GoFastBroncos.com

Some guys do. For me it was too deep for my pocket book. If I had the money I would've in a heart beat.

You basically answered your own question.

I think for most it comes down to price to performance ratio. A 3.0 C/O set up is nearly twice the cost and adding bypasses would quadruple it. Via work of mouth I have heard it not noticible in performance. I dont think you would notice it unless you were racing. I am more than happy with my 2.5 c/o and bumps performance. If I change anything it would likely be to add a 2.5 smooth body to help with the dampening on long runs.

There is so much money to dump into these things to make them a good working truck. No reason to spend more money on something that is not going to perform better.

Just my $.02

Plus remember no matter the suspension the stock motor only pushed 240 HP with mods. Really worth over 3k just in shocks for the front?

On the race bronco we used 2.5 C/O with big bypass mostly due to cost. The 3.0 C/O springs are expensive and so is the shock. Space was also an issue but if cost was same I would have made room.
We do have significant valving in the C/O and cooked the rears first race, added larger reservoirs and remounted them in the airflow and all good now.
If it was a class 8 instead of a class 3 I don't think the 2.5 C/O would cut it, would use 3.0. One of many reasons why class 3 is cheaper than class 8.

On my old play bronco I used a 3.0 C/O without a bypass because they were left over from my Class 8 truck and the springs worked. Plus I never felt it needed a front bypass. Still feel that way.

Good Points being Made

baja-chris wrote:On the race bronco we used 2.5 C/O with big bypass mostly due to cost. The 3.0 C/O springs are expensive and so is the shock. Space was also an issue but if cost was same I would have made room.
We do have significant valving in the C/O and cooked the rears first race, added larger reservoirs and remounted them in the airflow and all good now.
If it was a class 8 instead of a class 3 I don't think the 2.5 C/O would cut it, would use 3.0. One of many reasons why class 3 is cheaper than class 8.

On my old play bronco I used a 3.0 C/O without a bypass because they were left over from my Class 8 truck and the springs worked. Plus I never felt it needed a front bypass. Still feel that way.

Damn, Chris. The race truck is cooking! Did you only change reservoirs and location or also valving?

On the rear we only changed resi and resi location for better cooling and to get more oil in system so it would not heat up as fast for short bursts of extreme use. We also added more base compression valving to the rear 4.0 bypass to stiffen the bump zone.

On the front we still have not touched the Fox shocks since putting them on. Time to rebuild all 8 shocks now.

The other reason I was told, a lot more choices of spring ratings in a 2.5 than the 3.0??? Not sure if that applies for a Bronco.

Knuckles ??? What year is the 6 bolt Spindle/Knuckles on? Any idea?

Cactus Cooler wrote:Knuckles ??? What year is the 6 bolt Spindle/Knuckles on? Any idea?

As far as I know, any non abs truck will be 6 bolt

Not true. 6 bolts were used to 91 I think. There were both ABS and non ABS 5 bolt.

Good to know

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before but why aren't radius arms extended to the trans cross member bolt holes? Even though I already have a set of radius arms, that question has been on my mind. It seems to me this would give let a lower profile cross member and a way to link each side.

There was someone who build a set of arms out of rectangular tube. Anyone know who's build that is?

Who has a cross member that ties in to their arm mounts?

Kelly (Kelfab) built his radius with a tub on top the a retangle tube cut an angle for the lower half of the radius arm. I have no other answer as far as length goes except I think it would look really silly and potentially significatnly heavier depending on constuction.

If I remember right doing a radius arm/tranny mount combo would lengthen the arms by 6-8". It seems pretty common to share the trans mount/rad arm cross member on the rangers & 70's F series stuff, but as you said I haven't seen much of it on the 80's/90's F series & broncos. Not exactly sure why.

And I remembered the rectangular tube radius arms too. couldn't remember who did them though. Simple, strong & effective. I've considered doing the same for sure.

For a 2wd application i can see the gain from center mounted radius arms. For 4wd i see there being too many limiting factors. Am i wrong?

you are correct. "center" or inset radius arm mounting was my plan for the supercab since it was to be a 2wd. I really like the idea & the strength. For a bronco this could pose to be a difficult task due to the front driveshaft. You can also have frame clearance issues.

Whenever I'm done messing with my 5 other projects I hope to start something with TTB. I will be looking at inboard mounted radius arms, but I by no means expect them to work. I am hoping I can figure it out though.

I didn't think about the drive shafts as a potential issue. Hmm maybe that's a problem. Don't know how funny it would look but I think functionally it would deal with casters change.

cs_drums wrote:Kelly (Kelfab) built his radius with a tub on top the a retangle tube cut an angle for the lower half of the radius arm. I have no other answer as far as length goes except I think it would look really silly and potentially significatnly heavier depending on constuction.

You were right. Those wewere Kelly's radius arms I was thinking about. Simple and strong.

dtbback wrote:I didn't think about the drive shafts as a potential issue. Hmm maybe that's a problem. Don't know how funny it would look but I think functionally it would deal with casters change.

Driveshaft is an issue with the inboard mounted arms. The tradition arm location (under the frame) shouldn't be an issue with the extra length of mounting them at the trans x-member.