• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Wheel Swap/Can't calibrate speedometer


Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
I ended up trading in my '03 for a similar '10, but I didn't care for the P235/75R15s on the '10. So, after being told by dealer 'no problem', I had them swap the LT245/75R16s onto the '10. Mechanic is telling me he calibrated it as much as he could, but my speedometer is off by 4-5 MPH. Instead of doing 40 as the speedometer says, I'm actually doing 44-45. What/where can the 'read' be altered to accurately reflect the speed?
 


adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey
Supporting Member
Article Contributor
Ford Technician
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
34,623
Reaction score
3,613
Points
113
Location
Dillsburg PA
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
31X10.50X15
The dealer is limited to the factory options of gears and tire sizes for speedo calibration. To do non-factory sizes or ratios you either need a tuner with speedo correction or a performance shop.
 

Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
I get that the dealer is limited by the things you mention, they even told me that, but when I looked up the specs on the '10 they are almost exactly the same as the '03 (engine, tranny...etc.) with the only exception being the '10 has limited slip where the '03 did not. Also, this wheel/tire size WAS an option for the truck, so it is not making ANY sense. Maybe I'm just missing something here...?
 

bigmark303

New Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
398
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
RI
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0, 2.5
Transmission
Automatic
There is no reason the dealer cant get very close with the 16" size vs the 15" size. The tire diameter difference between the two is so minor and they are both factory available sizes.

No speedometer is ever perfectly calibrated and dependent on tire inflation, tread wear, and just the diameter difference of new tires between manufacturers even in a set size will always contribute to a small percentage difference no matter what you do.

I would say though the percentage difference from doing 40mph on the speedometer and being 4-5mph off at that speed your dealer didnt even re calibrate. You will never be spot on especially as speed increases the difference gets larger but from the factory you shouldnt be 4-5mph off until around 95-100mph. I would find another dealer and go from there.
 

Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
I went back to the dealer and the mechanic claims he got it as good and close as he could get. The other Ford dealer in my area wants to charge me $120 to recalibrate with no guarantee they will get it calibrated properly. Whatever, so I researched further, turns out the only 16" option for this model is 255/70R16 and currently I have 245/75R16. Charts I look at for actual diameter show I'm 1" over the "allowable" range. So being a Speedo tuner is over $350 and just not worth it, I could just go down to the allowable size or just know I'm doing 5mph more than the speedometer says. Thanks for all the input, it definitely helped steer me in the right direction! (BTW...the dealers are claiming the Ranger isn't coming back because the Gov't won't 'let them bring it back until it can get 34mpg or better.' Pshaw!)
 

RonD

Official TRS AI
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
25,291
Reaction score
8,296
Points
113
Location
canada
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
Google: Dakota Digital sgi-5c

$85

It can calibrate any electronic speedo signal, so you can change to any size wheels/tires or gearing and re-calibrate for that setup.


I think the dealer was partially correct, MPG was a factor but not related to the government, yes lol on that one.

Rangers kept getting bigger every generation, so even with better engine management the MPG wasn't very good, and in the end it was not much better than full size Fords so there was a very narrow market of buyers and several non-Ford choices to compete with.
IMO, if Ford chooses to do a small truck again it will need to be smaller, back to 1st generation size, so yes much better MPG which was the point of the Ranger when it first came out.
 
Last edited:

gw33gp

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
TRS Banner 2010-2011
Ham Radio Operator
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
530
Points
113
Location
Costa Mesa, CA
Vehicle Year
2002
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
33"
I just installed the Dakota Digital Recalibrator. I wanted the odometer to be correct and it is within 0.2% of being correct now. As the tires wear it will become even more correct. The speedometer is still about 2 MPH fast at speeds under 50 and gets closer to being correct above 50. I could correct that but I would rather have the odometer correct.
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
615
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
Rangers kept getting bigger every generation, so even with better engine management the MPG wasn't very good, and in the end it was not much better than full size Fords so there was a very narrow market of buyers and several non-Ford choices to compete with.
IMO, if Ford chooses to do a small truck again it will need to be smaller, back to 1st generation size, so yes much better MPG which was the point of the Ranger when it first came out.
It's not that the Ranger isn't capable of good fuel economy, it's that they didn't want it to be. My 01 duratec/ 5 speed truck gets 31-32mpg in the warmer months. It's not a stretch to think that with better aerodynamics, and a 6th gear to drop rpms at highway speeds Id be getting 35+ mpg. And that's in a 14 year old truck with none of today's tech like variable valve timing, direct injection, turbocharging/smaller displacement, etc. Ford could've easily gotten the Ranger into the mid 30s by simply Updating the styling with an eye toward improved aero, and incorporating the VVT that was already being used in the Duratech in other vehicles. They intentionally let the Ranger wither on the vine without any effort to improve it so that they could steer buyers toward the cash cow F-series.
 
