Narwhal Truck Toppers Road To Raptor Rally

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

What a trip! The Narwhal team ventured down to Lake Havasu, Arizona, to attend the third annual Ford Raptor Rally

We took our Ranger Raptor and F-150 Raptor down from Colorado. Finally getting some photos and videos together to share here.

Our first stop was Sanderson Ford for a big truck show with the Ford Raptor Nation crew. Then we headed to San Tan Ford to meet up with the Raptor Nation crew and a group of 13 trucks for a 150-mile off-road run into Havasu.

We ran the trucks hard. One of the Ranger Raptors broke an inner tie rod, and several trucks had mechanical issues that forced us to stop and work through. Everyone pitched in to help get things sorted. Even with the repairs, the run was a great time, and it was very cool to see how quickly this community comes together to help people out. We took a little damage as well, and the Ranger's front skid plate is completely toast.

At the rally, the issue on the Fox jumps was people carrying more speed than the landing zone was built for. Ford recommended 45 mph for the second jump. We hit it at 53 mph and landed at the very tail end of the landing zone. Trucks approaching 60 mph were getting damaged. A lot of Bronco Raptors were blowing fender flares off, and by the end there was an entire pile off to the side of LZ.

We also heard two people suffered back fractures on those jumps. Awful to hear, and we hope both are recovering well.

We met so many great people from the different Raptor run crews, along with Ford engineers and folks from Foutz Motorsports and ADD. It was awesome to spend time with everyone in person and hear about their trucks and the runs they’re doing.

We made the trip back with the Midwest Raptor Runs crew, stopping for a short run near Monument Valley on the Arizona/Utah border and another near Moab for some more high speed driving before heading home to Colorado.

All in all, an amazing trip. Grateful we got to be part of it and meet so many people who love getting these trucks out and using them.

I’ll post a bunch of photos and videos below. Who else was there? How did your trucks hold up? If you guys have any questions about the rally, feel free to hit us up!

Sponsored

 

[Lion77]

You on stock shocks with just stiffer springs and 35s?

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

You on stock shocks with just stiffer springs and 35s?

We are on stock shocks and stock springs. It just barely sags because the topper doesn’t weigh anything. We’re running a +25 offset wheel on stock tires. That offset works great, with no rubbing, and the stance looks better, in our opinion.

 

[Lion77]

We are on stock shocks and stock springs. It just barely sags because the topper doesn’t weigh anything. We’re running a +25 offset wheel on stock tires. That offset works great, with no rubbing, and the stance looks better, in our opinion.

And here I was under the impression the RR couldn't off-road without a lift, portals, 37's and a built engine making 600 RWHP...silly me! Sarcasm aside, nice to see a relatively stock truck really showing what it can do, plus as a vendor, your showcasing the durability and weight advantage of the topper, if I ever scrape up enough to get a topper, that is THE topper to get form the performance standpoint.

I ended up with +35 offset Method 705's myself and am on stock tires too, been mulling over up-sizing to a 34 or skinny 35, but I can't get around the on-road and high-speed performance advantages of stock 33's and the wider off-set wheel at stock ride height (less roll than stock truck). + wider tire and wheel off-set gives you nearly the same big tire look as 35's without all the handling penalties, I also tow and haul cargo with my truck periodically, so the factory rake and utility is important to preserve at this point in time.

I don't really need more clearance either for the trails around here or how I use the truck and I'm not really into seeking out trails with giant obstacles in general, I get bored with creep over big obstacles a stupid slow speeds....just not my thing.

I like the high-speed stuff, turns, jumps etc. and 33's really shine for their balance of handling dynamics while still delivering literally 95% of the clearance of a 34.5" tire. 32.8" for V1 and 34.4" for V2 equates to literally only 4.8% difference mathematically. Lot of penalty for only a little gain in clearance and smoothness off-road, I get it, for certain situations it makes sense, but other use cases it doesn't.

