I ended up rebuilding the transmission in the next video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xma_BohVeww.html The only obvious issue was the 5th gear nut backed off and the gear started to shear the output shaft splines and move around, a known issue on these transmissions. I upgraded the mainshaft and did a full rebuild, a bunch of work but it's good to know the transmission should be bullet proof now!

Good point! Although I over generalized in the video, I think the important thing to remember is that China will build things to your spec. If you spec high quality, and implement high QC standards, it can be built well even coming from China. The problem is that often things are made there for the opposite reason - because corners and costs can be cut. Being made in China doesn't mean it can't be high quality, it just means it isn't necessarily so. I've heard stories that 2 different products in China could be built on the same production line by the same people, but when the lower QC standard companies products come onto the line they roll the brand new, tight, nice production equipment off the line, and roll in the old clapped out loose tolerance equipment, since they know they aren't hitting as tight of tolerances anyways and there's no need to wear out their nice equipment. Not sure if that's true or not, but I worked in manufacturing for a time and I can absolutely see that being the case 😅.

Still only 14 mpg 😅. However that's city, not highway, and I have a long steep canyon drive to get anywhere from my house. When I was thinking it'd be a lot higher I must've been looking at people who had the 6.5 in a lot lighter vehicles - suburbans half tons humvee's etc. This truck is about the biggest vehicle you could buy with it minus a dually, extended cab extended bed 1 ton 24' long around 7500 lb. So I guess I was overly optimistic about the mileage once fixed. The place it'd make a big difference vs a gasser would be towing, but I don't have any experience towing with this yet all my experience is with gas vehicles - used to getting 7 or 8 mpg towing with those.

Thanks for sticking around so long! There's only 1 other explorer/ranger chassis 6BT build I know of, and that one did as you're saying and pushed back the firewall and left the fenders and hood stock. HOWEVER this was on a second gen explorer which Ford put V8's in stock, the engine bays on those are even bigger than on a 1st gen explorer if I recall correctly, which is even bigger than on an 89 ranger (I think, you'd need to verify). On his build the firewall went far enough back that his throttle foot was basically wedged against the trans tunnel. If you could find some explorers at a junkyard you could measure the engine bay dimensions and see how much harder an 89 ranger would be than a later chassis, or if they happen to be similar sizes it may be possible! edit: one other thing I just remembered he did differently that made a big difference was he didn't use the cummins rad, and he mounted the intercooler horizontally under the engine. I could've save 5-7" probably if I had used a thinner rad and moved the intercooler, but I wanted the most cooling and power possible and the option to use aftermarket cummins stuff if desired, so I wanted the cooling package to be stock cummins-like. www.explorerforum.com/forums/threads/cummins-explorer.347671/ The easiest way would be to body swap the ranger onto a cummins chassis. Westen Champlin just bought a build that was done this way. The only reason I didn't do this was because I wanted something smaller and lighter than a full size rig for the trails I do. Next easiest would include a large body lift. If you also remove the engine crossmember and go to a lower tubular one, possibly a solid axle swap as well to get it as low as possible, that would help get the engine even lower which allows you to slide it even back further. The goal would be to keep the engine low and back as far as possible. Either way find a donor and take really good measurements before you start! One thing this build has taught me, is to be a diehard inline engine fan. Inline 6's are just so much easier to work on it's a gem compared to say, the V8 detroit in my truck. After working on V8's for so long I can't believe how nice inline engines are to work on, every job takes a quarter as long, and there's some jobs you can do in chassis whereas you'd need to pull the engine on a V8. Another inline 6 you could consider is an OM606 3.0L mercedes diesel. It's an inline 6 just like a 6BT, but much smaller in dimensions. You can swap a mechanical pump onto it and it ends up basically exactly like a mini cummins, the pump is even a p-pump like a 12 valve. They even made an inline 5, OM605, which isn't as long if the 6 cylinder is still too long. These are light, smaller for swaps, rev really high and make good power with a few mods (I wouldn't leave it stock), but won't make nearly as much torque lower in the RPM range than a 6BT thanks to the size (but still more than a gasser). For my next swap I've been heavily eyeing an OM606 ranger build, but built to be more of a street/desert build to take advantage of the engines revs and lightness rather than a rock crawler/overlander like the explorer with it's crazy low end torque but higher weight and lower rev limit. I'd recommend Diesel Pump UK for OM606 stuff, his channel is great. www.youtube.com/@DieselPumpUK Keep me updated if you endup doing this! I'd love to see pictures!

