I'm officially posting to "Beg to differ!!"
This is the old Dixon truck,sitting on 35 race tires.
I was told that the reason everything fits so nicely was the fenders are trimmed 2 inches and the stock flairs are raised.
I just have so much trouble swallowing that pill by looking at the pictures of this truck.
I may be wrong,but I'd like to know where I'm wrong.
Cuz I'd love to be able to set el'Chivo up this way some how.

http://www.race-dezert.com/cgi-bin/trad ... nd&id=9232

I don't think they did anything different with the flares. Wonder if they moved something else around
to make it work.

Yeah!!<there is deffinatly a cog in the machine that we are missing!!!

I have to find it!!!

Wonder if they have more body lift then we do?

Body lift is regulated to 3" by class rules.

It is a 2wd truck with the torsions cranked up so that it has no droop travel and what looks like our same rear springs. You are correct about the body for sure.

So, here's the thing: We are limited front ride height that we can get because the upper A-Arms hit the frame. We are limited in the rear to the Height of the springs based on the length of the shackles and the length of the leaves (both are mandated by rules). That truck is set up for all compression travel both front and rear. I don't think it would be too tough to crank up the front end like that just by cranking the torsion keys and preloading the springs. If we go that tall, we'll have to be VERY careful in the corners not to flop it because the center of gravity would be even higher. But I think that we are kind of going for maximizing our wheel travel anyway so all compression probably wouldn't be a bad thing. . .at least not in the front.

The biggest problem that we'll have is that if we make the truck too much faster, we'll break more stock parts that we are required to have. We'd have to commit to still driving at a reasonable pace in order to save the parts. If we did that, then more compression travel would actually help save the truck in terms of the fragile front end components. So, smoother ride, less broken parts and we still win races.

Last point for me: We have seen MANY examples in our class and in 7100 that form does NOT follow function (good looking trucks broken next to the track, think EDRO). That truck looks badass for sure, but we would really need to examine why it looks that way and find out if it will work with our 4x4. When we saw it at V2R it didn't look all that interesting. . .not like it does in the pictures.

We are also limited on what gears we can run with the front diff. Bigger tires means more heat in the trans and "lugging" the truck more. Would be interesting to bolt on a set of 35" tires and run it at juniper and see how it reacts to the taller tire befor changing to much stuff. We may find that it works against us.

Totally agree with that. . .but I'm not even sure that we'll ever need 35s on El Chivo unless we move him to 7100.

I hope that all of the 7300 trucks that are currently viable show up to Primm. It would be nice to be able to see everything that people have done. Especially all of the A-Arm trucks now that we are figuring out what works and what doesn't.

I'm anti 35's. My $.02.

On the regear issue, all the other 4wd rangers run 2wd and gut the front ends. At that point they no longer have the gearing limitations of the front end!

6000rpm's, 6.14'2 in the rear, 5th gear, foot on the floor and on till morning!

Sounds good, yuh? Even though "they" don't have the gearing limitations of the front end, they still have the suspension limits . . . and no 4wd in the silt!

I think its had some work on the fire wall. To stuff 35x12.50s in front and pulled bed sides.And way cranked t-bars.Taller tires would help in the rutts.