How Did Ford Increase Wheel Travel

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

roostinyfz

Full Access Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Posts
283
Reaction score
131
Just Curious if anybody knows exactly how Ford increased front and rear wheel travel by 2", particularly in the front.? Also where is the travel found in the suspension cycle? Can't find any information on it. Thx!
 

BurnOut

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Posts
541
Reaction score
414
This is a complete WAG, but I'd guess that it's in the stroke of the shocks.
 

WarSurfer

FRF Addict
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Posts
1,100
Reaction score
879
Location
DC
In the Gen1 there was physical binding that would occur, my guess is they made some simple changes to eliminate those touch points.
 

Aaron

Meme Corps Commandant
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Posts
13,097
Reaction score
7,473
Location
WA
In the Gen1 there was physical binding that would occur, my guess is they made some simple changes to eliminate those touch points.

I think you're right. I'm betting they just tweaked the whole front just a little. Going from 12 (Gen1) to 13 (Gen2) wouldn't take much.

Suspension travel is AFAIK measured at the hub and is done by cycling from full droop to full bump. So for example on the Gen1 there's 12.1" of travel up front, but it uses a shock with an 8" stroke, so shock stroke doesn't tell the whole story there.

There's also different travel numbers that get cited in the off-road community. Basically total travel vs usable travel. Total travel would be the farthest extent the suspension can cycle, so metal to metal contact at both extents. Usable travel is the number you'll actually be able to put to use without binding or metal to metal contact.
 

BurnOut

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Posts
541
Reaction score
414
I think you're right. I'm betting they just tweaked the whole front just a little. Going from 12 (Gen1) to 13 (Gen2) wouldn't take much.

Suspension travel is AFAIK measured at the hub and is done by cycling from full droop to full bump. So for example on the Gen1 there's 12.1" of travel up front, but it uses a shock with an 8" stroke, so shock stroke doesn't tell the whole story there.

There's also different travel numbers that get cited in the off-road community. Basically total travel vs usable travel. Total travel would be the farthest extent the suspension can cycle, so metal to metal contact at both extents. Usable travel is the number you'll actually be able to put to use without binding or metal to metal contact.

So, the hub is mounted to the control arms, and the control arms move in an arc... so if the shock were attached to, say, the lower control arm between the pivot point (frame) and the hub (outer-most point of the control arm), then it certainly makes sense to have a hub/control arm tip total travel of 12+ inches with a shock stroke of 8 inches. Similarly, a relatively minor increase in shock stroke length would have an amplified effect on hub/control arm tip travel.

That said, if there are other gubbins that get in the way and/or bind up, then all bets are off, regardless of shock stroke.
 

Aaron

Meme Corps Commandant
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Posts
13,097
Reaction score
7,473
Location
WA
So, the hub is mounted to the control arms, and the control arms move in an arc... so if the shock were attached to, say, the lower control arm between the pivot point (frame) and the hub (outer-most point of the control arm), then it certainly makes sense to have a hub/control arm tip total travel of 12+ inches with a shock stroke of 8 inches. Similarly, a relatively minor increase in shock stroke length would have an amplified effect on hub/control arm tip travel.



That said, if there are other gubbins that get in the way and/or bind up, then all bets are off, regardless of shock stroke.



Nailed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SilverBolt

Hired Gun
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Posts
3,305
Reaction score
2,380
Location
Portland, OR & Eureka, MT
So, the hub is mounted to the control arms, and the control arms move in an arc... so if the shock were attached to, say, the lower control arm between the pivot point (frame) and the hub (outer-most point of the control arm), then it certainly makes sense to have a hub/control arm tip total travel of 12+ inches with a shock stroke of 8 inches. Similarly, a relatively minor increase in shock stroke length would have an amplified effect on hub/control arm tip travel.

That said, if there are other gubbins that get in the way and/or bind up, then all bets are off, regardless of shock stroke.

New frame so it would not be tough to make a minor change in geometry that would net some additional travel. No idea if it is on compression or droop.
 

Big-Foot

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Posts
87
Reaction score
33
Location
Kenyon, MN / Gold Canyon, AZ
Might have something to do with longer front control arms which also contribute to the wider track - then ilfting the entire truck ~3"... I could be wrong though...
 

WarSurfer

FRF Addict
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Posts
1,100
Reaction score
879
Location
DC
Might have something to do with longer front control arms which also contribute to the wider track - then ilfting the entire truck ~3"... I could be wrong though...



The Gen 2 is 1/4" narrower than the Gen 1.

As I posted earlier, the increased travel HAD to have come from a redesign eliminating mechanical bind - otherwise the bind would still exist - and bind was the limiting factor on Gen 1s. Just adding a uni upper gave an additional 1.5" of droop travel while still using the factory 2.5s.

I'd be curious to see the difference between LCA coilover mounting points on the factory cast arms to see what changed there as well.

The Complete GEN 2 Raptor Information Thread

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?sh...forum.com/showthread.php?t=47473&share_type=t
 
Top