Question about Explorer 8.8
#1
Question about Explorer 8.8
How much wider is an Explorer 8.8 than a Ranger 8.8?
Also, since Explorer's have rear-disc brakes, will I need to upgrade the Master Cylinder for things to work properly?
And finally, since the Ranger E-brake isn't compatible with the Explorer's, what exactly will I need so I can have a functional E-brake?
Thanks
Also, since Explorer's have rear-disc brakes, will I need to upgrade the Master Cylinder for things to work properly?
And finally, since the Ranger E-brake isn't compatible with the Explorer's, what exactly will I need so I can have a functional E-brake?
Thanks
#5
#6
You can get adjustable valves. To adjust the amount of fluid sent back.
Check summit.
Also remember, if you do this.
though most of your braking comes from the front, your rear brakes actually engage first. If you are running too much pressure to the rears, you will have a stiff pedal and as a result, not be able to get into the pedal far enough to fully use the front brakes.
Check summit.
Also remember, if you do this.
though most of your braking comes from the front, your rear brakes actually engage first. If you are running too much pressure to the rears, you will have a stiff pedal and as a result, not be able to get into the pedal far enough to fully use the front brakes.
#8
Originally Posted by SUPERGILDO
are you sure about that jason?
Note: The key to the whole thing is in the ABS. The ABS system controls the proportioning in these vehicles. So with the Explorer and the Ranger sharing the same 4wheel ABS modual and thus Master Cylander, the two systems work the same. Now if you only have 2wheel ABS or no ABS, they they mastercylander and ABS systems would need to be either installed, or a new proportioning vavle installed like Leo pointed out above.
Last edited by rngprerunner; 11-10-2005 at 04:45 PM.
#14
Originally Posted by DownSouthTAS
How much wider is an Explorer 8.8 than a Ranger 8.8?
Also, since Explorer's have rear-disc brakes, will I need to upgrade the Master Cylinder for things to work properly?
And finally, since the Ranger E-brake isn't compatible with the Explorer's, what exactly will I need so I can have a functional E-brake?
Thanks
Also, since Explorer's have rear-disc brakes, will I need to upgrade the Master Cylinder for things to work properly?
And finally, since the Ranger E-brake isn't compatible with the Explorer's, what exactly will I need so I can have a functional E-brake?
Thanks
you get the back half of the parking brake for the explorer rear, and join it up under the bed by the front hanger of the driverside leaf hanger
#15
#16
Your existing master cylinder is basically an Explorer master cylinder with a proportioning valve already added to make it work with the drums you have.
The part numbers for 2 door Explorers and Rangers MC for later model trucks are the same in most cases. This means you can REMOVE the factory propotioning valve to use the disc brakes with the Ranger.
That's what I'm doing on mine when I get the brakes off the Explorer. The Explorer rear discs will fit on the 31 spline Ranger FX4 rear axle -- which I have on my truck.
Tom and I have been discussing this and we think the 4 door Explorer master cylinder would add braking capacity as it should have bigger pistons.
The part numbers for 2 door Explorers and Rangers MC for later model trucks are the same in most cases. This means you can REMOVE the factory propotioning valve to use the disc brakes with the Ranger.
That's what I'm doing on mine when I get the brakes off the Explorer. The Explorer rear discs will fit on the 31 spline Ranger FX4 rear axle -- which I have on my truck.
Tom and I have been discussing this and we think the 4 door Explorer master cylinder would add braking capacity as it should have bigger pistons.
#17
#18
There is a different part number for the master cylinder (that's what I was talking about) and there's no reason to do that other than to get more braking power for the heavier vehicle -- and that implies a bigger piston. How much bigger? I have no idea -- but 10% or even 5% would be a significant increase in braking force over stock and could help offset bigger tires, etc.
One thing I found online was a guide to using JY parts to upgrade brakes. The author claimed you can tell if a MC was designed for disc/disc or disc/drum by the size of the fluid reservoirs. On all systems the piston sizes and the reservoir size are generally proportional, and the rear is generally given a smaller piston on drum systems, and the reservoir is a different size also.
I don't know if this is generally true or not; but I have seen vehicles with rear drums with the asymmetrical MC reservoirs.
But one way or another, the smaller Ex's use the same MC as the Rangers, and the bigger 4 doors use a different one -- all the rest is inferred.
One thing I found online was a guide to using JY parts to upgrade brakes. The author claimed you can tell if a MC was designed for disc/disc or disc/drum by the size of the fluid reservoirs. On all systems the piston sizes and the reservoir size are generally proportional, and the rear is generally given a smaller piston on drum systems, and the reservoir is a different size also.
I don't know if this is generally true or not; but I have seen vehicles with rear drums with the asymmetrical MC reservoirs.
But one way or another, the smaller Ex's use the same MC as the Rangers, and the bigger 4 doors use a different one -- all the rest is inferred.
#20
Can -- yes. Pain in the butt to bleed afterwards, though, lol.
Should? I would think yes. If the same MC is used on an Explorer WITHOUT the valve, then it probably shouldn't be there.
Have to? I would think you could leave it there, with reduced rear braking effectiveness -- although for all I know it will make very little difference. I'll be trying it with and without when I do the conversion of my brakes and I'll let you know!
Should? I would think yes. If the same MC is used on an Explorer WITHOUT the valve, then it probably shouldn't be there.
Have to? I would think you could leave it there, with reduced rear braking effectiveness -- although for all I know it will make very little difference. I'll be trying it with and without when I do the conversion of my brakes and I'll let you know!
#21
Originally Posted by n3elz
Can -- yes. Pain in the butt to bleed afterwards, though, lol.
Should? I would think yes. If the same MC is used on an Explorer WITHOUT the valve, then it probably shouldn't be there.
Have to? I would think you could leave it there, with reduced rear braking effectiveness -- although for all I know it will make very little difference. I'll be trying it with and without when I do the conversion of my brakes and I'll let you know!
Should? I would think yes. If the same MC is used on an Explorer WITHOUT the valve, then it probably shouldn't be there.
Have to? I would think you could leave it there, with reduced rear braking effectiveness -- although for all I know it will make very little difference. I'll be trying it with and without when I do the conversion of my brakes and I'll let you know!
Please do. I'll keep my 28T 8.8 for the time being, until I want to lock the rear. Once I do that, combining a locker, 35s, and off-road, I'll need the 31T 8.8.
I should have my D44 by Thanksgiving. Then I'll start buying other parts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
topofffun
OLD - Suspension, Tires, & Wheels
4
03-12-2010 10:33 PM
lifted97ranger
General Technical & Electrical
10
12-20-2006 03:29 PM