[Vanaroo]

Thanks for watching and reporting in on this here. Saves me the "used car salesman" listening experience of the WT videos 😂

Edited to add: Okay, okay, I had to go watch for myself. Skipped past the awning demo, etc. As @midwest_crewvan says, he mentions (while sitting next to the front passenger tire) "....also on the passenger side, not going to disrupt the angle of your axle as well which is always going to be a plus." This starts at 3:32 if anyone wants to cut straight to it.

No details of why or how, but "axle angle" is basically what's either harming or not harming the CV joints, right?

I would want to hear more about how this is accomplished, what about at full droop, how is he able to do things that other people have had issues with, etc. Let's hope he addresses this in an answer to @T22A80's question in the video comments.

 

[gregoryx]

"....also on the passenger side, not going to disrupt the angle of your axle as well which is always going to be a plus." ...

Clearly, this is simply the science of marketing. My younger son is subject to this stuff all the time... tells us why a new car or bike is better then cites the trademarked name for something... yeah... that's it.

But if they've got some physics to cause the CVs to magically be straight while being angled... that's some Harry Potter stuff.

 

[Tijoe]

This is going to hurt my brain. (Meaning I have to dig out some old memories.) If I recall correctly, depending on 4WD/AWD front Outer CV joint steering, there used to be 3 types of joints available: EBJ - 47 degrees, EUJ - 50 degrees, and TUJ = 54 degrees. Vehicle designers select the one they require for the max required steering angle.
For the outer front axle CVs, the steering angle of rotation is usually greater than the total suspension travel. The inner CVs typically don't have the same travel needs, and the travel is usually less than 47 degrees. Then of course there is the splined shaft that accommodates the changing length of the axle as the suspension moves up and down. (Plunge)

When you lift the front of a FWD/AWD/4WD vehicle, the lower relative position of outer CV to the transfer case increases the plunge travel and nominal drive angle of the CVs. As long as the new loaded suspension height allows the full range of upper and lower travel to remain inside the range of motion of the CV joint all is good. (One needs to manually measure the range of travel of the suspension, or take measurements and calculate the max up and town travel.)
As we all know, if you go outside the travel range of the CV joint it will bind and perhaps fail very quickly.

With all this in mind, I would guess that lifting the Transit AWD by 2" will work for the majority of the time. My fear would be driving the van where a front wheel becomes "unloaded" like hitting a pothole, or a drop-off, where a front wheel quickly drops down. (The only way to simulate this that I know of, is to lift the van off the ground and see if the inner VC is at too steep of an angel.)(>23.5 degrees.)

One other thing to consider is that when you lift any suspension the normal operating angle of the CV increases. This causes the ball bearings in the CV to travel back and forth a lot farther into and out of the socket as the axle spins. No matter what anyone says, this leads to increased CV joint wear.

 

[Janus9]

Someone just needs to come out with a completely new bolt in subframe long travel suspension assembly with longer arms, high angle CVs, coil overs, swap out the fenders so some tall tires would fit, give room for the increased suspension travel etc..... Maybe even design it so you could drop the tranny pan easier.

It would be super expensive, but man would it be awesome.

 

[gregoryx]

Someone just needs to come out with a completely new bolt in subframe long travel suspension assembly with longer arms, high angle CVs, coil overs, swap out the fenders so some tall tires would fit, give room for the increased suspension travel etc..... Maybe even design it so you could drop the tranny pan easier.

It would be super expensive, but man would it be awesome.

Might as well just buy a Sprinter...

 

[T22A80]

Might as well just buy a Sprinter...

Sprinter is going AWD next year. I wonder if they will have similar issues when they do?

 

[gregoryx]

Sprinter is going AWD next year. I wonder if they will have similar issues when they do?

Thing is... they're already larger tires and more ground clearance. Raising a Transit an inch or two just gets it to the stock Sprinter. Speaking from experience with the Sprinter: the long wheelbase (on the 170 models) sucked for nimble-ness but it doesn't lack for clearance compared to the Transit. Sprinter 144 even in RWD is pretty much ready-to-go for ride-height compared to any Transit. And the current Sprinter 4x4 is already more clearance than Transit lifted in most cases.

I'd say the real question will be if the AWD Sprinter improves or decreases clearance.

 

[coguzzi]

Thing is... they're already larger tires and more ground clearance. Raising a Transit an inch or two just gets it to the stock Sprinter. Speaking from experience with the Sprinter: the long wheelbase (on the 170 models) sucked for nimble-ness but it doesn't lack for clearance compared to the Transit. Sprinter 144 even in RWD is pretty much ready-to-go for ride-height compared to any Transit. And the current Sprinter 4x4 is already more clearance than Transit lifted in most cases.

I'd say the real question will be if the AWD Sprinter improves or decreases clearance.

Not 100% true, the front cross member and transfer case and all that measure in right about the exact same hieght (slightly higher) than stock awd transit. Lifted transit puts that slightly higher. Rear axle clearance is slightly better because tires are bigger. Body lines are higher and approach departure is greater on the sprinter.

That said, the sprinter 4x4 is kind of a joke, low range-even more of a joke. It’s all “the look” for the sprinter

 

[gregoryx]

Not 100% true, the front cross member and transfer case and all that measure in right about the exact same hieght (slightly higher) than stock awd transit. Lifted transit puts that slightly higher. Rear axle clearance is slightly better because tires are bigger. Body lines are higher and approach departure is greater on the sprinter.

That said, the sprinter 4x4 is kind of a joke, low range-even more of a joke. It’s all “the look” for the sprinter

Agreed on all points. I mean... we did choose the Transit the second time. 😊

But the big complaint of the rear shock-towers on the Transit is real. And the lower profile tires affecting the rear axle/diff is real. Comparing the two, though... I'd still go Transit. But I /do/ wish they'd set it up for taller tires. 🤔

 

[coguzzi]

Agreed on all points. I mean... we did choose the Transit the second time. 😊

But the big complaint of the rear shock-towers on the Transit is real. And the lower profile tires affecting the rear axle/diff is real. Comparing the two, though... I'd still go Transit. But I /do/ wish they'd set it up for taller tires. 🤔

Totally agree, just make the wheel wells bigger. My shock hangers got modified within 100 miles. I have a 4x4 sprinter 170 in my garage right now I could measure (already has plus size tires though) and all my measurements from my transit pre and post lift.

I come from vw syncro and 4x4 econoline world in my previous life-neither platform even comes close to comparing

 

[T22A80]

I see all the other questions on the You Tube video have got responses from WT but mine. Maybe they haven't been online in 3 days.

 

[Vanaroo]

I noticed that too. I do hope they come back and answer. I mean they answered a bunch of questions about E-Series vans in the comments of that Transit video...

 

[midwest_crewvan]

I asked about the CV angle on their ExPo thread and they never replied. I'm starting to get the feeling they are avoiding this specific question.

 

[Vanaroo]

I wonder why....