might have to consider a 3.0

[Dirtman]

Drive where there's more oxygen?

 

[19Walt93]

I think a 3.0 in a 2wd with 4.10's would work fine but it's not going to be too snappy. The 86's had piston slap problems, the 87's had off shore head bolts that broke. Anything newer, the cam syncro is the weakest link and it's a minor one. Change the oil and don't pull out unless you have room to get up to speed before the oncoming car gets there.

 

[8thTon]

I think a 3.0 in a 2wd with 4.10's would work fine but it's not going to be too snappy.

Then you'd be surprised. 3100lbs, 4.10 gears and 154hp goes quite well - certainly snappy. I suspect the torque multiplication of the auto works to good advantage, and it has good gear ratios. Yeah, I have faster cars and it's not a drag racer, but it's no slouch and it moves out very well. Add some weight and taller gears and it would be a bit of a slug.

 

[Dirtman]

The problem with the automatic behind the 3.0 is that they never programmed the shift points differently for the 3.0 so they still shift like they are behind an engine that reaches peak at 2,500rpm not 3,500rpm. Aka they shift way too fast in the 3.0 and never let it get up to its full potential. Not a problem with a manual trans.

 

[8thTon]

The problem with the automatic behind the 3.0 is that they never programmed the shift points differently for the 3.0 so they still shift like they are behind an engine that reaches peak at 2,500rpm not 3,500rpm. Aka they shift way too fast in the 3.0 and never let it get up to its full potential. Not a problem with a manual trans.

The shift points on mine are very well matched to the 3.0. If I jump on it it will bang off nice neat 5000rpm shifts, or lower proportional to how hard i'm on it. I'm normally a manual trans fan, and it shifts as I would. I would not change a thing about the programming.

 

[19Walt93]

Then you'd be surprised. 3100lbs, 4.10 gears and 154hp goes quite well - certainly snappy. I suspect the torque multiplication of the auto works to good advantage, and it has good gear ratios. Yeah, I have faster cars and it's not a drag racer, but it's no slouch and it moves out very well. Add some weight and taller gears and it would be a bit of a slug.

We define snappy differently. I've driven many 3.0 Rangers, before I ordered my 04 I test drove a short box, regular cab, 4x4 we had in stock with a 3.0, 5 speed, and 4.10's. Then I ordered a 4.0 sohc even though I've never liked them. NH is hilly, torque is required. An automatic behind a 3.0 seems to help because of the torque convertor crutching the engine. I consider the 351 4 barrel in my Ranger to have OK power. Just OK.

 

[cbxer55]

My 98 still has 3.73 gears. I have the 4.10s sitting here. Just waiting for my friend to get my Mustang going, then he will get the Ranger to do the gear swap. In any event, I love my 3.0 Ranger. I don't know if the transmission in the 98 is set up better, but mine revs to hell and gone with my foot on the floor. I'm like, Come on man, when are you going to shift? But I do have a JET chip on it that lifts the shift points, alters the timing and fuel trims. That, a good CAI and custom no muffler exhaust, my little old Ranger gets down the road just fine. I love it! I will keep this truck til it goes KABOOM, then see if it can be rebuilt.

Honestly, I don't notice to much difference between the 3.0 Ranger and my 4.0 Mustang. But, I haven't yet tweeked on the Stang. Haven't done any tuning to it yet, just installed a CAI and a mildly modified exhaust. I have plans, just need to get it back rolling under it's own power.

My strategy for the cam sync, is to simply remove the sensor, squirt some 20W-50 down it's throat with a small syringe, put the sensor back on and drive it. I do that once a month or so. Going on 176,000 miles soon, no problems with it yet.