Last edited:

bigmark303

New Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
398
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
RI
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0, 2.5
Transmission
Automatic
I completely agree if the Ranger with mainly every truck out there wasnt such a brick wall in the wind the 2wd versions would have car like mpg without a hitch.

I manage 28mpg average 90% highway driving at 55mph with my 2.5 Lima and 4R44E. I cant wait to get my hands on a newer 2wd single cab short bed like my current with the 2.3 Duratec. 32-35mpg should be obtainable with my mostly highway drive.

From a business point of view Ford stretched the Ranger as far as they could with very minimal cost along the way and the Rangers kept up with the market for a very long time being as simple as they are. Ford knew a long time ago they owned the full size truck market so you cant blame them for really dropping the Ranger. The Ranger was also a cash cow for them and a stretched initial investment with great return. When youve been selling full size trucks 8-1 over your competitors for the past 15 years you would care less if the compact truck youve exploited to the fullest without much reinvestment over its production finally takes a dive in a market that it should have dropped from 10 plus years earlier.

I love Rangers but if I were CEO of Ford I would let it go as well seeing as Nissan and Toyota have really stepped up the game in the fullsize truck market. Also now that Ram trucks is established and has some very nice quality and funding thanks to Fiat Ford is going to have a lot ahead of them to stay at the top of the fullsize market. Especially Ram trucks. They are proving to be some real nice dependable workhorses now.
 

RonD

Official TRS AI
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
25,291
Reaction score
8,296
Points
113
Location
canada
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
Yes, higher MPG is great but buyers have to look at the manufacturers numbers and then decide..............but usually whether to believe them or not, lol

2011 Ranger 2WD 2.3l Duratec, 5 speed manual posted 27mpg highway
Automatic 24mpg

2011 F-150 2WD 3.7l 6cyl automatic(6 speed) posted 23mpg
5.0l V8 automatic posted 21mpg

Since 99% of buyers for these types of trucks choose an automatic now, the Rangers 24mpg compared to the F-150s 23mpg doesn't really sway many buyers to a Ranger.
And a 2011 Ranger with 4.0l 6cyl automatic posts 20mpg, so 3MPG LESS than 6cyl F-150.

Then you have the towing capacities.....................many Ranger owners have been blindsided by the low LEGAL weight limits on a Ranger, especially with a manual trans and 2.3l engine.

So I can see the appeal of going with the full size since the MPG numbers don't really show a big advantage any more.
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
615
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
Yes, higher MPG is great but buyers have to look at the manufacturers numbers and then decide..............but usually whether to believe them or not, lol

2011 Ranger 2WD 2.3l Duratec, 5 speed manual posted 27mpg highway
Automatic 24mpg

2011 F-150 2WD 3.7l 6cyl automatic(6 speed) posted 23mpg
5.0l V8 automatic posted 21mpg

Since 99% of buyers for these types of trucks choose an automatic now, the Rangers 24mpg compared to the F-150s 23mpg doesn't really sway many buyers to a Ranger.
And a 2011 Ranger with 4.0l 6cyl automatic posts 20mpg, so 3MPG LESS than 6cyl F-150.

Then you have the towing capacities.....................many Ranger owners have been blindsided by the low LEGAL weight limits on a Ranger, especially with a manual trans and 2.3l engine.

So I can see the appeal of going with the full size since the MPG numbers don't really show a big advantage any more.

I agree for the most part. By the end of its production, the Ranger in most trim levels didn't make much sense compared to the full size offerings. The Ranger saw basically zero mechanical changes for the last 10 years that it was produced, yet the price rose into the mid 20k range for most trim levels that you could actually find at a dealer.

My post was really just trying to point out that the Ranger couldve been posting much better numbers with a fairly small investment from Ford over the years. I believe the 3.7L v6 you mention is based on the 3.0 Duratec v6, which shared a bell housing bolt pattern with the 3.0 Vulcan, so in theory, it would've been easy to put into a Ranger. Heck if Ford had installed the Duratec 3.0 v6 in Rangers beginning in 01 when they replaced the lima 4 cyl, it could've taken the place of both the 3.0 and 4.0 SOHC, and gotten better fuel economy than both of those engines. But selling more Rangers would mean selling fewer F-series, so Ford didn't see the business case, and willingly left the Ranger out in the cold.

I'm just just a bit bitter at the thought of what could've been, because I have no interest in a fullsize. I wouldnt tickle the limits of a full size truck (most new truck owners rarely tow or haul anything that would require a truck anyway). Sorry for derailing the thread with my grouch rant!
 
Last edited:

Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
Yes, higher MPG is great but buyers have to look at the manufacturers numbers and then decide..............but usually whether to believe them or not, lol

2011 Ranger 2WD 2.3l Duratec, 5 speed manual posted 27mpg highway
Automatic 24mpg

2011 F-150 2WD 3.7l 6cyl automatic(6 speed) posted 23mpg
5.0l V8 automatic posted 21mpg

Since 99% of buyers for these types of trucks choose an automatic now, the Rangers 24mpg compared to the F-150s 23mpg doesn't really sway many buyers to a Ranger.
And a 2011 Ranger with 4.0l 6cyl automatic posts 20mpg, so 3MPG LESS than 6cyl F-150.

