Full size bronco vs explorer

[jonnyslick]

so as a base to build off of for class3, between say a fullsize bronco 4x4 and a 2 door explorer 4x4 what would be the pro's and con's of each? chupacabra feel free to chime in on this one! :D

[fj40]

I like where this tread could go.... check back later whit my 2 cents.

[Dust]

On the face of it…
They both had V8’s They both had similar drive trains.
The s’Ploder has TTB though so did the late Bronco.
The s’Ploder should weigh less in race trim.
If weight is the deciding factor then the s’Ploder wins because with less of it the suspension works less hard. The engine accelerates it faster (all else being =).

The s’Ploder was offered with Factory IRS… :)
Now suddenly we could build something wicked that just might fall through the rules… :eek:
Or-not :rolleyes:

Me I say 78-9 FS Bronk w/ solid axles F&R!:D

Dust

[jonnyslick]

ok let me narrow it a bit ...

1. 1993 explorer 4.0L 4x4 auto 2 door
2. 1986 bronco 351W 4x4 auto

[pigracing]

I say 2dr explorer but I'm a bit biased. The only thing I'd do to it's drive line is swap the a4ld out for a c4 but the motor, t-case and axles should hold up fine. I certainly hope so other wise I'm in big trouble.

I image you could say the same for the full size bronco though too so I suppose it all comes down to the pro's and con's their sizes.

And just giving it a quick thought an explorer might be slightly cheaper to build. You can get away with slightly smaller tire and shock sizes - 33's instead of 35's and 2.5's instead of 3.0's. Same goes for cage size-1.75" instead of 2.0"(or would score require 2.0"?).
Just some thoughts.

[151FAB]

Isn't the wheel-base shorter on the Explorer? Also, you might not get the travel numbers out of the front on the Explorer that you would out of the Bronco. Personally, I'd pick the Bronco.

[BajaBronco13]

Damn this could get nasty, lol. Well you won't be calling the Explorers a Mommy Mobile after you have seen Chupakabras wheels but I'm still a fan of the Broncos. So just on pure bias alone, I'll say the Broncos. HA HA HA let the war begin!!!!

[Blanco]

http://www.thewebwheeler.com/forums/images/smilies/humm_smilie.gif I wonder how well you could get the IRS to perform on the later exploers?

[chupakabras]

well, i know the pros and cons of the explorer, i can't say not much about the bronco, the explorer comes with a v6 not a v8, not the 2 door, with the explorer you can have a very lightweight racer, and with just 150 to 190 hp on a stock engine, that's good enough to pull your racer, the wheelbase it's a couple of inches shorter, that could be a con for us, its smaller, that's a pro and con' at the same time, due to the lightweight, the stock parts can hold pretty easy a lot of bang, the rolcage can be made with a 1.5" tube, there is no swap for the tranny, not for a good one, not for a better one that it already have, there is no good automatic tranny for this one, ..

in our 9 years of racing, this is our first year with a very capable racer, we haven't proof that , yet, but this is our first time with coil overs in the front, 14" wheel travel, long travel deavers on the rear, almost 16" of wheel trave, fox 2" bump stops on all 4 wheels, our engine still is 100% stock, yet, so, i think we can make some noise at the next race, at last baja, the 250, we where like 20 minutes ahead by mile 50, thats where we broke, about 100yds of the 1st checkpoint, well, you can't measure your perfomance base on others results, everybody had problems , i know, but well, we where just cruising our racer, having fun like never before, .

i think you can buil a strong and reliable explorer with not much budget, believe me; even if we want ,our wives won't let us spend much money on our racer, haha,

[chupakabras]

our future plan, there are like 3 4.0 engines available, we always thought that our engine was good enough for our racer, that was when we had the stock suspension, now we are hungry for more hp's and torque, so our engine is a 1992 4.0, this one comes with 150hp, the 1997 sohc 4.0 comes with 210 hp, dual cams, this is the one that hopefully for the 1000 we will be running,
this is the one that almos every ford class 7 rangers use, so we are searching for a good deal on a ford explorer 97, ..

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sKRsUabbUnA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sKRsUabbUnA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[jonnyslick]

thanks for the heads up guys ... chupa love the video too ... looks like the suspenision is working quite well.

[pigracing]

there is no swap for the tranny, not for a good one, not for a better one that it already have, there is no good automatic tranny for this one, ..


What's wrong with swapping a c4/c5?
My only cons with it so far is the lack of OD and that it runs pretty hot but other wise it's stout, cheap and plentiful.

[roach]

the explorer comes with a v6 not a v8,
some later years were offered with the 5.0 V8


the rolcage can be made with a 1.5" tube,
this is where i think Score (savage) needs to do some homework. according to the rules, you need to be 1.75" .120 wall. and if you hit 4000lbs, you need to be 2" .120. becouse the rule book says our class minumum weight is 3500lbs. and like the other topic, can you see a 3500 lb suzuki sami with 1.75" tubing?? there needs to be more clarity on the weights of the cars. maybe full size 3500lb min and mini's can be 2500lb min??

[roach]

our future plan, there are like 3 4.0 engines available, we always thought that our engine was good enough for our racer, that was when we had the stock suspension, now we are hungry for more hp's and torque, so our engine is a 1992 4.0, this one comes with 150hp, the 1997 sohc 4.0 comes with 210 hp, dual cams, this is the one that hopefully for the 1000 we will be running,
this is the one that almos every ford class 7 rangers use, so we are searching for a good deal on a ford explorer 97, ..

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sKRsUabbUnA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sKRsUabbUnA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

i will say this about your ride............

the suspension looks muy bueno. zero bounce (rebound) on your landings. that is a very good sighn. look forward to seeing you in my dust at the baja 1000:D

[151FAB]

Chupakabras, if you can run the twin-cam 4.0L out of a '97 why not run the 5.0L out of the '97.5. Isn't that the one that came with the gt40 heads and intake from the factory. It also had one of the better trans., at least from what I've read...

[chupakabras]

5.0, wooow, imagine the chupakabras with a 5.0 engine, better not :D , the twin cam it's more than we really need , it could be great but, don't have to much spare tires, haha, we are testing other ecu's settings, for this time we may use a jet chip only, just to be able to get higher rpms and a little bit more power at the wheels, right, so, will se what happens, , see yahh.

[jonnyslick]

so would a 5.0 be legal in a C3 explorer?

[chupakabras]

so would a 5.0 be legal in a C3 explorer?

well, you can find stock the 4.9l v8 on some 97 explorers, but, i haven't seen a 2 door explorer with that engine, i've seen that engine on a 4 door, the 4 door is not a c3 legal, so , that could be the only problem, ..but if that engine is availble on the explorer sport, the 2 door, then is a c3 legal. right?