Droop limited on Ranger

[onobeka]

Dear,

This is my first post on the forum, I have however been able to find a lot of useful information and I must say you have a very nice community that I am happy to be part of now. I do not own a USDM Ranger, rather a EUDM 2.2 Diesel 2018 Ranger. Mechanically it's not that different as far as I have researched, except the drivetrain, some better suspension on the USDM and some body parts. Conceptually otherwise they are not very different.

I do have a 2" lift on mine, stock suspension with spacers and I have been reading a lot of articles about the fact that this setup limits droop, but that is a general consideration on IFS vehicles. Rather on the Ranger, the only thing limiting droop with a 2" lift is the shock length (extension) itself. There are no droop limiters or bump stops on the UCA and with the 2" lift, the stock UCA is not touching the coils. Also the CVs and ball joints have still room to articulate.

One potential problem I see is with the uptravel, as the bumpstops for the LCAs are further away in this setup. Do you know how the stock bumpstops can be remover and maybe a few washers placed in between? On stock setups, the bumpstops are nearly touching the LCAs, while now there is quite a considerable gap. I am a bit worried that on a severe bump, the coils will bind in an uptravel before the bumpstops take actions. That could break the lower leg of the shock.

Thank you in advance!

Sponsored

 

[TBR17]

Do you have any pics of your truck?

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Dear,

This is my first post on the forum, I have however been able to find a lot of useful information and I must say you have a very nice community that I am happy to be part of now. I do not own a USDM Ranger, rather a EUDM 2.2 Diesel 2018 Ranger. Mechanically it's not that different as far as I have researched, except the drivetrain, some better suspension on the USDM and some body parts. Conceptually otherwise they are not very different.

I do have a 2" lift on mine, stock suspension with spacers and I have been reading a lot of articles about the fact that this setup limits droop, but that is a general consideration on IFS vehicles. Rather on the Ranger, the only thing limiting droop with a 2" lift is the shock length (extension) itself. There are no droop limiters or bump stops on the UCA and with the 2" lift, the stock UCA is not touching the coils. Also the CVs and ball joints have still room to articulate.

One potential problem I see is with the uptravel, as the bumpstops for the LCAs are further away in this setup. Do you know how the stock bumpstops can be remover and maybe a few washers placed in between? On stock setups, the bumpstops are nearly touching the LCAs, while now there is quite a considerable gap. I am a bit worried that on a severe bump, the coils will bind in an uptravel before the bumpstops take actions. That could break the lower leg of the shock.

Thank you in advance!

Hi Onobeka,

Welcome to the Forums! Great people here for the most part. As for rebound stop, It is very likely contained inside the shock absorber. I cannot speak to the LCA bumpstop so will let others that have spacer lifts answer that question...I have seen no mention of modifying the bumpstops though..

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[onobeka]

Yes, I do. I just posted a few in a parallel thread in this section. If you want more, I can add some here or maybe in a profile thread, which would take longer to build.

 

[onobeka]

Hi Onobeka,

Welcome to the Forums! ... I have seen no mention of modifying the bumpstops though..

Thanks Phil! I am happy you guys accepted me.
Yes, there is a bumpstop in the shock, but if that would have been enough, there would have not been an LCA bump stop. I am a bit afraid that in a high upward movement the internal bumpstop in the shock would kick in later than the coils would be binding. In that case the spring becomes inelastic and all the force would be taken by the lower leg of the shock. The LCA bumpstop would prevent that in case it would engage properly.

This is the normal distance from the stock setup bumpstop, very very close to the LCA. Of course, the bumpstop has two levels of compression and it's strong rubber, so it pretty much engages all the time in onroad driving. My LCA had a clean dust mark on it, stock. Now, with the lift, I can put my hand between it and the LCA, that's a huge distance given the fact that it sits half way from the articulation.

Some companies, australian, deliver extended bumpstops (with washers/shims) for their higher lift kits. But I think it would be beneficial to space that bumpstop out for lower lifts as well, bringing it to close to factory level. On the positive side, probably it's the reason many people say it drives better after a lift ... that bumpstop is not engaging anymore, but I believe it could be risky. I will try to find a way to compress only a shock and see how far it sits.

This video is very illustrative as well, that's the stock suspension on the Ranger/Mazda BT50 (Ranger's sister).