Amazing how much the +25's do for the look of the truck even on stock tires. When you do need new tires, I suggest giving the Pirelli XTM AT's a look in stock size, that's what I'm moving to once my KO3's are worn out. You will get sharper steering on and off-road, more predictable brake away characteristics, better on-road lateral traction (wider tread than OE spec KO3's by nearly 1 inch) and flotation, quieter ride and more of that "big tire look" due to the tread width all without going to a bigger tire and vastly superior wet traction that nearly matches on-road all seasons. It's the "driver tires" for the RR! On top of all that, you're dropping another 3lbs of sprung mass per corner over the KO3's and that is also noticeable.

The e-rated sidewall is a bit stiffer, but with the added weight, that is a boon, or for those of us that still tow periodically or use the truck for utility purposes, that's beneficial.

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

And here I was under the impression the RR couldn't off-road without a lift, portals, 37's and a built engine making 600 RWHP...silly me! Sarcasm aside, nice to see a relatively stock truck really showing what it can do, plus as a vendor, your showcasing the durability and weight advantage of the topper, if I ever scrape up enough to get a topper, that is THE topper to get form the performance standpoint.

I ended up with +35 offset Method 705's myself and am on stock tires too, been mulling over up-sizing to a 34 or skinny 35, but I can't get around the on-road and high-speed performance advantages of stock 33's and the wider off-set wheel at stock ride height (less roll than stock truck). + wider tire and wheel off-set gives you nearly the same big tire look as 35's without all the handling penalties, I also tow and haul cargo with my truck periodically, so the factory rake and utility is important to preserve at this point in time.

I don't really need more clearance either for the trails around here or how I use the truck and I'm not really into seeking out trails with giant obstacles in general, I get bored with creep over big obstacles a stupid slow speeds....just not my thing.

I like the high-speed stuff, turns, jumps etc. and 33's really shine for their balance of handling dynamics while still delivering literally 95% of the clearance of a 34.5" tire. 32.8" for V1 and 34.4" for V2 equates to literally only 4.8% difference mathematically. Lot of penalty for only a little gain in clearance and smoothness off-road, I get it, for certain situations it makes sense, but other use cases it doesn't.

Amazing how much the +25's do for the look of the truck even on stock tires. When you do need new tires, I suggest giving the Pirelli XTM AT's a look in stock size, that's what I'm moving to once my KO3's are worn out. You will get sharper steering on and off-road, more predictable brake away characteristics, better on-road lateral traction (wider tread than OE spec KO3's by nearly 1 inch) and flotation, quieter ride and more of that "big tire look" due to the tread width all without going to a bigger tire and vastly superior wet traction that nearly matches on-road all seasons. It's the "driver tires" for the RR! On top of all that, you're dropping another 3lbs of sprung mass per corner over the KO3's and that is also noticeable.

The e-rated sidewall is a bit stiffer, but with the added weight, that is a boon, or for those of us that still tow periodically or use the truck for utility purposes, that's beneficial.

Completely agree with all of these points. I will say having a couple extra inches of clearance on the RR would go a long way in the high-speed terrain as well. We trailed some F-150s at 50-
70 mph for hours, and we bottomed out the front skid several times.

We also bent our lower control arm frame mount pretty badly. We will likely go to a 34.5 and do the GOAT 2:1 spacer lift. Several RR's at the Rally had that setup. We may also add Foutz reinforcement plates for that area for extra protection.

 

[Lion77]

Good to know, thanks for the info! Id probably go skinny 35s though for better traction on dirt and clearance in the fender well. 315s are just too wide for the weight and seem to have more clearance issues than 35x11.5s. That was also what GOATs testing showed and they recommend 35x11.5s over 315s. Note that strangely, 35x11.5s are still listed as having an actual diameter of 34.5in on tire rack despite allegedly being "true 35s"...BFGs website also lists their actual diameter as 34.5" so I guess a true 35 doesn't exist?

BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3 | All-Terrain Tires for Trucks, SUVs & Cars

But for a "35", 60 lbs is pretty lightweight!

And more jounce control. Im wondering if bottom out control would actually be more beneficial.

Think about the physics of it. Larger tires do add some bottom out cushion, but you still have the same travel and same damping rates.

