3.0 v6 tire size

I just got a 1999 Ranger step side. It has LT 235/75 R 15 and it is a manual trans. but it looks like a low rider, don't look like a four wheel drive at all. but if my math is right if i put larger tires and wheels on it,it's going to make a already low power truck weaker. Smaller tires would help the power.But i would like it to some look like a 4x4. is this what they would call a catch 22. P.S. is 3.0 v6

In my opinion ride height is a little more important than tire size, do you have any pictures of how shes sitting? As far as ****** tires go, you want to find out what gearing you have now. There should be a tag on the drivers side right under the door latch. That should have an axle code on that. With that you can find out gearing. Depending on the gearing you may be able to go up a few sized and be okay. If the gearing is to steep ( Lets say 3.55) you would want to change gearing.

The 3.0 is possibly the last engine I would ever want in a Ranger, especially if power is at all a concern. The 3.0 was a great car engine, but it sucks for a truck.

If you change tire size you will want to regear. If you don't change tire size you might still want to think about gears.

adsm08 said:

The 3.0 is possibly the last engine I would ever want in a Ranger, especially if power is at all a concern. The 3.0 was a great car engine, but it sucks for a truck.

If you change tire size you will want to regear. If you don't change tire size you might still want to think about gears.

Click to expand...

So, is a 3.0L even worth doing anything to? Or should I just get a new ranger. Sorry to the guy who made this thread but I have no answer for ya. Only similar questions.

Well, I've got a 3.0 that runs pretty strongly. Modified exhaust (no muffler) with twin tips in front of the passenger side rear tire (Lightning style) right off the converter. MAC intake with a Spectre stainless steel mesh filter, and a chip on the computer.

I have 255/60-15's in the back, and 205/70-15's in the front. Mine runs strong, but with the stipulation that you got to keep the revs up. That big 3.0 inch polished intake tube slows intake speed down, and makes her a rev happy motor.

I like my 3.0, and wouldn't trade it for anything else.

MJRicky said:

So, is a 3.0L even worth doing anything to? Or should I just get a new ranger. Sorry to the guy who made this thread but I have no answer for ya. Only similar questions.

Click to expand...

It is a reliable engine, but if power is your main concern there are better options. Performance on a 3.0 gets expensive quick, when you can find parts. Honestly, I would love to take truck like yours and try to get a DOHC 3.0 in it.

cbxer55 said:

Well, I've got a 3.0 that runs pretty strongly. Modified exhaust (no muffler) with twin tips in front of the passenger side rear tire (Lightning style) right off the converter. MAC intake with a Spectre stainless steel mesh filter, and a chip on the computer.

I have 255/60-15's in the back, and 205/70-15's in the front. Mine runs strong, but with the stipulation that you got to keep the revs up. That big 3.0 inch polished intake tube slows intake speed down, and makes her a rev happy motor.

I like my 3.0, and wouldn't trade it for anything else.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you have done all that work, and spent a lot of money, probably just to match numbers with a 4.0, and you have shifted the peak power of an already rev-happy engine even higher in the RPM band. In stock form they already hit peak performance above 3000 RPM.

Like I said, the 3.0 is a good car engine, but its power curve is all wrong for any sort of real work.

Pulled a 4000 pound trailer from CA to OK with no problems. Yes, kept OD off most of the time, unless on really flat ground or going downhill. Never had any problem pulling it up all the hills on I-40, like headed east toward Flagstaff.

Yes, the chip actually raises the shift points of the transmission up higher. Yes, it likes to rev. And when you got it wound up, it sure does sing a beautiful song. I love it. Even though there is no muffler in the exhaust, the intake roar exceeds the exhaust.

It's not really a work truck for me. It's just, after 19 years, a beater so my Lightning stays in out of the weather and clean.

Haven't spent that much dough on the Ranger over the years. The Lightning, on the other hand, yeah, bunches and bunches. It's a money pit for sure. ;-)

cbxer55 said:

Well, I've got a 3.0 that runs pretty strongly. Modified exhaust (no muffler) with twin tips in front of the passenger side rear tire (Lightning style) right off the converter. MAC intake with a Spectre stainless steel mesh filter, and a chip on the computer.

I have 255/60-15's in the back, and 205/70-15's in the front. Mine runs strong, but with the stipulation that you got to keep the revs up. That big 3.0 inch polished intake tube slows intake speed down, and makes her a rev happy motor.

I like my 3.0, and wouldn't trade it for anything else.

