LocostUSA.com

Okay. I drove a '90 Ranger 2.3, five-speed, to my home from its old home this morning. This is a distance of about 17 miles over a circuitous route through the country. It has 134,000 and change on the odometer. Runs fine, no smoke, no clatters, bangs or knocks. $500. I'm a happy old man.

My plan is to use as much of this truck as I can on a book-frame Locost. Unless someone tells me that there's something real evil about the rear end in these things, I'm going to use the entire drive train, guages, pedals, wheels, etc. Now please take me by the hand and lead to a rack and pinion, spindles, and front brakes, bearing in mind the Ford bolt pattern on the rear end.

By the way, thanks to all of those who have responded to my other posts.

The topic below is mostly about using an IRS and having matching, late model concentric ring wheels.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225

Since you are using lug centric ranger bits, I suggest using a 80s lincoln town car or crown victoria spindle, brakes, outer tie rods. Get the toe adjuster too for modification if necessary. These vehicles have a steering box rather than a rack and pinion. Pinto/mustang II is another option and comes with a rack.

Stock racks are too wide from inner tie rod pivot to inner tie rod pivot because lower control arms tend to be longer on a locost. Even a miata rack is too wide. You can use a front steer rack from anything if you make an adjuster to fit the tie rod that comes with the spindle. It may be best to go aftermarket, using a rack for a rail buggy or similar application.

Thanks for the info.

With only 134,000 miles, go easy on that engine until it is properly broken in. I know of one that has 350 some thousand miles on it with no mechanical repairs. They sure are lasty. Maybe Ford made them heavy, but they sure seemed to put the iron where it would do the most good.

Bill

For the front end, if you are going to go piece by piece, I'm a big fan of the Pinto/Mustang-II spindles, brakes and rack. All the stuff is cheap and available brand new from the hotrod shops. I built my car with a Pinto donor and I'm still happy about it. But I'm a cruiser, not a racer. For racing a lighter weight setup could be an advantage.

John

Everyone mentions the pinto/mustang spindles in regards to a Ranger build, but I'm not sure why the Ranger spindles can't be used. I've been looking at the ones on my donor (1984 ranger) and they look like they will fit the bill. Even though it has a twin I-beam suspension, the spindles are attached to the I beam by two ball joints, so they aren't really much different than ones found on a twin wishbone suspension. The only difficulty I can see is due to the fact that the ball joints both attach to the spindle from the top (both pointing downward), which puts them only about 15cm apart vertically. The decision then is whether I should use them that way and have the control arms fairly close together, or ream out the bottom mount on the spindle to accept a ball joint from the bottom up to put the ball joints farther apart. I'm leaning towards the latter option.

The earlier rangers are difficult to align using the bushing design, so if you use those, go with a zero degree bushing that is not drilled off center and find another way to align it.

The later models have the ujoints reversed with a pinch bolt for easier adjustment. I think the change over was in 1989.

does your ranger have independant front suspension?

All the small rangers (first year 1983) are independant. I think they switched from I beam to traditional control arms around 1994 (more guessing)?

so halrod, your ranger is beam axle at the front being as its 90?

on another note, the best rack i have seen is a porsche 914.

It wouldn't be a beam axle, but rather twin I-beam. Basically, instead of an upper and lower control arm, both ball joints are attached to an I-beam which pivots on the opposite side of the chassis as the spindle it's supporting. So the right I beam will pivot on the left side of the chassis, and vice versa.

Miatav8, good point about the camber adjustment. I guess the solution to that is to use a normal ball joint, and have it either threaded into the upper control arm for camber adjustment, or use heim joints on the inboard part of the upper control arm.

On a side note, I finally got the engine and tranny out of my Ranger last night, and that thing weighs a TONNE!