Why 4 > 6

[02RangerXLT]

Point is: NO ONE WANTS EM..

This is obviously an incorrect statement based upon certain posts made in this thread and the other one. Should be "Not everybody wants em."

 

[ranger_mclaren]

I'm a big fan of the Duratec engine. They are really peppy and will scoot along REALLY well, even with an auto trans. I used to drive one at work all the time and I had no trouble accelerating to 75-80 mph. If Ford made a Duratec with 4x4, I definitely would have bought one.

whoa were the duatec come from we went from talkn Ford 4 and 6 cylinders to a Chevy V8 diesel...

 

[Fx4wannabe01]

^^2.3L DOHC Duratec 4cyl found in 01+ Rangers... NOT Duramax...

This is obviously an incorrect statement based upon certain posts made in this thread and the other one. Should be "Not everybody wants em."

I'm talking as a whole. The whole consumer base. Not just singling out the enthusiasts that have posted in this thread...we all know we're a very very small minority.

 

[ranger_mclaren]

^^2.3L DOHC Duratec 4cyl found in 01+ Rangers... NOT Duramax...




I'm talking as a whole. The whole consumer base. Not just singling out the enthusiasts that have posted in this thread...we all know we're a very very small minority.

ahh mybad no wounder it did seem right.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

That's why I started this thread because I was off-topic in the other one.

The reason why nobody buy 4-bangers is becuase that Americans want "more more more." 4-bangers ARE NOT GUTLESS!!!!!!!! At least mine isn't. You just need to know how to use what you've got. Anybody can take a 6 (or other car with big HP numbers) and fling it around like a semi-pro, but it takes skill to make a 4 do the same thing with less power.

I'll conceed to the fact the 4-banger slushboxes have no balls, but mate a 4 with a stick & it's magic. Sadly, nobody wants a stick anymore. Autos take the fun out of driving, but that's another story.

A four will not match a 6 if it has less power. Stick a turbo on it and you should run with any stock RBV and make them look bad, but you won't have a chance against the bigger V-6's on motor alone.

I don't road race around town with my trucks, I haul stuff either in the bed or on a trailer... which is why I don't fuss for a four banger. If I want milage I will get a car, if I want to move stuff I will get a truck with adaquate powertrain... and a four banger ain't gonna cut it.

If it makes you feel any better Ford is cramming four banger 5-speed base model trucks down dealership throats... which is a joke in our area because more people want 1/2 ton+ trucks.

 

[TaddeoEG]

My buddies ranger 4.0 will out run his girlfriends 4.0 mustang i've seen it.

Perhaps, but not our GT.

 

[trail B2]

I love the way my 4.0 chugs around town never go above 2000 RPMs.If you kept your tire size down to 29" or so a 2.3 would be great with more open road use.It would surprise most people how much lower the cost to run one of these say 50000 miles because gas and repair are both cheaper put it in one chunk puts it in perspective.What I'm hearing from Hopman is sometimes a car just feels good to to a person sounds good power for the gas you put in it feels right to me kinda thing.

 

[James86]

Well, if anyone cares about my two cents, its an evolutionary dilemma. Back in World War 2, a jeep could catch air with a 43HP four popper. However, they were light enough two guys could flip one back on its wheels too. These days, stability control systems, independent suspensions, airconditioning, crumple zones, and other safety and comfort equipment make it difficult for 100 hp to sound like fun. I could get into all sorts of trouble with our bare bones 1.9L 1993 Escort 5speed and still get 35mpg (40mpg if i behaved), but you felt like a cylinder went AWOL when the A/C was on and the door trim was carpet covered cardboard. Luckily (maybe?) you will see more 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders as direct injection, displacement on demand, and forced induction become more widespread. It's no secret Ford is making the transition, a.k.a. "Ecoboost", and it's probably only a matter of time until the V-8 finally dies. Threads like this are fun to read, and everyone has good arguements, but ultimately, its so subjective because there are so many combinations that can affect peoples perceptions. I have 4.10's in my Ranger, and from what I've seen, it seems a lot of people here have 3.73's. So that right there might explain why my 3.0 feels so peppy. As for 4 banger 4x4's, the literature I read on Ford's website says the current 4 cylinder has:

143 HP @ 5250rpm
154lbs/ft @ 3750rpm

Meanwhile, the tech library says my 1999 3.0 has:

145HP @ 5000rpm
178lbs/ft @ 3750rpm

With the 3.0 gone, I think that there may be a case for 4x4 four cylinders, but if Ford dropped it, I wouldn't hold my breath for it to come back.

