5/14/2026 Update - Bronco Raptor APG ProRunner Suspension Installation

[22broncoraptor]

The front and rear shock towers, as you certainly are aware of. Also the (bolt on) B and C pillar stiffeners. I think the jounce bumper contact plates are different or simply present.

The only "sneaky" one I am aware of is internal in the frame to stiffen across the shock towers:

Oh wow, thanks for posting this one - definitely sneaky, I had not seen this article before of the doubler plate!

Sponsored

 

[AZ4x4Adventure]

False (bold part). Seems fairly obvious you are not reading everything written here.

I think you give APG too much credit if you think they test the improvements of chassis stiffening on overall suspension dynamics. Or frankly, their ability to know what and where to stiffen or strengthen a Bronco frame.

Beating one into the ground to the point of frame failure might tell you where to strengthen, but it would tell you little to nothing about where to stiffen. You would most likely have a crap ton of other failures first as well...

Right, because Ford made sure the Raptor frame would be sufficient for bombing through the desert whoops with huge 40" tires and the extra weight of a godzilla engine and all the other weight that has been added over the factory equipment. Would the Braptor be better than a standard bronco for full bolt on, yes. Would anyone spending 6 figures to make a desert bomber not make sure they added extra chassis stiffness at all the suspension pickup points? I would hope not, otherwise they are just building for looks. If I was spending this money, I would definitely spend a few hundred and plate the frame where all the suspension is mounting, regardless of platform I started from, thus negating the Raptor frame advantage.

I am far from a fanboy of the APG peeps, they put out great products but are way way out of my price range. I like the looks of the Vasher stuff as well.

 

[SierraBronco]

they put out great products but are way way out of my price range. I like the looks of the Vasher stuff as well.

Seeing their stuff in person I’m less impressed. Their lower arm location is an example. The frame mount location on the lower link looks to be along the lines of “what requires the least effort possible?” Looks like they just bought a mount from Barnes and moved it forward a few inches.

And I know Johnny Joints are rad, but for use on trailing arms I’m not a fan. Full heim seems to be a better fit. Currie themselves rate Johnny Joints for “high-misalignment, moderate-load” applications. They specifically warn against using them in locations that see direct axial spring or shock loads. The decision seems to allude to targeting a demographic that has no intentions on truly pushing the vehicle, but that is just speculation on my side. The OP likes to use his rig so he’ll be able to tell us if this is reality or not.

 

[AZ4x4Adventure]

Seeing their stuff in person I’m less impressed. Their lower arm location is an example. The frame mount location on the lower link looks to be along the lines of “what requires the least effort possible?” Looks like they just bought a mount from Barnes and moved it forward a few inches.

And I know Johnny Joints are rad, but for use on trailing arms I’m not a fan. Full heim seems to be a better fit. Currie themselves rate Johnny Joints for “high-misalignment, moderate-load” applications. They specifically warn against using them in locations that see direct axial spring or shock loads. The decision seems to allude to targeting a demographic that has no intentions on truly pushing the vehicle, but that is just speculation on my side. The OP likes to use his rig so he’ll be able to tell us if this is reality or not.

I would question why they don't put the mount on the outside of the frame rail. Since the rear end is wider, I would like to see the mount raised to help ground clearance issues.

 

[SierraBronco]

I would question why they don't put the mount on the outside of the frame rail. Since the rear end is wider, I would like to see the mount raised to help ground clearance issues.

This requires less fabrication?

 

[Snacktime]

I would question why they don't put the mount on the outside of the frame rail. Since the rear end is wider, I would like to see the mount raised to help ground clearance issues.

They are working around the fuel tank and stock upper arm location.

 

[Snacktime]

This requires less fabrication?

Half assed would be the correct term?

 

[SierraBronco]

Half assed would be the correct term?

Trying not to rag on the OP’s build

 

[Snacktime]

Trying not to rag on the OP’s build

Ragging on APG, you can't knock the 7.3 and King Shocks.

 

[SierraBronco]

Ragging on APG, you can knock the 7.3 and King Shocks.

*Can’t, I assume.

and yes, important distinction

 

[IwannaGOfast]

I believe when APG first released the

And I know Johnny Joints are rad, but for use on trailing arms I’m not a fan. Full heim seems to be a better fit. Currie themselves rate Johnny Joints for “high-misalignment, moderate-load” applications. They specifically warn against using them in locations that see direct axial spring or shock loads. The decision seems to allude to targeting a demographic that has no intentions on truly pushing the vehicle, but that is just speculation on my side. The OP likes to use his rig so he’ll be able to tell us if this is reality or not.

Rock Jock may state that about their Johnny joints, yet all of their Bronco upper/lower control arms include them.

I think for most of the daily driven, weekend warrior types they are a better match. Easy maintenance, fully rebuildable and dampening of a bushing. For the majority of the market that rock jock is selling to the Johnny Joint just makes the most sense.