Then you have the towing capacities.....................many Ranger owners have been blindsided by the low LEGAL weight limits on a Ranger, especially with a manual trans and 2.3l engine.

So I can see the appeal of going with the full size since the MPG numbers don't really show a big advantage any more.
-It does seem most buyers are more influenced by the MPG. I find I miss the "muscle car days." But, alas, it's now down to MPG...(sarcastic) woo! But, as far as the towing, I love how you said LEGAL limits, lol. I managed to pull my '94s weight x3 in a uhaul trailer(1994 XLT, reg cab, 6' bed, I4, manual) with NO issues halfway across the country.

I even have to admit I got an invitation to one of Ford's 'Expedition Tours' about 15 years ago (do they even still do those?) and had the distinct privelage to drive the Explorer Sport Trac, Ranger, and F150 (all 4x4) on an off-road course. Truthfully, the Ranger and the F150 were the exact same with only ONE noticeable difference: width. The F150 felt slighlty more stable in the sway as opposed to the Ranger, but in the end I decided to stick with the Ranger because 1) it was less expensive, 2) seemed to fair just as well as the F150, and 3) it fit in parking garages and parking spaces where F150s couldn't.

My first truck was an F150 and I had a couple of them after that before I got into the Ranger...just sucks how it grew on me only to be yanked away. If I didn't need dependable transpo I would still have the 2000 Ranger I let go of years ago... :buttkick:
 

Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
BTW... I calculated the increase from the 15s size to my current size, 6.9% increase, explains alot. I appreciate all the suggestions, but in a sense, especially with the truck under warranty from Ford, I will just leave it be and just know I'm going 4-5 mph faster than the speedo reads.
 

don4331

Well-Known Member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
1,329
Points
113
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Draco713:

Just to expound/clarify on adsm08 comments:

2001 and newer Rangers get their raw speed signal from the OSS (Output Shaft Speed) sensor on the transmission/transfer case. So, both axle ratio and tire diameter matter when calibrating the speedometer/odometer.

So, you need a combination of gear ratio and tire for the Ford tech to program.

e.g. Your '10 Ranger might have come with 3.55:1 gears and the 235/75R15s; but 245/75R16s never came with 3.55s (They usually came with 4.10:1s)...

Which is why the 1st shop can't adjust it correct (nor would any subsequent).

As others have noted; you need to get a tuner to adjust it correctly.

Now, back to the thread jack:

Ford milked the Ranger to the point where regulations were requiring major changes (anti skid, crash structure, etc, etc). Given the crisis at time; Ford couldn't commit to every program and Ranger was one which died on vine.

Building a '15 Ranger with a 1.6l Eco boost (same power as 2.5l Duratec), 6 speed auto (from "world Ranger"), stupid high rear end gears (2.73:1 with the 6 spd auto would be same low ratio as 3.73s were with 5R55w), high strength steel frame/aluminum body (baby F-150) would result in Ranger having fuel economy in 30s; but it would cost almost as much as an F-150 (smaller volumes, so fewer units to amortize engineering/tools costs over)...
 

Draco713

New Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Vehicle Year
2010
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Everyone has a story and you have no idea what it is
Draco713:

Just to expound/clarify on adsm08 comments:

2001 and newer Rangers get their raw speed signal from the OSS (Output Shaft Speed) sensor on the transmission/transfer case. So, both axle ratio and tire diameter matter when calibrating the speedometer/odometer.

So, you need a combination of gear ratio and tire for the Ford tech to program.

e.g. Your '10 Ranger might have come with 3.55:1 gears and the 235/75R15s; but 245/75R16s never came with 3.55s (They usually came with 4.10:1s)...

Which is why the 1st shop can't adjust it correct (nor would any subsequent).

As others have noted; you need to get a tuner to adjust it correctly.

Now, back to the thread jack:

Ford milked the Ranger to the point where regulations were requiring major changes (anti skid, crash structure, etc, etc). Given the crisis at time; Ford couldn't commit to every program and Ranger was one which died on vine.

Building a '15 Ranger with a 1.6l Eco boost (same power as 2.5l Duratec), 6 speed auto (from "world Ranger"), stupid high rear end gears (2.73:1 with the 6 spd auto would be same low ratio as 3.73s were with 5R55w), high strength steel frame/aluminum body (baby F-150) would result in Ranger having fuel economy in 30s; but it would cost almost as much as an F-150 (smaller volumes, so fewer units to amortize engineering/tools costs over)...
...I believe I have a 3.73 (8.8"), but based on what you are saying, I could swap out for the 4.10 (8.8") without much headache. Perhaps this could assist in the calibration? This truck does have the 5R55 tranny... I cannot find anywhere that says if the 4.10 had limited slip tho, this 3.73 does
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Staff online

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Truck of The Month


Kirby N.
March Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Top