@@BuildSomethingAuto wow. Thank you so much. There’s probably nobody else on RU-vid that would take the time to go into so much detail like you have. I actually appreciate it so much and I have so much respect for you. I’ll definitely take your advice and do a few measurements on the 2nd gen explorer. I’ll likely go with as much of a body lift as possible without it looking strange. I also see what you were referring to with the intercooler underneath the frame rails (which scares me considering anything could fly up and put a hole in it). I’m not sure how I would change that but I’m not a fan. I also don’t want to take up any bed space with a fuel cell or radiators. It’s actually so cool that so many things on the 2nd gen explorer mated up to the dodge so easily. I’m sure the Ranger will be VERY similar to your explorer. I actually own a 1st gen explorer as well that I bought for parts and they’re basically the same vehicle. I’m also a fan of Westin Champlin and his video with the Cummins Ranger only made me more jealous Lol. Nobody does it like you though.. I hope you do start a new project soon, I can’t wait to follow it. Maybe I’ll try to film my build and post it as well. Again, thank you so much! Edit: I’ve thought about doing other diesel swaps and I think at this point I just want to be able to say I put a Cummins in it Haha. If you do decide to go through with the OM606 swap then you may change my mind. If I could suggest anything from a viewers perspective, I think it’s really interesting to see where you buy/find your engine at for the swap. There’s so many cool 4bt swaps out there but 0 videos of where the engine is coming from. Which is insane considering SO many ppl are pulling them from tractors, equipment, and step vans. I think that’s one of the most interesting parts.

@@donotedit4646 Of course! It's just great having other people to talk to that are interested in this stuff 🤣. On mine I would've loved to show more of picking up the truck and deciding on a drivetrain and such, but I had bought the truck and planned the swap years before I started a youtube channel. For future builds I will definitely show more of planning the build, buying the donor, etc. Thanks for the tip.

@@BuildSomethingAuto Hey there!, I’ve been doing more digging and I’ve actually found a few different 6bt swaps in various year model Rangers. One of the more interesting ones being this one ⬇️ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MgHixX37lb0.htmlsi=hXUbTXgKBpRHqxvn There’s actually a few videos of the truck on his Channel. He doesn’t go into any detail on the swap whatsoever haha. But as you’ll see, he had enough room to do custom long tube headers and managed to keep the whole truck looking stock. In his other short videos on it, he shows the interior which has the complete stock interior and dash. (He even has air conditioning lol) I’m not sure how he did it so well without having to do a body lift, a front clip extension, etc. Anyways, I just thought I’d share with you.. that’s all I needed to see to reassure myself haha. Maybe you’ll have your own opinion/words on it. Its apparent that this guy has plenty of money, which definitely helps lol. Thanks for reading. Edit: I assume he maybe ditched the stock engine crossmember and sat the engine and trans down as low as possible like you suggested to me before. Although, the valve cover seems to be in a tolerable spot. I’m really interested in what you think about it.

@@donotedit4646 Very interesting find! Thanks for sharing that! Sorry it took so long to respond, your comment was hidden due to the link and I just noticed to unhide it. I agree he probably has money, that is a clean truck. I love stepsides. To me it looks like he did basically everything we talked about, here's my thoughts. First, it's a 3rd gen ranger (corresponds to 2nd gen explorer) and I think those engine bays are bigger (haven't confirmed). Second, it looks like he used the stock radiator, and then mounted the intercooler horizontally underneath. I think this is why he did "long tube" headers, to move the turbo way low down closer to the intercooler (at first I thought it was NA which didn't make any sense 🤣). This is the biggest difference, I think it would would save 7" or so. This helps packaging but like you said puts the intercooler in danger of rocks and such, the long tubes mean less heat to the turbo so less power, plus it means the intercooler isn't getting forced air so less power. Also I'd be pretty worried about a stock ranger sized radiator keeping up, definitely wouldn't be comfortable modifying the engine with the smaller rad. Definitely some compromises doing it that way, but it certainly kept the truck looking clean. Third, I agree that he was able to mount the engine lower and further back. That gen ranger used IFS instead of TTB, so I wonder if it's easier to mount it lower in those. I also wonder if it's 2WD, I don't see buttons on the dash for 4wd, this may help get it lower as well if there's no front diff. I think mounting it that low would've saved 2-3". Very interesting!

Im not sure ive never worked on one. Id recommend getting a repair manual, theyre invaluable. Forums are also a useful resource if you can find one for your bike.