I would agree that with a setup like APG especially if it is not daily driven, a heim would be beneficial.

Lots of the companies that build race components Like Camburg and Kibbetech are now running uniballs on their upper/lower pivots.

 

[SierraBronco]

I believe when APG first released the


Rock Jock may state that about their Johnny joints, yet all of their Bronco upper/lower control arms include them.

I think for most of the daily driven, weekend warrior types they are a better match. Easy maintenance, fully rebuildable and dampening of a bushing. For the majority of the market that rock jock is selling to the Johnny Joint just makes the most sense.

I would agree that with a setup like APG especially if it is not daily driven, a heim would be beneficial.

Lots of the companies that build race components Like Camburg and Kibbetech are now running uniballs on their upper/lower pivots.

There’s a big difference between using them for control arms (not a problem at all) and using them for trailing arms, particularly on the axle side. In that setup, they’re supporting all of the weight and it crushes the bushing. But it will be a slightly more pleasant ride prior to that happening!

 

[SierraBronco]

There’s a big difference between using them for control arms (not a problem at all) and using them for trailing arms, particularly on the axle side. In that setup, they’re supporting all of the weight and it crushes the bushing. But it will be a slightly more pleasant ride prior to that happening!

But now that I think about it, I seem to remember that maybe the APG system does not use trailing arms and instead has separate mounts for the coilover to the axle. If I’m not making that up then JJ are perfectly fine

 

[22broncoraptor]

But now that I think about it, I seem to remember that maybe the APG system does not use trailing arms and instead has separate mounts for the coilover to the axle. If I’m not making that up then JJ are perfectly fine

These APG's weld-on pivots are custom chromoly tabs positioned forward 3-4" from stock for optimized anti-squat and pinion angle control under torque.

For these components they should be their own design and not off-the-shelf. The design is specifically to minimize axle wrap on launches/jumps while maximizing fore/aft stability. Ground clearance should actually improve 1-2" over Braptor OEM lowers thanks to the raised/angled mount, too.

If this were on a narrower tube chassis, outside mounting the would be ideal, but here I bet APG prioritized durability over likely marginal clearance gains...? Not sure, but I see what you're saying.

As for Johnny Joints...in the APG 4-link setup, the lowers/uppers are longitudinal (trailing-style) for axle location, but the coilovers mount directly to dedicated axle brackets/towers. This means not loading the Johnny Joints axially with spring/shock weight. For my mixed use setup of off-road + street, this should translate to quieter/smoother than heims while being fully re-buildable with 30°+ articulation without slop.

I don't mind the critiques of certain designs, no offense taken -- the good news is I will put design theories to the test because I will be driving the hell out of the Braptor and I'll post about it to for everyone to see results and learn from.

 

[swamp2]

Right, because Ford made sure the Raptor frame would be sufficient for bombing through the desert whoops with huge 40" tires and the extra weight of a godzilla engine and all the other weight that has been added over the factory equipment.

OIf course they didn't, but that requirement should rest with APG not Ford.

Would the Braptor be better than a standard bronco for full bolt on, yes. Would anyone spending 6 figures to make a desert bomber not make sure they added extra chassis stiffness at all the suspension pickup points? I would hope not, otherwise they are just building for looks. If I was spending this money, I would definitely spend a few hundred and plate the frame where all the suspension is mounting, regardless of platform I started from, thus negating the Raptor frame advantage.

I'm not so sure it's all negated...

It appears APG is increasing strength of suspension attachment points (and control components) but NOT the frame itself (i.e. between the towers, etc.). And that's why the Raptor is a better starting point.

One can always build more, stronger, thicker. Maybe you can do that for "a few hundred" but APG certainly can't. The counterpoint there is that one can also waste an enormous amount of time and cost doing so in places that may not need it. If you could fully peer inside the Raptors frame, that would obviously be some sort of reasonable guidance as what to do on a base Bronco frame or perhaps what to do more of on the Raptor.

Or maybe the Raptor actually needs something else entirely in its frame for this use case ... We (including APG) more or less speculate on such issues, whereas, OEMs simply build high fidelity kinematic and FEA models. Then they *know*, in many cases with tests either radically reduced or in many cases eliminated.

I would like to see the mount raised to help ground clearance issues.

And Ford did not. They needed to manage roll steer and axle wrap.

So many targets, optimizations and trade offs in these design decisions. It's covered at a high level in the Autopian article linked prior in this thread.

Ford obviously had immense success here as no factory rig has a use case envelope as broad as the Raptor has - it's good at basically everything - street, crawling and high speed off road. Start muking about with suspension statics and kinematics and you might improve something and you'll almost for sure harm something else.

And of course, properly managing roll steer and axle wrap is just one of hundreds of reasons why Ford didn't have you design the Raptor rear suspension (or me either for that matter ).

Sponsored