8.8 open with 3.27 gears

[Dirt Squirt]

FYI, you are still going to have to re-gear the front axle.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Yes, will have to regear the front too, and on a second gen ('89-92, I'm sticking with this as second gen ) on a Ranger you can fit 31x10.50's on stock wheels at stock height with just minor rubbing that I wouldn't worry about...

 

[IceBergeRanger12]

Yes, will have to regear the front too, and on a second gen ('89-92, I'm sticking with this as second gen ) on a Ranger you can fit 31x10.50's on stock wheels at stock height with just minor rubbing that I wouldn't worry about...

Sweet. Was gonna give it a mild lift anyways. Atleast two inch suspension lift.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Here's a couple pictures of mine on 31's back in the day... I had Explorer rear springs in so it sat high in the back, as you can see they're tight up front but they did fit. I'm sure the home made front bumper helped clearance... a little bit of leveling lift wouldn't hurt...

The first pic is just for fun, I forgot I had that , the front suspension is unloaded at that point so that makes it a bit taller... that sled is heavy, I think that run was before the turbo...

 

[19Walt93]

I've never seen a Ranger or Explorer with less than 3.45's( 2wd strippies) and 3.73's were common. Maybe our sales department had more common sense than I gave them credit for having.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Yeah, mine was a stripped model, no stereo, likely no rear bumper, it did still have a cargo light for some reason though but no headliner or carpet behind the seat... it was manual trans 2.3L with 3.08's... back in the day it got like 28mpg though, it was great getting like 380 miles on the small fuel tank...

 

[IceBergeRanger12]

I've never seen a Ranger or Explorer with less than 3.45's( 2wd strippies) and 3.73's were common. Maybe our sales department had more common sense than I gave them credit for having.

Guess the original owner cared more about the fuel mileage....in a truck with 4wd and the 4.0... lol

 

[19Walt93]

It's not about gas mileage, gears like that in the New England hills cause lots of downshifting, transmission wear, and often hurt mileage.

 

[scotts90ranger]

He's in Washington, he knows... there's more hills on this coast

 

[IceBergeRanger12]

He's in Washington, he knows... there's more hills on this coast

So many hills.... Haha

 

[Shran]

I've never seen a Ranger or Explorer with less than 3.45's( 2wd strippies) and 3.73's were common. Maybe our sales department had more common sense than I gave them credit for having.

My fiance has a 95 Ranger XLT with 3.27s and an automatic.... t u r d. Have had a couple Explorers with 3.27s as well, one of them was even a 5 speed four door.

Most of what I run across has 3.73s, 3.55s are a close second, 3.45s seemed more common in first gen Rangers.

I don't have a clue why anyone would buy a 3.27 truck, I hate driving it and will definitely be putting 3.73s in it sooner or later. The only area where it's nice is our long flat straight highways out here where you can cruise at 75mph and stay at 2100RPM.

 

[19Walt93]

I don't have a concept of "long flat straight highways". NH has so few straight flat sections of road that we name them, I live about a mile from West Canaan flat, about 3 miles from Canaan flat, and maybe 7 miles from Hammonds flat. West Canaan flat is actually a slight grade. My friend is a retired pilot, he said that if you ironed NH and Vt out flat we'd be bigger than Texas. Our hills make transmissions downshift a lot if the vehicle is geared wrong- meaning too high. We could tell which Super Duties had 4.10 gears- they were the ones we hadn't overhauled the transmissions on.