The momentum of the chassis is going to cause the same compression rates lifted with tires or stock on stock tires.

I am thinking that hydraulic jounce bumpers would buy you more bottom out protection unless whatever you hit was so big it took up all 10.7 in of clearance while going in a straight line.

 

[EMdoc12]

Very nice. Are those the DD fog lights? And if so did you ge the proper old style FoxBeam bracket with the wings to create a more stock/flush look or the basic new one? Got any better up close photos?

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

Good to know, thanks for the info! I'd probably go skinny 35s, though, for better traction on dirt and clearance in the fender well. 315s are just too wide for the weight and seem to have more clearance issues than 35x11.5s. That was also what GOATs testing showed and they recommend 35x11.5s over 315s. Note that strangely, 35x11.5s are still listed as having an actual diameter of 34.5in on tire rack despite allegedly being "true 35s"...BFGs website also lists their actual diameter as 34.5" so I guess a true 35 doesn't exist?

BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3 | All-Terrain Tires for Trucks, SUVs & Cars

But for a "35", 60 lbs is pretty lightweight!

And more jounce control. Im wondering if bottom out control would actually be more beneficial.

Think about the physics of it. Larger tires do add some bottom out cushion, but you still have the same travel and same damping rates.

The momentum of the chassis is going to cause the same compression rates lifted with tires or stock on stock tires.

I am thinking that hydraulic jounce bumpers would buy you more bottom out protection unless whatever you hit was so big it took up all 10.7 in of clearance while going in a straight line.

Good to know, thanks for the info! Id probably go skinny 35s though for better traction on dirt and clearance in the fender well. 315s are just too wide for the weight and seem to have more clearance issues than 35x11.5s. That was also what GOATs testing showed and they recommend 35x11.5s over 315s. Note that strangely, 35x11.5s are still listed as having an actual diameter of 34.5in on tire rack despite allegedly being "true 35s"...BFGs website also lists their actual diameter as 34.5" so I guess a true 35 doesn't exist?

BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO3 | All-Terrain Tires for Trucks, SUVs & Cars

But for a "35", 60 lbs is pretty lightweight!

And more jounce control. Im wondering if bottom out control would actually be more beneficial.

Think about the physics of it. Larger tires do add some bottom out cushion, but you still have the same travel and same damping rates.

The momentum of the chassis is going to cause the same compression rates lifted with tires or stock on stock tires.

I am thinking that hydraulic jounce bumpers would buy you more bottom out protection unless whatever you hit was so big it took up all 10.7 in of clearance while going in a straight line.

The dimensions of BFG’s 35x11.50 seem like they would work great.

Also, I completely understand we won't get any benefit to travel or damping rates, but that extra couple of inches of overall clearance would still be very helpful. A good example was the quarry loop that was set up at the rally. Ruts kept getting deeper and deeper throughout the day, to the point that the Ranger skids dragged across the ground repeatedly.

The F-150s and BRaptors had enough clearance to maintain speed without constantly dragging their skids through the rocks. Ranger, not so much and this was the main area that I believe caused the damage to the lower control arm frame mounts.

It’s also interesting to see what the Ford racing trucks are using on the Ranger. From what I could see, they have a 2 1/2 inch perch collar on the front with limit straps. It was hard to see what was going on in the back of the truck, but I think it’s just a bigger spring along with limit straps. They are also running a 35. I can’t remember if it was at 11.5 or 12.5 width. I should have taken more photos!

 

[embedded rock]

... We will likely go to a 34.5 and ....

Could this a a 75 series 285 tire? Like 285/75-17 tire. I've been considering the same--just not sure I want to go with the E rating most seem to have.

 

[Lion77]

Nope, BFG's website lists the actual diameter of their 35x11.5 KO3 Load C as 34.5. So basically it's "skinny" 315 which is much more ideal for traction on hard pack dirt, fuel economy, braking, handlign etc. Only time 315 would be more beneficial is sand / very loamy soil. Aka very lose surfaces where you need flotation.

