New wheels and tires on the ranger?

[Clay_95Ranger]

So i dont know if anyone is on right now but if you are i need some answers...i have 32/11.5-15 wheels and tires on my ranger a buddy of mine has rims and tires for free but they are 35/12-15 alls i wanna know will th 35/12-15 fit on my ranger remember now i have fender flares and 5.5 inch lift? And will my 3.0 be able to handle those bit tires? Any help would be awsome!!

 

[valleyvinyl84]

Yo man those tires should fit no problem according to most fitment guides (sometimes they're wrong) but watch out for rubbing. Also, check the backspacing on those wheels cause if its too deep they won't work for ya. The 3.0 shouldn't have any problems turnin wither but if ya got the cash I'd look into new gears to take a lil strain off the motor and trans.

 

[fordboi415]

If you install those tires with anything less than 4.88s then your gunna end up damaging your trans and maybe worse, even the 4.88s might not be enough

 

[valleyvinyl84]

Yo man I know from experience that the 2.8 Ford had back in 84 turns 35's no problem. Ya won't set any speed records with it, but the motor will hold up fine as for the trans if its a stick it'll last if ya don't drive like an idiot. If its automatic buy at least 3 from a junk yard cause ya will need them (I cooked 2 so far on my Bronco II). Btw my old Ranger did have 4.10s.

 

[fordboi415]

Yo man I know from experience that the 2.8 Ford had back in 84 turns 35's no problem. Ya won't set any speed records with it, but the motor will hold up fine as for the trans if its a stick it'll last if ya don't drive like an idiot. If its automatic buy at least 3 from a junk yard cause ya will need them (I cooked 2 so far on my Bronco II). Btw my old Ranger did have 4.10s.

dude did you ever think that maybe there was a reason you cooked those transmissions you need nothing less than 4.88 gears to run 35 inch tires with the 3.0 you can ask anyone on this forum site and they will tell you the same thing the reason you toasted those trans is because you were putting a fat ass load on those babies, hell even the shops will tell ya you need a set of 4.88s minimum to run those huge ass tires

 

[valleyvinyl84]

Dude read what I posted again. K right see the thing of it is... the 35's were on a Ranger with a stick and I cooked the trannys in my Bronco II, two completely different vehicles. Now would 4.88s be better than 4.10s ya of course they would, I'm just sayin' it worked for me no problem WITH A STICK (key words right there). And the Bronco II only had 31's hence why I said it's a bad idea if it's an automatic.

 

[XTrEmE9156]

I think that big tires, low ratios and underpowered engines are for fags......

 

[valleyvinyl84]

Ditto XTrEmE thats why the off road unit is what it is cause it won't break like every Ranger or Bronco II I ever drove, owned, or saw. The 2.slow Ranger is holdin up pretty good so far tho.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Wow, what a messed up thread.

1st off, a 3.0 can push 35s. Less than 4.10s though and it ain't gonna keep up with traffic and eat auto trannies like a dodge, or eat clutches if it's a stick. It would be tolerable, although slow with 4.10s. As was already stated, most here would recomend 4.88s. However, If I was going to lay out the cash for 4.88's they wouldn't be for the 7.5" axle your ranger currently has. I'd put them in a 31-spline 8.8 from an exploder and then put that in your ranger (more or less a bolt-in). The 7.5, although stronger than a GM 10-bolt, isn't going to like 35's very much.

Second, what the heck is a dodge guy doing here if he doesn't have an RBV? Apparently he feels that his big bad dodge oil burner is being challenged by little old rangers and therefore felt the need to join the ranger site to bash rangers. If your dodge has a stick, I can respect it. If it has an auto and you're still proud of the truck you are a moron. No other vehicles I've had the privledge of working on go through transmissions like a 94+ dodge truck. With the diesels, tranny changes are more regular than oil changes

Thirdly, what the heck are you trying to do putting 35's on a 2wd? 35's are going to destroy gas mileage, speed, handling, wear everything out faster, and make for craptacular ride quality. And it will still get beat by a stock 4x4 off-road.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

And XTrEmE9156, whenever you finish off the tranny in that POS dodge, I want to buy the turbo off it. A Ford 2.3 will make more ponies with a holset than a cummins ever did.