 

[Ranger Sport Honduras]

4 bangers are good engines, i have one and drive my moms 2.3 too, they have the guts they need, no more. theyre made for good mileage.
my bro has a 3.0, it deff drinks more gas than mine, BUT if u compare its not that drastic, he has more power for cargo,and more power for uphills. to move that cargo and mantain his pace mine ends up dinking as his v6 or more, and theres the fact that i dont like to push my engine that hard.

to keep with him i need to squeeze my 4 cil and he just gives more gas and im behind again(both 5 spd). if u plan to commute and work theyre good. as the v6 engines are good too. BUT if u need to move heavy stuff then of course a powerfull engine is the best choice, u will stress it less than a 4cil.
i love my 2.5 it drives really nice, catches speed really fast too(considering its a truck and its not made for speeding and acceleration races and it has heavier tires and more weigth added), has decent mileage if i drive it decently. dirve it like u stole it and it WILL drink like a 45years old unemployee.

but my next ranger will be a 4x4 with the 4.0 and of course 5 spd(theres no other transmission for me). i want a 4wd, for a good response in 4wd it needs a big engine cuz this aint a light weight truck, and due to my work more power is always good. i know i will have to deal with the lower mileage but seems to me that it has more positive stuff than negative.
thats what i think

 

[bigcountry]

i have no bias towards 4cyls or 6s they both have there pros and cons. my neighbor has a subuaru sti with a flat4 with a turbo that thing will FLY! i also know some 6cyls will get up and go or they have great torque like the ford I6 great motors. like what has already been said it is what you want and what fits YOUR NEEDS AND BUDGET. this can go on for years which is better but its all on what you need or like i perfer a 6cyl because they are in between a 4 and 8 not to powerful and not to bad on gas but that suites me i hardly ever feel the need for speed and if i do i have some gitty up to either pass or speed up on the interstate but that is me every one is different

 

[Fx4wannabe01]

What alot of this "arguement" boils down to is the following:

-The fact that it's a truck, has a bed, and is supposed to be able to haul things and have enough power to do so.

-We're comparing 4cyl to 6cyl. We've also got a wide range of engine generations and huge ranges of outputs as noted earlier in the thread. Newer 6cyl(4.0 SOHC) are rated at 238tq. The 3.0 at 178tq. The 2.3 Duratec at 150tq. And the 2.5 Lima at like 130tq. IDK the 2.3 Lima or the 2.9 2.8 2.0 numbers or anything...I'm just noting, that there's too many variables in this comparison.

-As noted in an above post, truck weight has been increasing and increasing. My truck(though modded) is damn near 4500 lbs. With this added weight, power needs to be bumped to give it the same performance. Again...to keep up with the competition and to make the truck do it's job. Hauling.

-Think about it from Ford's point of view. As well as the NORMAL consumer. Why would they cater to a niche group(4cyl 4x4) when a: sales are down b: the platform is 20years old and aging c: is nothing compared to most of it's competition and d: so few would be interested, it's not worth making happen. They probably see all the sales figured and see whats selling. Face it: it's 4.0 4x4 xcab. Customer can get a better truck, bigger truck, tons more power for not that much more. Ford's gotta stay competitive and they've got it good with the 2.3 in 2wd's. Pheominal mpg numbers and that Duratech is one hell of a fun truck to drive compared to the Lima 4cyl engines.

-The future: The ranger as we know it right now, will die. And it will die soon. I have a feeling the next truck we'll get will have an ecoboost 4cyl as the top of the line engine.

-Last but not least: Personal Preference. Like I said earlier, I like having the power on tap should I need it. And lets all face it....it's a motor vehicle. Anything that moves and has an engine can and will get you in trouble. It's not the "high horsepower v6" that gets you in trouble. It's the fact your in a vehicle.




-Oh...I still think a 4cyl, even the modern Duratech 4 in an explorer is absurd.




I'm blahblahblahing now. Lets trying and keep other engines out of the arguement. Other engines like the H4 subaru's. Keep it to Rangers and their available powerplants? No sense in comparing apples to oranges right?

 

[bigcountry]

correct i just know nothing about ranger 4cyls and that is the only 4cyl i really know about

 

[AllanD]

Okay, I'm not going to try to turn this into a war, but I'm a bit tired of some of the people out there dissing 4-banger RBV's. I'm the proud owner of a 2.3. I have NOTHING against those with V6's.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. 4-bangers offer more of a challenge to drive. With a 4, you have to actually THINK about the road ahead. You can't pass on a whim and at will or power your way out of a situation. Anybody can take a 6 and make like Danica Patrick, but it takes a master like a Sterling Moss to make a 4 sing like Paveratti.