If the bolt is a sliding fit,, rather than being an interference fit, it isnt tight enough to ensure the load is distributed all the way around the bolt. "Perfect" fit is subjective to what type of joint you need, see the machinery's handbook for dozens of different fits based on application. In this case a slip fit doesnt have the longevity of an interference fit. You need an interference fit to ensure force along the tie rod is transferred 360 degrees across the entire face of the bolt, which is why tapered connections are used on stock steering. Slip fit joints are fine if you dont plan on putting many miles on, but for street vehicles it develops slop at higher mileage.

It's convenient to frame sexuality as a mindset, since it allows one to justify their own bigotry, but hopefully for your sake one day you understand that noone chooses who they're attracted to. Given your phrasing, presumably you're christian. Since you're already praying, I recommend meditating on the stories of jesus and ask yourself if the intended lessons to be learned are of disgust and hate, or instead to spread acceptance and love. Best of luck friend.

@@BuildSomethingAuto I have no hate or disgust toward you, it's directed at your practices and the corruption of kids. Yes, I am Christian. And yes, you can control who you are attracted to at the snap of a finger lol. It's based upon your viewpoints and how you think.

If your love for your wife or past girlfriends is based on your viewpoints and how you think, and could be changed at the snap of a finger, then I'm truly sorry you've never felt real love. Hopefully one day you'll experience it. For those of us lucky enough to have found it, we know that isn't how it works. I'm interested in saving kids lives, not corrupting them. LGBT kids are in danger, rates of suicide and hate crimes against them are appalling compared to non-LGBT kids. Spreading love and acceptance saves lives, whilst spreading hate takes away lives. On behalf of this conversation, I'll donate a few dollars to the Trevor Project. That way at least something good will have come of it. If you truly care about kids maybe you'll do the same, preferably to a charity that is known to help kids not one that has been known to harm them.

I fixed the starter clutch in this video, but still had carb issues and had problems finding parts. 2 years later its finally running, new video on it in 2 weeks or so.

If your starter isn't spinning fast enough then the clutch won't engage (I probably should have talked about this in the video). I'd make sure you have a good battery, good cables/connections, and a good starter. You could try hooking jumper cables up to it to see if it spins the starter faster and if that helps it catch better. Good luck.

I believe so, but I'm not positive. I'd try and find an exploded parts diagram, or a service manual to verify.

Ive heard that theyre junk, but Ive never actually used them since my first explorer, the green first gen, was swapped to manual hubs by the previous owner. I did own a 2nd gen for a short time, maybe I was mixing it up with that.

Youve gotta start somewhere 😅

@@BuildSomethingAuto i was thinking about manufacturer. Bought similar few years ago. Lift, massive tractor tires, snorkel, special paint for bushes etc. Straight after transaction i went test it and cannot exit muddy puddle xD I was so fixed at monster truck looking totally miss idea it could still be open diff.. ^^

Yes! This is another reason Id argue that in the front an expensive selectable locker is even less necessary. When I eventually get a locker in the front the manual hubs make it "selectable" even if it were a full spool.

I didnt think anyone would notice 🤣. I swear I fixed it once, guess Ive had the steering back apart since then

Thats so if the heat is off in the garage you can have a neat place to practice ice skating

Couldnt tell ya. Currently in a rental and there are lots of... strange.. choices the owner has made with this house. Theres also a small ditch in front of the garage for runoff and that didnt help my case getting stuck, the front wheels actually needed to go up a small amount to get back into the garage despite being on a hill. Believe it or not this is after I got out there with a shovel and levelled it out a bunch, before doing that I wasnt sure the explorer would make it isnide without hitting the door frame.

I said probably! 😂

Its a vertical load on the crossmember, that causes a resulting torsional load on the framerail. However the exact terms dont really matter, you are correct that a crossmember will make it more rigid. It will tie the load between the rails so both rails take some of the stress, and the member itself would be in compression resisting the movement of the framerails, so overall it will be a lot stronger if you consider crossmembers. The analysis I did was a "worst case" for a lot of reasons, but no crossmembers is certainly one of them. Engineers are lazy, we like to oversimplify, so rather than do an accurate model of both frames, including all the twists and bends and crossmembers, etc, this simplification lets me get 90% of the way there with 5% of the work 😅. What matters here isnt the exact value it spit out, but rather how close it is between the two frames. In reality the total stress will be much lower, but knowing that the stress is similar between the two frames is what I was interested in. Id never use these results to design a new frame or anything, without making it much more detailed, but I would use it to say "the worst case is almost as strong as a ram 2500 frame so its gotta be good enough". I hope that makes sense, thank you for your comments!! Edit: also for the record, theres a term in engineering called "sharpening the pencil". If this simple analysis that used conservative assumptions implied that the explorer frame was way too weak, the first thing to do would be to sharpen the pencil, add more detail and see if the frame is actually too weak, or if I just oversimplified it too much and thats why it appeared too weak. Since the simplified first pass using conservative assumptions said the frame was strong enough, no need to waste effort adding detail to see "how" good enough it really is. This is what I mean when I say engineers are lazy, good enough is good enough 😅

