Ranger Raptor - GOAT: 1.5" F / 1.5" R Spacer Lift

[Locust13CT]

You didn't by chance measure the heights before and after the install did you and if so did it raise it a true 1.5 all the way around or ???

I've installed lots of different lifts all except one were suspension lifts and they are never what they claim. The last one I put on out JLUR was supposed to be 2.5 and it ended up being 3.5 Spacer lifts are a completely different deal so they're usually pretty much whatever the thickness of the spacer is.

So currently the truck is sitting at approx 23-1/8" up front and 25-1/8" in the rear. (bottom of fender to center of wheel) no extra weight anywhere. I'll remeasure on some level ground today just to make sure.

how hard was it to do the fronts? dealership wants $1100 to do just the fronts and when they said that i decided i don't want a lift that bad lol.

hmmm, to me thats pretty insane. But its the dealership so they're going to follow the factory manual, which has you throw away all the hardware you remove, Its one time use and replaces all the bolts and nuts with brand new hardware instead of reusing them, so im sure a couple hundred bucks of that figure is just for new hardware.

If you've ever removed shocks/struts and used a spring compressor before then its a pretty basic install. It takes some big sockets/wrenches for the lower mounts that you may not own, along with big torques. Only struggle I had was the top center shock shaft in the rear had exposed threads above the nuts that had some pretty bad corrosion build up that made it difficult to remove the nuts. The rear shocks didn't have the little black caps over the tips of the shaft like the front. Snow and salt is to blame.

Sponsored

 

[E40]

Since these spacer lift kits are super high-tech suspension parts, I strongly discourage Raptor owners getting these $89 aluminum spacers (Made in PRC) sold in eBay. It only takes 3-4 days for shipping, which is too fast. lol

$89 - 1.5" Lift Spacers for Ranger Raptor
*I have no affiliation with this eBay listing; the link is provided for reference only.

 

[Locust13CT]

Update: Added RTR 17x9 +30 Evo6 w/ Falken Wildpeak AT4W, Load C: 285/75/17 (34.1"), Tire size corrected with the Ford Procal

 

[25PlatTrem350]

Update: Added RTR 17x9 +30 Evo6 w/ Falken Wildpeak AT4W, Load C: 285/75/17 (34.1"), Tire size corrected with the Ford Procal

That looks really good!

I am curious about something though, if you were to do it all over again would you do it back the exact same or take some of the rake out of it?

 

[Locust13CT]

That looks really good!

I am curious about something though, if you were to do it all over again would you do it back the exact same or take some of the rake out of it?

yes, I would still do it the same. I'm very happy with the result, the ride, and handling.

 

[GCMRanger]

Update: Added RTR 17x9 +30 Evo6 w/ Falken Wildpeak AT4W, Load C: 285/75/17 (34.1"), Tire size corrected with the Ford Procal

Looks fantastic! Love the stance but where in the world did you find those wheels?! They are sold out everywhere

 

[Locust13CT]

Looks fantastic! Love the stance but where in the world did you find those wheels?! They are sold out everywhere

Ordered direct from RTR back in the beginning of Febuary maybe? Just kept checking the site until they were in stock. They did go quick, prob all those Bronco guys buying them up too.

 

[GCMRanger]

Ordered direct from RTR back in the beginning of Febuary maybe? Just kept checking the site until they were in stock. They did go quick, prob all those Bronco guys buying them up too.

I’ll keep checking - thanks!

I’m really liking these and how they look but I don’t think I’ve seen a regular Ranger (non-Raptor) with these on them. I’m sure they would fit and look really nice in +30 offset on 285/70R17 as an alternative to the +35 offset Method 703s that a lot of people run.

 

[Lion77]

This is pretty much what I've been suggesting all along instead of 315/70R17's. Most other 285/75R17's are considerably wider than the KO3's even in the 285 widths because there's variation from mfg. to mfg on how they actually size their tires.

KO3's are narrow, but going way up to 315 makes them too wide and the extra 1/2" in diameter makes almost NO difference compared to 285/75R17 which is about 33.8".

So, you're not even gaining 1/2" of ground clearance with a 315, adding more weight than necessary and also more width which makes for more fender clearance issues.

And from an aesthetic standpoint, you could not tell the difference between a 285/75R17 and 315/70R17 unless your parked right next to another truck. They both fill out the wheel wells more, but I think the 285/75R17 @ 33.8" dia is a better functional fit to the RR than a 315/70R17 @ 34.5" dia.

0.7" / 2 = 0.35" difference in ride height (not counting the strut spacer), it's just a case of in my opinion trying to fit a tire size that really isn't optimal for the RR, so yah, if I decide to go up in tire size, I'm going 1" front and back with 285/75R17's!

Gain in Track Width:

ET+35's ~= 1.6"
ET+30's ~= 2"

Total Gain in Ride Height w/285/75R17's (32.8" to 33.8") and Strut Spacers:

1" F/R + 0.5" form Tire Radius = 1.5"
1.5" F/R + 0.5" from Tire Radius = 2"

So, if you want to negate the effects of CG as much as possible, stick with those ratios for wheels and strut spacers.

1" spacers for ET+35 wheels
1.5" spacers for ET+30 wheels

Both will clear 33.8" tires which will poke 1/2" further up into the wheel well, so a 1" is more than enough to clear 33.8" tires. The rear actually has more vertical clearance that the front, I'm still waiting on Nedmo to reply if a 1" front and no lift in the rear would clear 33.8" tires.

One other advantage is impact durability. Larger side wall profile gives you more cushion on extreme landings, so if you push the higher speed stuff, there is that advantage there.

