Diff. swap

[Elfiero]

When the temps are below freezing, my ‘18 Exploder only gets consistent 12MPGs. Interestingly @ 60 mph, I am only turning 1500 RPMs. It doesn’t have much ohmmph at that RPM, but who cares? That is what kick-down is for. Also, by increasing the torque output of the 5.0 by changing the cam, should put it in the sweet spot of the OD shouldn’t it? I’m an old man and couldn’t care less if it runs out of steam at 4 grand. I am not interested in stop-lite drag racing any longer, I am retired and have all day to get nowhere. I want torque when pulling a trailer or MPGs when I am empty. NO, I am not interested in spending 50k on a new truck or buying a used full-sized behemoth. To the responder who said: buy a car, I already own a 2017 Mustang GT.

 

[sgtsandman]

If you want torque for pulling a trailer and mpg, 3.73, maybe 3.55, will get you where you need to be. Anything taller than that is going to limit your towing ability.

 

[Dirtman]

When the temps are below freezing, my ‘18 Exploder only gets consistent 12MPGs. Interestingly @ 60 mph, I am only turning 1500 RPMs. It doesn’t have much ohmmph at that RPM, but who cares? That is what kick-down is for. Also, by increasing the torque output of the 5.0 by changing the cam, should put it in the sweet spot of the OD shouldn’t it? I’m an old man and couldn’t care less if it runs out of steam at 4 grand. I am not interested in stop-lite drag racing any longer, I am retired and have all day to get nowhere. I want torque when pulling a trailer or MPGs when I am empty. NO, I am not interested in spending 50k on a new truck or buying a used full-sized behemoth. To the responder who said: buy a car, I already own a 2017 Mustang GT.

Oh sorry I misunderstood.

 

[19Walt93]

Most overdrive transmissions have about a 30% reduction and that needs to be factored into your calculations.3.73 x .7 =2.61, which means 3.73's will act like 2.61's when the trans is in overdrive, 3.08's would act like a 2.16 gear.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

1500RPM at 65MPH is going to be a problem. If you have an automatic, the transmission will be constantly downshifting. If you have a standard, YOU will be constantly downshifting.

Over on the Honda Fit forum, people with automatics were quite happy that our cars (mine included) hummed along at 2250 or so RPM at 65mph. At 70, we were around 2500. The guys with manuals were annoyed, because they were buzzing along at 3500 rpm. Even in the 2015s, that got a 6 speed manual, they were still sitting at 3500. It's said that Honda did that to keep the manuals in the power band. Even at 3500RPM, those cars were over 30 MPG (us rating, fake (us) gallon). In Canada, they were rated 50MPG (Canadian rating, REAL (Imperial) gallon). I got over 40.

The bottom line seems to be that for best performance and efficiency, you want your engine in the power band as much as possible, and, from what I understand, for these engines that's over 2000 RPM.

 

[scotts90ranger]

For the record my '00 Explorer 5.0L with 3.73's and the 4R70W turned 2000rpm at 65mph in OD with 31" tires, the thing is tired and has been beat to death but gets 16mpg or so commuting (closer to 18-20 if on a road trip on highway). I've contemplated doing some MPG upgrades, the headers I bought but hadn't gotten in yet are supposed to add 1 or 2 mpg but decided on something more efficient, plus the Explorer is a planned project in about a year.

Axles in Explorers doesn't matter what engine it has (other than the rare 4x2, then they don't have a front obviously)... all '91-94 had a Dana 35 TTB up front and a drum 31 spline 8.8 out back, all '95-01 had a SLA Dana 35 up front (I don't know the specifics on the front on whether it is the same as the Rangers and if any of them had the PVH hubs, 5.0L's are all AWD so full time front axles) and a disc brake 31 spline 8.8 in back, the only difference in the 5.0L explorers axle wise is they have traction bars on top of the axles. I'm pretty sure most of the 5.0L explorers had 3.73's as both my '98 and '00 have those. That isn't to say that someone didn't order something else as I believe at that time Ford took custom orders, that's where the 3.27's come in I think... My '91 4 door manual trans explorer had an open rear diff with 3.55 gears, both 5.0L Explorers have 3.73 limited slip, trying to remember 10 years ago but the '92 auto Explorer had 3.73's I think, and the Mountaineer I haven't looked at, I just know it is a 5.0L and was $200... From what I've read over 20 years there is VERY LITTLE that guarantees a certain gear ratio on any RBV, most consistent is the 4x4 2.3L trucks are all short bed regular cabs with 4.10 gear ratio

The '97 Ranger 4x2 2.3L manual with 4.10's and 27" tires I just started driving is getting 22.5mpg right now, but I did the math (no tach) and that's 2700rpm at 60mph which can't be helping...

 

[Dirtman]

2700 rpm would be 71mph in OD (.74:1) with 27" tires and 4.10:1 gear ratio...

 

[scotts90ranger]

ok, well I was going off of memory and there might have been whiskey involved... you understand . Same difference, it's a touch too many rpm for commuting, first gear is jerky when letting the clutch out and not quite enough there to start in second... It needs tires, going to try for something around 28-29"

 

[don4331]

Axles in Explorers doesn't matter what engine it has (other than the rare 4x2, then they don't have a front obviously)... all '91-94 had a Dana 35 TTB up front and a drum 31 spline 8.8 out back, all '95-01 had a SLA Dana 35 up front (I don't know the specifics on the front on whether it is the same as the Rangers and if any of them had the PVH hubs, 5.0L's are all AWD so full time front axles) and a disc brake 31 spline 8.8 in back, the only difference in the 5.0L explorers axle wise is they have traction bars on top of the axles. I'm pretty sure most of the 5.0L explorers had 3.73's as both my '98 and '00 have those.

The initial SLA Exploders have a CAD (Central Axle Disconnect) Dana 35 up front. Those from ?'96? onwards have the exact same Dana 35 as the Rangers - my '98 runs the axles out of a '00 Expo (to get 4.10s, LSD & 31 spline axles

3.27s only came with V-6 Explorers; there's a few of them kicking around the country (car-part.com lists over 1k). Later Explorers/Rangers come with larger front brakes, 12" versus the 11-1/4" of Elfiero's '00 - you need knuckles and rotors to get larger brakes. Depending on exact build data of Elfiero's Ranger, he might have PVH or live axles ('00 being the transition year). If he has, wants to retain PVH hub, and wants the Explorer larger brake/knuckles, he would need to add the PVH vacuum lines. Disconnecting the front axle is good for a fraction of MPG.

If you really want better mileage, as has been suggested: remove the front axle, and replace the knuckles with 2wd Edge ones. Then you can go with a 3.8 Mustang transmission (no transfer case) as part of the 5.0 swap and save a lot of weight. And its all bolt on. One doesn't usually need 4x4 when towing.

'17 Mustang/'18 Explorer are total different kettle of fish with their direct injection engines. They go into lean burn air-fuel ratios that would make a diesel blush. That isn't happening with a Windsor 5.0; now if you are installing a Coyote 5.0....