Just took a picture from that video above. Bumpstop fully engaged, there is still space between the coils, but not a lot. Also it's very interesting to observe the coils deformation. You can see that at 1:06 especially if you watch it in slow motion (0.25x). With a lift, the bumpstop would engage much later, but in time enough?

 

[onobeka]

Alright, did this “measurement” today:

On the compressed side, check the spring and bumpstop clearance:

The bumpstop will not engage before the coils would bind ... imho. So I need to address the bump stops.

Do USDM Rangers have these bumpstops? I do not recall seeing any in your pics.

 

[Ranger_Rocks]

 

[onobeka]

Thank you! Also 2020 European models have the swaybar moved to the rear. Looks like the Ford engineers found a way to make it work with less parts . It’s simply mindblowing they’ve gone the route of metal on metal bumpstop. Even if the swaybar would twist upwards with an upward swing, the LCA would contact it. There is simply no way that a shock leg would resist a huge coil bind, so they’ve apparently trying to prevent it that way.
At least in your case you have a beefy shock, but the stock one is not going to hold it.
This is what happens when a bumpstop does not engage, regarless of the design of it:

 

[onobeka]

I was wrong! It will not be the last time and definitely not the first. The stock UCAs will touch the strut housing at maximum droop. One side of the arch touches first with millimeters of clearance on the other side.
It’s supposed to touch to limit the droop which otherwise would be limited by the CV before it would snap.
I’ve noticed this today when swapping the wheels.
Sorry for the confusion created, I hope I did not confuse many others!

Does anyone know if aftermarket UCAs will behave the same? They definitely should, maybe allow further droop but they should stop the CVs going to an impossible angle.
Please note, in this post I am talking only about the droop limitations: down travel, not the uptravel where the bumpstop will be the limitation! That one is a different story.

IFA vehicles should have at least 60mm of effective droop after lifting. This is the case for my truck, but it’s certainly less than factory.

 

[viperwolf]

Hmmm, I dont think my 4x4 Everest is set up this way. These where taken at a different time, so I was not focused on looking for the stop.

 

[onobeka]

Thank you! Your Everest seems to be set up as the 2019 Rangers, swaybar to the back. Maybe this picture will help to see the differences between 2018 and 2019.

Left 2018, Right 2019 (actually a 2020 but it's all the same).
Few differences:
1) LCA is different, has a higher shock mount to get rid of the skinny shock leg, which would partially eliminate the risk mentioned above in a coil bind;
2) Knuckle is different, seems to have been lightened. In any case US rangers have that made from aluminium, we don't ;
3) Swaybar moved to the back of the front axle - I do not think it makes a difference, except production cost: it's a simpler design on 2019;

On the left is my truck, notice the CV and tie rod angles from that 2" lift. Not too bad, but it's different than the otherwise flat stock (right picture).

Rustproofing for EU cars remains terrible. On the right, it's a 3mo truck which did not go through a winter. I am amazed when I see your pictures guys. The frame and components are in mint condition, clean and dark black.

 

[onobeka]

For anyone interested, I took some measurements, since I am hunting a break creaking noise for which I cannot find a true cause, everything I do (pad scruffing, greasing, cleaning, wheel taking off and retorquing seems to cure it for a while).

The droop on my truck is exactly 65mm, measured from the upper rim edge till the fender. It's 5mm more than recommended minimum (60mm) yet for sure shorter than stock. An aftermarket UCA would correct that at the risk of a broken CV. At full droop I feel no binding in the CV while turning it by hand. The UCA does not touch on both sides at the same time, so with a bit of grinding this could be improved. I will not do it though.

 

[viperwolf]

Thank you! Your Everest seems to be set up as the 2019 Rangers, swaybar to the back. Maybe this picture will help to see the differences between 2018 and 2019.
Rustproofing for EU cars remains terrible. On the right, it's a 3mo truck which did not go through a winter. I am amazed when I see your pictures guys. The frame and components are in mint condition, clean and dark black.

Im not sure they are protected better to be honest, even the US models have rust and some are complaining about it. Some of us(like ME) wash the undercarriage. I spend about 3 hours cleaning under it after a good offraod adventure. Thats the only reason it looks clean.

It looks like Ford redesigned that in 2019, if thats the case, its probably bc of the very problem your having now. Im guessing ofcourse, have you tried a dealer tech? I know the techs here( Im not in the US) are not very good, but maybe they are better in your area.

 

[onobeka]

I am not sure to what problem you are referring to. The UCAs are the same on these Rangers, probably starting 2011.

Sponsored