrifices involved in building something to handle. Your teeth/spine might be one of them.

Was doing some research and it seems that the "go-kart theory of suspension design" is a paraphrasing of a Colin Chapman quote:

Colin Chapman said: Any suspension, no matter how poorly designed, can be made to work reasonably well if you just stop it from moving.

JoeyM wrote:

Schmidlap wrote: Great, I'm glad you stand by your comment, but please show me where the OP once mentioned giving a damn about the ride quality of his potential challenge racer?

+100. There are sacrifices involved in building something to handle. Your teeth/spine might be one of them.

And that applies to every vehicle not just a Ranger...... Some just knock off the edge better then others.

Schmidlap wrote: Edit: the Ranger I was thinking of was getting set up for road course duty, but it was a 95. Here's a link to the build thread, though a lot of the pictures aren't showing up (it was last updated in 2007).

The photos will not show up unless you are a "member" at CC. I am a member over there and all the photos are visible to me. The VBulletin board software does that for some reason.