@@BuildSomethingAuto that all makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Youre confusing energy and torque. Power, energy over time, would be conserved assuming things like RPM (fuel injected) stay constant, but there is no conservation of torque. From an energy balance perspective the tradeoff in a torque converter is RPM, more fuel is being injected when they multiply torque, so they have no problem giving you more torque for the same wheel speed (but higher engine speed due to slippage). Its inefficient since it wastes fuel and creates a bunch of heat, but it still multiplies torque. The archetypal example would be "stalling" a torque converter when youre launching a drag car from a dead stop. Imagine the engine is spinning at 1800 RPM, and the wheels are stationary. Where does the fluid go in the torque converter, considering the transmission side isnt moving? It recirculates through the vanes in the converter which gives you a mechanical advantage, you get more fluid pressing harder against the transmission side of the fluid coupling. You can momentarily get 1.8x engine torque when "stalling" an automatic trans like this, and even more if you have a high stall converter that lets it slip even more (say a 2400 RPM torque converter, or a 3k). The same is true to a lesser degree when climbing a hill. As the load on the tires increases and the transmission speed begins to drop, but the engine speed is maintained, the fluid begins to recirculate more and give a torque advantage (not as large as the 1.8 stated earlier, but still some). Automatics have more torque when climbing hills, if the load of the hill causes wheel speed to drop - because the engine speed stays higher compared to a manual. Of course the disadvantage is that this slippage creates a large amount of heat. It is inefficient and wastes fuel which is why lockup torque converters exist, and slippage isnt desirable if your goal is fuel economy. Its less efficient, but still increases torque.

​@@BuildSomethingAuto a fluid coupling absolutely can NOT output more torque than is put into it in the first place. If it actually multiplied torque it would be called a torque multiplier but that's not what it does at all. It converts a higher rpm input (where your typical combustion engine generates more torque) to a lower rpm output applying roughly the same amount of torque as the input (slightly less due to losses from fluid shear converting a very small amount of that input torque into heat) to this slower output speed. ANY actual torque multiplication comes from different gearsets connected between the torque converter and final drive. Remember torque is the amount of rotational force applied against a load. Kinda like how your rear axle was actually still driving two wheels through an open diff. An open diff does a 50/50 torque split. It ALWAYS applies the same amount of torque to both wheels regardless of their speed. problem is, once one starts spinning the amount of torque being applied drops to almost zero because the resistance to that motion (the load) drops to almost zero. It was still applying that minuscule amount of torque to both wheels.

Torque converters are not just fluid couplings. They are in fact, torque multipliers. That is how cars were able to get away with having 3 speed (or the 2 speed Powerglide) transmissions. If you've ever driven a car from the 70's you'll notice how the engine RPM stays relatively the same while the vehicle speed increases. This is because of the torque converter. In a sense, they are like small CVT's. The main reasons modern vehicles are using 6+ speed automatics is for fuel mileage and emissions.

@@tonybingham2399 it converts torque by multiplying INERTIA based on input/output speed differential. All losses aside the best multiplication factor you can get from a torque converter is 1, at stall speed, that is why you match the stall speed to the engine's peak torque output, otherwise it's a torque divider, it only multiplies by factors less than 1.