But wider tires will have less bite on hard pack dirt so there are legitimate advantages to skinnier tires (to a degree) for a variety of surfaces, in addition to the lower inertia from being lighter weight.

 

[Lion77]

The dimensions of BFG’s 35x11.50 seem like they would work great.

Also, I completely understand we won't get any benefit to travel or damping rates, but that extra couple of inches of overall clearance would still be very helpful. A good example was the quarry loop that was set up at the rally. Ruts kept getting deeper and deeper throughout the day, to the point that the Ranger skids dragged across the ground repeatedly.

The F-150s and BRaptors had enough clearance to maintain speed without constantly dragging their skids through the rocks. Ranger, not so much and this was the main area that I believe caused the damage to the lower control arm frame mounts.

It’s also interesting to see what the Ford racing trucks are using on the Ranger. From what I could see, they have a 2 1/2 inch perch collar on the front with limit straps. It was hard to see what was going on in the back of the truck, but I think it’s just a bigger spring along with limit straps. They are also running a 35. I can’t remember if it was at 11.5 or 12.5 width. I should have taken more photos!

Agreed. I've studied the RR Race truck quite extensively. Do note that the driver preferred the handling of the stock chase truck on 33's. That is likely because it did not have perch collars and the issue with adding 2.5 in of lift from pre-load is now the damping rates are sub-optimal because the spring is effectively "stiffer" but the damping rate hasn't gone up.

I do not believe they can re-valve shocks. They can't lift or change stock suspension parts either. They are only able to adjust ride height via pre-load, so I get why they perch collars, but that means they also lost a whopping 2.5in of travel too. Then add in the extra 400 lbs of gear, fuel, parts, full cage etc. and it's a pig that's under damped, but that's racing. Makes sense why the driver described the front end as being "crashy".

I get what you're saying about the ruts etc. and thanks for the example. The more I see real off-roading applications beyond what I've done, the more I think 35's and a mild lift make sense, but for a street truck, especially one that still does utility related things, occasional towing, road trips etc., I think the 1.5" / 1" GOAT kit is better option than the 2" / 1" when paired with skinny 35's.

You lose a lot of the rake with the 2" / 1" lift, which is fine if you're driving around with a mostly empty bed, but if you still tow occasionally or load up the bed, you're going seriously nose high and crap handling and I don't want to do springs either since I often drive the truck with minimal cargo too where that would be too stiff and again, makes the suspension crashy because damping is no longer optimal for the added spring tension. So, I'm not a big fan of springs without re-valving which is another can of worms I'm not into opening just yet.

GOAT's website states their 1.5" / 1" lift is suitable for 34's and "skinny" 35's aka 35x11.5's which are better suited to a road going truck, even one that does a lot of off-roading since it has the minimal amount of negative effects on handling, braking, turn-in, loss of Static Stability Factor (SSF) which increases the chances of roll-over. The wider off-set ET35 wheels I'm using (Method 705's) negate 50% of the loss of CG and SSF over stock, so it's very minimal added body roll, would be barely noticeable over stock which I like.

That's the route I'm going. The 2" / 1" is only "necessary" if you want to clear 315/70R17 tires or if you just want that extra 1/2in of ride height up front, but you also lose some more visibility over the nose. Skinny 35's + 1.5" lift are already giving me an effective 2.35" more front clearance, significant.

A 35x11.5 is 34.5 in tall and goes 21.6mm further up into the fender well at full compression than stock 32.8" KO3's. The 1.5" GOAT spacer is 24mm thick (remember motion ratio of the shocks, a 24mm spacer may only be ~1" thick, but the motion ratio is not 1:1, so a 1" spacer gives you 1.5" more ride height, but still adds only 24mm of more bottom out height, which is just enough for a skinny 35).

That's just my opinion of course but sounds like your application isn't' that different from mine, so I thought it was worth mentioning. I tend to look at the truck as system vs. just one individual element. Plus, skinny 35's for the KO3 also come in Load C and only weigh 60 lbs, hardly any heavier than stock K03's at 56 lbs, so VERY minimal weight gain.