 

[XTrEmE9156]

Well.. I don't find the need to bash rangers, I just hate fords in general. They are the most inconsistently manufactured Make of vehicle in the U.S... I have two trucks: A '94 Ram 2500 with 294,000 miles on it with original Engine and turbo, Dana 60, Dana 80, NP-241 DLD T-case, NV-4500..... you thought i was going to say the clutch was original didn't you........ There is a South Bend Ceramic Dual disk in it with more clamping force than your trucks weigh ...Best 1/4mi.: 15.5@ 87mph with 33x12.50x16 Cepek Crushers, 6500lbs, 4.10 Gears....with 370rwhp/ 790rwtq ........ I also Have a '97 ext cab 8' box with 230,000 miles on original Dana 60, Dana 70, Np-241 DLD t-case, with a new engine full of goodies you all wouldn't understand, a full billet Suncoast Trans with a special 'two- piece' BILLET output shaft a.k.a. 'BROKE'...... Best 1/4mi.:12.85@ 105mph, 7,300 lbs, In 4 wheel drive, WITH 33x12.50x16.5's, 3.55 Gears ...... 720rwhp/ 1200+rwtq.......

I was just stating that there is no reason to put 35" tall tires on a 2wd Ranger that has hardly enough power to spin the stock size tires.. I used to have a ranger I sputzed around with, it caught on fire in my driveway and melted into an aluminum/ steel/ plastic/ rubber mass of dung...... Not saying it wouldn't look cool, but I'd hate every Minute of driving such a thing...

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Well, I run about the same 1/4 time (13 seconds) with my 4-banger ranger with 260,000 miles on everything but the engine (which ran perfectly when I pulled it at 250000 and put new bearings, forged pistons, and a turbo on it).

And my explorer got 150,000 miles out of the stock clutch.

It's my opinion that dodges are the most consistanly worthless, POS, always broken, good for nothing vehicles made. But hey, at least they're consistant.

So yes, we're all full of stories about how great our personal favorite vehicles are. That doesn't prove anything.

A btw, 700 ponies really isn't all that much for a ford 2.3. Do some research.

Just one question: If you hate Fords and don't have a ranger, why are you here?

 

[valleyvinyl84]

And XTrEmE9156, whenever you finish off the tranny in that POS dodge, I want to buy the turbo off it. A Ford 2.3 will make more ponies with a holset than a cummins ever did.

Honestly, you have to be kidding!
#1 Do you know how big that turbo is (for a 2.3) and how long it would take you to actually build boost? I'd probably blow you away with my ranger and it's only a 2.0 with 73 horse at the flywheel...........sarcasm (about the blow away not the 73 horse thats serious power right there)

#2 There is no way you can build that many "ponies" with that motor without it blowing apart. I'd love to see you reach 370 horse at the wheels let alone 720! But I mean 700 horse at the wheels is easy...(definitely not on pump gas). I mean just the other day I was walking down the street and a 2.3 ranger drove by and it had like 800 horse... not.

and....

#3 I would love to see a NV-4500 break cause it doesn't happen all that often. It would be a sight to see.

 

[XTrEmE9156]

Oh great do we have another person that thinks ford owns Cummins and all that happy horse chit... BTW I own 2 trucks, my friend owns 5 dodge diesels and currently every single one has 0 problems.. besides the broken output shaft in my truck which is a suncoast trans part, nothing to do with dodges... I also stated I don't necessarily hate fords, i just hate the way there are like 25 different part numbers depending on the 'date of manufacture' or if it was built on a Wednesday... honestly WTF? 700 horse may be attainable with a 2.3, but um........ there is no replacememnt for displacement or stroke... Not to mention that's alot of $$$ to do that to a 2.3....

13's with a 2.3 ranger where's your timeslip? here's mine... it's only the 12.90 slip tho....

#47 on the page: http://www.competitiondiesel.com/forums/timeslips.php?do=quarter&perpage=25&page=2

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Go look at www.turboford.net

I'm not kidding, there are a lot of guys making 500 plus with the dodge holset turbos with the 2.3. There are guys running bigger than those turbos as well. All without "blowing it apart".

But don't take it from me, go do you're own research.

Refusal to believe doesn't mean it's not true.