​@@RyanAumiller It can multiply torque, because the stator redirects fluid back through the converter multiple times, it functions like a wet gear reduction. More accurately, like Tony said, it functions like a CVT constantly changing the torque through it based on an input output speed differential. If you won't listen to us, maybe some sources will help. We're all here to learn, understand that you're mistaken about the function of a torque converter - but don't take our word for it, do some reading outside these youtube comments if you don't believe us. Here's an animation that shows it, although it's still hard to see what's happening: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hl75nbJ1q0Y.html Here's a motortrend article: The stator redirects fluid from the turbine to the impeller, radically increasing the force of the fluid entering the impeller and multiplying the torque input from the engine. Basically, the fluid exits the center of the turbine and is redirected by the stator back into the impeller. This is a very slick trick and can be worth up to 2.5 times engine torque! This means that at a 2:1 torque multiplication ratio, an engine that is making 300 lb-ft of torque at a stall speed of 2,500 rpm will actually apply 600 lb-ft of torque to the input shaft of the transmission as the car leaves the starting line. www.motortrend.com/how-to/ccrp-0310-torque-converters/ Here's the wikipedia page: The maximum amount of torque multiplication produced by a converter is highly dependent on the size and geometry of the turbine and stator blades, and is generated only when the converter is at or near the stall phase of operation. Typical stall torque multiplication ratios range from 1.8:1 to 2.5:1 for most automotive applications (although multi-element designs as used in the Buick Dynaflow and Chevrolet Turboglide could produce more). Specialized converters designed for industrial, rail, or heavy marine power transmission systems are capable of as much as 5.0:1 multiplication. Generally speaking, there is a trade-off between maximum torque multiplication and efficiency-high stall ratio converters tend to be relatively inefficient around the coupling speed, whereas low stall ratio converters tend to provide less possible torque multiplication. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter

that's awesome thank you!

Agreed. Unforunately this trailer ended up getting stolen, so it's no longer my problem I guess. Be sure to lockup your trailers, even when you think they're somewhere noone would see em.

@@BuildSomethingAuto we don't take the keys out of our vehicles and we don't even have keys to our house. The advantages of being miles from from nowhere Canada in a community that has some of the lowest crime rates in the country. I feel for you though.

Actually, believe it or not I intentionally swapped in the TTB. No solid axle for me. It's a dana 50 TTB out of an F250, had to swap it to coils since they came with leafs. It's built like a ford 9", removable 3rd member and high pinion (strong). I wanted to try beams for a challenge and because I like how smooth they run. Hopefully I'll get a chance to test it on some harder trails soon. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3Thj3K5ZLUA.html

@@BuildSomethingAuto i am very fond of the twin I beam. I own 12 of the 1/2 tons, a pretty even mix of 4x4 and 2wd, and 1 3/4 ton. All those and run them for years on the bee farm and never once had to tear into the front diff. In my experience there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. But we never did any recreational off roading, a days work was more than enough adventure some days. One year I twisted 3 drive shafts in my pickup. I didn't pretzel them just took the ujoints enough out of phase that they'd vibrate on the highway.

Thats awesome, id love to see the build if you ever end up doing it! Eventually when I get this thing on a serious trail I'll video the TTB and see how well it does.

@BuildSomethingAuto it ought to do pretty well! I've seen a few similar explorers running modified 35/45ttb with tons of travel. Thing was killer. Not 100% decided on the truck but swingset steering and turning the beams w/ reinforcement is what I want. It'll either be my jellybean f150, or if I want to get weird with it, one of my toyota minis. Haven't decided if I would make any vids on it, but it would be fun to experiment with that.

I wouldnt. I wasnt trying to go backwards. Hard to see since I speed up the footage, but at that point I was just trying to get it unstuck and back inside, figured I had a better chance of driving forward then backwards. When that failed I just yanked it backwards with the truck so I could get some speed to get back into the garage forwards.

Eventually Ill go weigh it. Id be willing to bet its still lighter than a gladiator with similar sized tires and axles - considering it started off weighing 1,000 lbs less to begin with. It was never meant to be a "perfect" rig, it was meant to be fun, and cheap, and so far its doing a great job of both of those things. I could literally have 10 of these for the price of a hemi rubicon 🤣

@@BuildSomethingAuto well I'm all about fun. I've been playing with 4 * 4 for the last 50 years. So if you're having fun doing it keep going👍

Probably not, but they were also VERY cheap traction boards picked up on a whim at a hardware store. The snow wasnt soft enough to get them under the tire and they may as well have been made from teflon, couldnt get a tire to grab no matter what I tried. I need to get a real set, they cost atleast 10x what I paid for these.

@@BuildSomethingAuto Cheap or not, you had them on the wrong side of the tire. You were trying to get traction going in reverse, yet you had them in front of the tire. Sick build though.

@@BuildSomethingAuto Yeah that wasn't the issue.

​@@GregoryVeizades the problem is definitely user error and a lack of common Sense

I was going forward 😉. Figured I had a better chance getting it to move by going downhill than uphill. It isn't obvious in the sped up footage, maybe I shoulda showed more of it.

Youre the reason I put "probably" in the title 🤣. Mine will be some day...