Then there's the UCA's, 2" is really pushing the limits on the stock UCA's and at about at the limit. 1.5" gives you a 25% margin between stock and maxed out that may help with component longevity. I get the race truck is the race truck and I'm with you on running 35's, BUT, I think there's a smarter way to do it when considering the more dynamic uses of a road going truck vs. a pure race truck that has no back seat, no usable bed, 400lbs + of additional gear and gets it's shocks rebuilt after every race and parts replaced on the track when they fail, yah know? I doubt most of us want to be swapping shocks out on a trail!

I'm at a point where I think skinny 35's with a 1.5 / 1 GOAT spacer lift is the perfect balance. I'll pair the lift with upgraded tie rods from APEX, use ready lift crash bars, use forscan to do a ride height re-cal and my Pro Cal to change the tire revs per mile for correct speedo. Now, if only I could wear out these factory KO3's faster to justify the upgrade sooner .

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

Very nice. Are those the DD fog lights? And if so did you ge the proper old style FoxBeam bracket with the wings to create a more stock/flush look or the basic new one? Got any better up close photos?

Yes, they are the DD SSC1 fogs. I'm not sure if it was the foxbeam bracket or the original one. The fogs seem to be flush, and we haven't had any issues with them. It's hard to tell from this photo. I will try to get some closer photos this week.

 

[Narwhal Truck Toppers]

Agreed. I've studied the RR Race truck quite extensively. Do note that the driver preferred the handling of the stock chase truck on 33's. That is likely because it did not have perch collars and the issue with adding 2.5 in of lift from pre-load is now the damping rates are sub-optimal because the spring is effectively "stiffer" but the damping rate hasn't gone up.

I do not believe they can re-valve shocks. They can't lift or change stock suspension parts either. They are only able to adjust ride height via pre-load, so I get why they perch collars, but that means they also lost a whopping 2.5in of travel too. Then add in the extra 400 lbs of gear, fuel, parts, full cage etc. and it's a pig that's under damped, but that's racing. Makes sense why the driver described the front end as being "crashy".

I get what you're saying about the ruts etc. and thanks for the example. The more I see real off-roading applications beyond what I've done, the more I think 35's and a mild lift make sense, but for a street truck, especially one that still does utility related things, occasional towing, road trips etc., I think the 1.5" / 1" GOAT kit is better option than the 2" / 1" when paired with skinny 35's.

You lose a lot of the rake with the 2" / 1" lift, which is fine if you're driving around with a mostly empty bed, but if you still tow occasionally or load up the bed, you're going seriously nose high and crap handling and I don't want to do springs either since I often drive the truck with minimal cargo too where that would be too stiff and again, makes the suspension crashy because damping is no longer optimal for the added spring tension. So, I'm not a big fan of springs without re-valving which is another can of worms I'm not into opening just yet.

GOAT's website states their 1.5" / 1" lift is suitable for 34's and "skinny" 35's aka 35x11.5's which are better suited to a road going truck, even one that does a lot of off-roading since it has the minimal amount of negative effects on handling, braking, turn-in, loss of Static Stability Factor (SSF) which increases the chances of roll-over. The wider off-set ET35 wheels I'm using (Method 705's) negate 50% of the loss of CG and SSF over stock, so it's very minimal added body roll, would be barely noticeable over stock which I like.

That's the route I'm going. The 2" / 1" is only "necessary" if you want to clear 315/70R17 tires or if you just want that extra 1/2in of ride height up front, but you also lose some more visibility over the nose. Skinny 35's + 1.5" lift are already giving me an effective 2.35" more front clearance, significant.

A 35x11.5 is 34.5 in tall and goes 21.6mm further up into the fender well at full compression than stock 32.8" KO3's. The 1.5" GOAT spacer is 24mm thick (remember motion ratio of the shocks, a 24mm spacer may only be ~1" thick, but the motion ratio is not 1:1, so a 1" spacer gives you 1.5" more ride height, but still adds only 24mm of more bottom out height, which is just enough for a skinny 35).

