2.0 differential ratio

[seth959ci]

hello ive got a 89 ranger 2wd 2.3 5-speed, but the transmission was replaced with one from what i believe to be out of an 86 ranger with the 2.0. i say this because i helped my buddy install it when it was his truck and thats what year he thinks the parts truck was that the tranny came out of.

Anyway, my concern is the gear ratios. the truck will not go into 5th gear unless its going about 55 mph, the gears are LONG.. much longer than the original tranny. i was wondering if the rear end gear ratios were higher to cope with the longer tranny ratios in 2.0 trucks

 

[seth959ci]

any insight? just wanna know which diff ratio will get it close to stock rpm's in 5th gear

 

[AllanD]

hello ive got a 89 ranger 2wd 2.3 5-speed, but the transmission was replaced with one from what i believe to be out of an 86 ranger with the 2.0. i say this because i helped my buddy install it when it was his truck and thats what year he thinks the parts truck was that the tranny came out of.

Anyway, my concern is the gear ratios. the truck will not go into 5th gear unless its going about 55 mph, the gears are LONG.. much longer than the original tranny. i was wondering if the rear end gear ratios were higher to cope with the longer tranny ratios in 2.0 trucks

The transmission ratios in a 1989 5ps trans in an '89 2.0 are no different from any other Ranger 1988-up equipped with (other than the 4.0 trucks) a Mazda M5OD-R1 transmission.

the OTHER 2wd manual trans used earlier (c1985-87) is the T-K transmission
and that actually had SHORTER ratios than the mazda.

The issue you likely have are that the typical 2wd "base" ranger with a 4cyl engine came with 3.45 gears, rarely with 3.73's (excellend for an average 2wd 4cyl with smallish tires) but often these trucks were sold with absolutely attrocious 3.08 gearing...

Installing a 1986 trans into an 89 would have been a collossal PITA as the 1986 transmission is SHORTER overall, requires a different crossmember location
a different driveshaft length and output spline, as well as requiring a different slave cylinder and clutch line... then it must be mentioned that the shifter position is much further to the rear than the '89 transmission....