That is one of the reasons the RR race truck ran 315's, for added ground clearance at Baja to give them the best chance at avoiding damage since Baja is very rough and overall slower, where Finke is much smoother with higher average speeds compared to Baja. I believe they said the average speed at Finke was around 35kph (~22 mph) faster than at Baja, pretty significant.

Baja tests endurance the most obviously, probably has higher thermal loading because the speeds are much slower and the terrain is much rougher (less air flow). Finke tests suspension and drivetrain durability the most because the speeds are higher, so you are hitting those whoops with a lot more force than at Baja. The RR Race truck broke a rear shock and front diff at Finke (shock in 2024, front diff in 2025). I don't think they broke anything at Baja either time.

They lapped the pre-runner and the race truck, the pre-runner had 33's, race truck was up fitted with 315's and they were the same at Finke but the driver actually said the pre-runner suspension was better (bone stock) and he didn't like the crashy feeling of the RR race truck (this was likely due to all the extra weight, the damping rates of the fox shocks were a bit too low with the extra weight in the truck from fuel, full cage, nav, safety gear etc. which was over +200 kilos or about another 450 lbs!).

Given how little difference there is between 285/75's and 315/70's I'd say for mixed use cases the 285/75's are just better overall due to needed less front lift which helps for proper alignment for street use and a bit lighter in weight. I'd make the argument that the RR Race truck might have been a bit faster with 285/75's than the 315/70's without giving up any meaningful clearance, but 315/70's have been a gold standard for a while, so I get why they used them.

 

[Lion77]

BTW, I just learned from Nedmo at GOAT that for 34" tires, you don't even need a lift in the rear since the rear has a lot more clearance than the front (axle / shocks bottom out sooner than fronts, so tire doesn't go as far up in the wheel well in the rear). All you need to fit 34's and still clear at full compression is a 1" front spacer and alignment.

Now if you want to preserve the full factory rake, obviously like the OP, front and rear lift should be the same. I think it really comes down to the focus of the truck.

For balancing utility with off-roading, same lift front and rear. To bias the truck a bit more towards performance, front lift only. That will give you a bit more approach (rake takes away from approach angle) in addition to the tires and strut spacers, maximizing the approach. A lift in the rears doesn't really benefit your off-roading since only tire diameter raises the axle height, where with an IRS, a lift actually raises the bottom of the truck in addition to the tires. At the same time, the rake allows for more loading the axle (payload) without inducing negative rake.

You need a little bit of rake for proper handling, but you don't need the factory rake as aggressive as 2~2.5" for performance driving, which is meant to account for squat when the bed is heavily loaded, or you have a high tongue weight.

Throw in a high clearance bumper like SVC and it would be pretty good for wheeling if that's your thing. The trade-off is obviously how well optimized it is for towing / payload. Thus far, my towing and payloads are normally very light (mostly stuff you can throw in the back of a mid-sized SUV). For towing, you could also use the weigh safe to help reduce tung load (along with careful cargo placement on trailers), reduced rake would mostly be impacted by payload.

So, I think it's going to depend on how the truck is used overall. If it's mostly for touring (passengers, light luggage in bed), off-roading, rally / high speed stuff I think front lift only makes the most sense to preserve CG as much as possible and maximize approach angle. If you still do a lot of utility stuff (cargo, towing etc.) or overlanding with your truck, you're probably better off with the front and rear lift to preserve the factory rake.

1~1.5" of rake sounds about right for a slightly more off-road performance bias (1" front lift only) while the 2~2.5" rake is more utilitarian if you do same front and rear spacers.

This is what another member got for rake after doing 1.5" front spacers only (24mm spacer):

GOAT states 16mm strut spacer results in about a 1" front lift and would leave about ~1 to 1 1/4" of rake, just right for lighter payloads and more performance-oriented uses, can still handle passengers and lighter payloads. Maybe 150~200 lbs of off-road gear in bed at most and a couple of passengers which evenly loads the front and rear since the cab is roughly centered between the axles.

I'd get a weigh safe distribution hitch with sway control for towing and carefully load the trailer, so the truck is close to level when towing, thus preserving the majority of its utility.

Weight Distribution Hitches | Weigh Safe

 

[TSY]

tbh - I love the look @Locust13CT found, but agree if you're hauling anything in the back (I'm always carting around my 501 Husq. on a carrier) 1" is about right once loaded up.

 

[Lion77]

Factory rake is around 2~2.5", so yah, couple hundred pounds in the bed and you'd be at about a 1" rake. Up the load to 500ish pounds and the rear will squat to about level. When I drove my 26 Honda FourTrax Rubicon up into the bed, I had a negative rake of about 1" due to the squat (factory ride height).

He kept the factory rake by lifting front and rear same, so I think his setup is a really good balance between tires, lift, CG and utility. A 1" rake would look a bit better overall and maybe be a little more ideal just for off-roading as it adds a degree or two of approach, but you'd give up payload for that and unless the truck is a dedicated off-roading toy, it's not worth it, factory rake is best.

Factory rake for utility.

Another 1" diameter and 1" tread width fill out the wheel wells pretty good but don't look cartoonish.

Gives you 1.5" minimum running clearance with the IFS, another 0.5" minimum running clearance out back.

Tires aren't too much heavier than the OE 33's. Minimal impact to final drive. I think this is probably the best balance between utility, trails and still doing Rally / Baja style driving.

Wider wheel offset mostly negates the increase in CG from added ride height too (not entirely, it's not 1:1 ratio, but so close it wouldn't matter).

Perfection!

Sponsored