That's just my opinion of course but sounds like your application isn't' that different from mine, so I thought it was worth mentioning. I tend to look at the truck as system vs. just one individual element. Plus, skinny 35's for the KO3 also come in Load C and only weigh 60 lbs, hardly any heavier than stock K03's at 56 lbs, so VERY minimal weight gain.

Then there's the UCA's, 2" is really pushing the limits on the stock UCA's and at about at the limit. 1.5" gives you a 25% margin between stock and maxed out that may help with component longevity. I get the race truck is the race truck and I'm with you on running 35's, BUT, I think there's a smarter way to do it when considering the more dynamic uses of a road going truck vs. a pure race truck that has no back seat, no usable bed, 400lbs + of additional gear and gets it's shocks rebuilt after every race and parts replaced on the track when they fail, yah know? I doubt most of us want to be swapping shocks out on a trail!

I'm at a point where I think skinny 35's with a 1.5 / 1 GOAT spacer lift is the perfect balance. I'll pair the lift with upgraded tie rods from APEX, use ready lift crash bars, use forscan to do a ride height re-cal and my Pro Cal to change the tire revs per mile for correct speedo. Now, if only I could wear out these factory KO3's faster to justify the upgrade sooner .

That makes complete sense on the ride quality of the truck going to hell. I have never been a fan of a perch-collar lift on any Raptor for all the reasons you mentioned. I'm sure several requirements for the race trucks force them to go certain ways with modifications.

The 1.5 front and 1 in rear seems like the best way to go if you're keeping stock UCAs, want to preserve as much ride quality as possible, and run a skinny 35.

We are about to swap to a 295/70/R17 Hankook Dynapro RC10 on the stock suspension with a +25 wheel. We may have to remove the crash bars, but more to follow on that.

Appreciate all of your insights on this topic!

 

[Lion77]

You're welcome. I'm either gonna go the 1.5 / 1 lift route on skinny 35's or do the 1" lift IF, a big IF, I can figure out a DIY fender liner lift mod. I want to avoid a hack job, but I don't mind tastefully done DIY stuff, I got some time so I can ponder it fare and wide, maybe take the liners off and examine them carefully etc.

Since it's a double wishbone with a rather shot articulation radius, like all production truck front ends, you get a LOT of camber as the you go through the arc of motion, that front tire not only tucks up into the wheel well, but obviously angles in quite a bit, it almost looks like from the photos it could be as much as a whopping 3-4 degrees of camber at full compression.

Since I'm not going any wider on tires or wheel off-set than what I'm at now, I think if I can just lift the inner finer liner up by 7-8mm and seal it off, that would easily clear skinny 35's on full compression with a few degrees of steering slop (i.e., steering wheel could be 1-2 degrees left or right of center) without blowing out a fender.

Even on a bone stock truck, if someone where to land with say 15 to 20 degrees of steering angle off a jump and somehow manage full compression without destroying the suspension (unlikely), your stock fenders are gone anyway.

If I end up doing that, I'll do a write up because would also allow people to run skinny 35's with ONLY a 1" front lift or do a 1" / 1" lift to preserve as much CG as possible while still also running 35's. The only area I might consider use of a perch collar would be the rear end.

If I needed say only a 1/2" lift just mostly to get a little more rake, when paired with a front lift, I'd sacrifice 1/2 rear travel which is almost nothing for just a smidge more tire clearance and rake, that little, tiny bit of pre-load wouldn't make the rear end crashy either.

My new goal post is skinny 35's with a 1" front lift only paired with a mild fender lift DIY mod and no lift on the rear (I'd be ok with mild rubbing in the rear end on 100% compression, which is rare for me as long as it's not ripping fenders off, then I could always trim just the areas that rub after the tire marks them for me).

Although I do think for your application a 1.5" / 1" might be better as it looks like you probably have more cargo, I'm moving a bit more towards the "Race Truck" direction of performance biased so long as I can still maintain about 400 to 500lbs of bed cargo and be about level with that cargo (aka ~1" rake).

I want my 1" of CG, darn it!!!

Sponsored