I'm not Sterling Moss, and my last name isn't Andretti, but in a vehicle I'm comfortable with on a road or track I know I'm every bit as skilled and agressive as they are and I have reason to know. (Long story)

And you are now thinking "Gee if that's true why haven't I heard of you?" Simple answer? I'm 6'4 and 300lb and nobody wants a guy that big as a race car driver because even in the cars I fit in I'm a walking, talking 150lb weight penalty.

2. Less power = Less trouble. Most of us (at times) do our best Tim Allen "More Power!" imitation, but sometimes more power can be too much of a good thing. A good example of this can be on a slick road. You apply too much of a good thing and you're likely to end up in trouble.

Real Adults can restrain themselves, "Old Children" can't.
But just because someone is older and wiser don't assume they can't
go faster than some young enthusiastic driver. and frankly an engine
with a smooth torque curve and good low end torque characteristics
is easier to drive when it's slippery, but there is a certain "joy" from
driving a basically underpowered vehicle and making it go by never
lifting and getting the proper "line" through each corner to maintain
your energy.

3. Less cylenders can mean more $$$ in your pocket. More mileage = less money spent at the pump.

Tell you what, quite often using a large engine with restraint can get better mileage than a small engine straining to do it's job.
One friend of mine was perpetually pissed off that I averaged better mpg
with my 2.9 ranger than he could do in his 2.3 Ranger and as I maintained both vehicles I knew they were in a proper "State of tune" and FWIW I could get ~1mpg better with his truck than he could AND when he posted 22mpg in his F-150 on one leg of a long trip I proceeded to get 24mpg on the next leg I drove, driving FASTER just to piss him off.... that's just the way I roll

4. Less motor equals less weight. Having a lighter truck means that the handeling is better, relativley speaking. This makes for a more fun truck on the back roads, espeaclly when backed by a stick shift.

The only problem with that is that the 2.3 is a heavy little bitch. It isn't actually materially lighter than a 2.9 or 4.0, and it's actually
heavier than a 3.0

5. I think that 4-bangers tend to "sing" better. It's more of a tenor voice versus a "baritone" of 6. I joking say that when my truck's at full song, it'd make Paveratti jelous.

with my current exhaust and engine setup all you hear at highway speed is wind noise (if you can har anything over whatever they happen to be playing on "Octane")

Call me crazy, but I LOVE 4-bangers. Good things come in small packages.

I'm seriously considering putting a 4Banger in my '93 Supercab 4x4
but my 2.3 will be a bit different from yours... it'll have a Turbocharger.
MY target? a demonstrated average of 25mpg over a 400 mile distance.
hopefully better across the generally flat terrain from central ohio to
the Mississippi River, and across the long slow climb (~10feet per mile)
across Nebraska

Most things we prefer are "personal taste" and if you ask people
for an opinion don't be disappointed when theirs doesn't agree
with yours.

 

[idriveafordranger94]

My 2.3L 5 spd. Ranger would probably beat my Bronco II's 2.9L 5 spd. The Bronco is heavier (4x4 components), has bigger tires, and is as aerodynamic as a brick! My 4.0L V6 automatic Ranger would kick the shit outta both of them haha. The 4.0L has balls! I'm definately a power guy, but I do like the 4cyl Ranger's 28 mpg!

 

[Original_Ranger84]

Yeah the original post pretty much just dissed the v6's...

My basic thought is, "Its not the truck its the Driver".

Both my rangers are V6 5 speeds and when they are running right I can average 22 -23 mpgs on them. I Have the power to pass people which is really nice, I drive my moms subaru and I'm scared I start passing and that thing just falls on its face way too many close calls while my v6 ranger passes them like cake, I should note I have driven rangers with 4 cylinders and they are gutless compare to a v6, I would not want to take one on the highway up here.

Another thing, in snow and Ice it is my experience that it matters very little what you drive, no traction is no traction. A 100 hp 4 cylinder looses traction just as fast (if not faster because the light weight and ego of the driver) as a 300 hp diesel v8. Again all up to the driver to keep it in control.

I don't plan on getting a 4 cylinder because I like the power and I know how and when to use it, If I didn't need it sure I would get a 4 cylinder but I haul too much stuff to warrent stressing a 4cylinder (sure i could but why when I can use a v6 and not feel the load)