Click to expand...

with tires that short I would expect your 3.0 to be peppy, there is about 7% difference (calculated only) between yours and 235/75-15. I presume its 2wd since you have different sizes?

My 2000 4x4 with 3.0 auto, 3.73 had the stock 235/75-15 and showed a big improvement when I dropped down to 225/70-15. that also improved the braking. when I put 245/70-16 on it took a chunk out of the performance compared to stock.

some 4.10s are on my list, they should work just fine so long as gas stays cheap.

pjtoledo said:

with tires that short I would expect your 3.0 to be peppy, there is about 7% difference (calculated only) between yours and 235/75-15. I presume its 2wd since you have different sizes?

My 2000 4x4 with 3.0 auto, 3.73 had the stock 235/75-15 and showed a big improvement when I dropped down to 225/70-15. that also improved the braking. when I put 245/70-16 on it took a chunk out of the performance compared to stock.

some 4.10s are on my list, they should work just fine so long as gas stays cheap.

Click to expand...

It is peppy, and yes, it's a SPORT model two wheel drive. And I turn off the OD as soon as I start the truck, on my Lightning as well. I only use OD when speeds exceed 55 mph. Mileage sucks a bit, but I don't care. I use 93 octane in all my vehicles, the Lightning obviously because it's supercharged. My motorcycle is a premium only vehicle. And the 93 I buy is about the only fuel I can guarantee has no ethanol. None of my vehicles like corn at all. The 93 is brought in from another state, and the station owner is a friend who will show me the test reports when I ask.

My Ranger has always and forever had a ping problem. I have never been able to figure out why. It just does, and with that 93 it doesn't. So it's worth the money to me.

Back tires are 28.5 in diameter, fronts are 28 even. Speedo has a small error I can live with, it's about 10%. I have no problem with that.

Thanks guys

I just run across the truck had the money so i bought it. That's where i'm all screwed up is my 2wd 93 is 4.0 and my 2002 4x4 is the 4.0. So i'm just more comfortable with the way a 4.0 runs. my 87 4x4 2.9 has a mind of it's own one day it will run dang good and the time like crap. but i have a strong 289 out of a 67 mustang, that might just jump in place of a 2.9. I'll get the 3.0 tuned up and oil changed and play with it. When i get this brace off my leg. maybe i can done painting my old HD 86 FXR . I forgot i read in your tech about under drive pulleys. would the help 3.0 that much.

cbxer55 said:

It is peppy, and yes, it's a SPORT model two wheel drive. And I turn off the OD as soon as I start the truck, on my Lightning as well. I only use OD when speeds exceed 55 mph. Mileage sucks a bit, but I don't care. I use 93 octane in all my vehicles, the Lightning obviously because it's supercharged. My motorcycle is a premium only vehicle. And the 93 I buy is about the only fuel I can guarantee has no ethanol. None of my vehicles like corn at all. The 93 is brought in from another state, and the station owner is a friend who will show me the test reports when I ask.

My Ranger has always and forever had a ping problem. I have never been able to figure out why. It just does, and with that 93 it doesn't. So it's worth the money to me.

Back tires are 28.5 in diameter, fronts are 28 even. Speedo has a small error I can live with, it's about 10%. I have no problem with that.

Click to expand...

My 3.0 had always pinged too. then one day the flex fuel alcohol content sensor died and I replaced it with a simulator. the simulator is fixed at 10% alcohol, and that seems to have cured the pinging.

as usual, there's a big difference between calculated and measured tire size. that kinda blows my theory of better performance because of smaller tires.

pjtoledo said:

My 3.0 had always pinged too. then one day the flex fuel alcohol content sensor died and I replaced it with a simulator. the simulator is fixed at 10% alcohol, and that seems to have cured the pinging.

as usual, there's a big difference between calculated and measured tire size. that kinda blows my theory of better performance because of smaller tires.

Click to expand...

My truck is not a FLEX fuel truck, does not have an alcohol sensor. Doesn't like corn fuel one teeny bit.

To be fair, a 225/70 and a 255/60 are probably pretty close. I have 305/45-18 (9.5 inch rim) on the back of my Lightning, and 225/60-18 (7.0 inch rim) on the front. Same diameter.

There's also the "different manufacturer" factor. I used to have Mickey Thompson drag radials on my Lightning, same size as the current Nitto's. The M.T.'s were flat-sided on the rims and a half inch larger in diameter than the Nitto's. The Nitto's bulge out considerably on the same rim, but are shorter in diameter. Same size tire, two different looks. I prefer the Nitto's over the Mickey Thompsons. I prefer the bulge over flat-sided.