2wd vs 4wd

[dave@threat]

My trucks no 4x4 but it sure is fun hauling ass though stuff. It does the job and has never been stuck...well maybe stuck in 5th gear pinned once in a while!!! One day Ill slow down and build myself a 4x4 when I cant handle the abuse anymore.

 

[AgPete139]

I got stuck tonight in a multiple, rutted area (very dry, very sandy). I've been driving the 2WD '97 4.0 since '99, and have used it for a lot of fields and for the muddy construction job sites. 2WD sucks. It's open, too, which doesn't help a damn bit. I ended up jacking up the front end and doing the shovel/large rock thing to get both tires out. E-brake, rocking, and airing down at the last minute didn't help. The inclines for the ruts ranged from 3" to thigh-deep (front tires). Ass end was unloaded (no tools, spare tire parts removed).

It would have been nice having the 4lo tonight. For the record, I was not wheeling. I was leaving my father's business park which is located adjacent to a train yard.

I'm by no means calling myself an expert when it comes to tough trails. Mudding and sloshing her around in fields is always a blast though (she's my DD and pull 5x8 trailers on the class 3). For the part-time wheelers that are not in the west part of US, I say you cant beat 4 wheels trying to turn than just 2 open (read as one) or even a locker. Easier, perhaps. Then again, I'm lazy. I like offroading my sister's stock 4WD Cherokee which whatever Heep's stock trac lock is.

After I finish the 1970 Porsche, I'm gonna look for another Ranger, this time with a TTB.

Meh. *shrugs*


Disgruntled.




.

 

[Dar70]

I got stuck tonight in a multiple, rutted area (very dry, very sandy). I've been driving the 2WD '97 4.0 since '99, and have used it for a lot of fields and for the muddy construction job sites. 2WD sucks. It's open, too, which doesn't help a damn bit. I ended up jacking up the front end and doing the shovel/large rock thing to get both tires out. E-brake, rocking, and airing down at the last minute didn't help. The inclines for the ruts ranged from 3" to thigh-deep (front tires). Ass end was unloaded (no tools, spare tire parts removed).

It would have been nice having the 4lo tonight. For the record, I was not wheeling. I was leaving my father's business park which is located adjacent to a train yard.

I'm by no means calling myself an expert when it comes to tough trails. Mudding and sloshing her around in fields is always a blast though (she's my DD and pull 5x8 trailers on the class 3). For the part-time wheelers that are not in the west part of US, I say you cant beat 4 wheels trying to turn than just 2 open (read as one) or even a locker. Easier, perhaps. Then again, I'm lazy. I like offroading my sister's stock 4WD Cherokee which whatever Heep's stock trac lock is.

After I finish the 1970 Porsche, I'm gonna look for another Ranger, this time with a TTB.

Meh. *shrugs*


Disgruntled.




.

Yeah. Again 4x2 just isnt built for getting stuck in holes. Its like any other car. A 4x2 Ranger is for light duty work and a DD. When I got mine thats what I expected. I used to get stuck in my Mustang and Grandam during the winter or muddy roads and I survived it. The Ranger has been better or at least as good as those in the winter. So it depends what you want. A 4x4 that will get you out of the occasional mud hole or a 4x2 that is a great DD, great on gas and an excellent light utility vehicle. I decided I dont get stuck often and a shovel is cheaper than a 4x4.

Again though if it was available in a 4 cyl. I would probably get one for the heck of it. At least it would be cheaper to operate that way.

 

[Dar70]

+1 i honestly dont get why people take a 2wd and lift it, it just doesnt make sense to me, because even if you have a worked up, lifted, 2wd, im still going to chug right by you in the mud with my unlifted, mildly built 4x4, on street tires, but yea everyone to his own i guess

Well the height isnt just exclusive to a 4x4. People who have 4x2's use them as street drivers. If a 4x4 has some extra lift why cant a 4x2???? It really does make sense when you think about it. Some people like a little extra clearance under their pickups to help going through deep snow etc. Or just like the extra height. In fact I will bet the extra height is why alot of people opt for the 4x4 instead of the 4x2. Most people I know who have a 4x4 DONT get it for offroading. They really get it for the extra height. Although they say snow, but I know better.

 

[91rangerxlt]

haha yea its always nice to have a little exta height no matter what yer driving. but either way with the extra height you still aint got an extra front wheel (or 2) pulling with always helps no matter what kinda sitian yer in. id rather have an open diff. 4x4 then a locked 2wd anyday.

 

[Dar70]

haha yea its always nice to have a little exta height no matter what yer driving. but either way with the extra height you still aint got an extra front wheel (or 2) pulling with always helps no matter what kinda sitian yer in. id rather have an open diff. 4x4 then a locked 2wd anyday.

But unless you offroad, those situations are few and far between. NOW as I said before if the Ranger had a fuel economy 4x4, I would get one in a heartbeat. But the current Ranger 4x4 is so bad on fuel economy its not worth it. Better to get a bigger 4x4 that gets the same OR better (new f-150) gas mileage.

 

[dave@threat]

Here is my 2wd. It does have some 4x4 components though. A couple times a week I cut D-44s apart and re-use the beam ends and spindles to make 2wd components. See both 4wd and 2wd serving a purpose at the same time lol

Two different breeds united!

 

[Dar70]

That is just to cool for words.

 

[91rangerxlt]

But unless you offroad, those situations are few and far between. NOW as I said before if the Ranger had a fuel economy 4x4, I would get one in a heartbeat. But the current Ranger 4x4 is so bad on fuel economy its not worth it. Better to get a bigger 4x4 that gets the same OR better (new f-150) gas mileage.

i aint complaingin about my 96 ranger 4x4. its getting 17 mpg right now.

 

[racsan]

i get 17-19. best ever was 19.5

 

[91rangerxlt]

i get 17-19. best ever was 19.5

my 4.0 is making what my buddys 2.3 was before he put in a new o2 sensor. now hes up to 20mpg. woot woot lmfao. should be making alot more with the little 4 banger

 

[racsan]

i had a '88 2.3 s/c 2wd std trans, same gear as now, 3.73, it would get 23/27. i think i hit 28 once. the problem with it was lack of torque. it did fine on flat ground, but in hilly areas forget about 5th and sometimes forget about 4rth. the 4.0 would easily take on wv. highways and never leave 5th. yeah, the vaccum guage was in the dump, but that motor didnt feel as it was loaded down like the 2.3 would have. hard to beat the 2.3 for milage though. maybe his cat is plugged some, how long was the 02 sensor bad? i had a cat clog on the 2.3, burnt a valve because of it.

 

[Dar70]

i aint complaingin about my 96 ranger 4x4. its getting 17 mpg right now.

Yeah if you can afford the gas thats great. If I didnt have so much driving to do, and gas was 99cents a gallon again I could deal with the 4x4 with bigger engine. But as it stands I get up to 27mpg on mine and about 24 avg. Thats at least 140 miles more per tank (going by 24mpg)and 3.5 trips more to work on one tank of gas.

i had a '88 2.3 s/c 2wd std trans, same gear as now, 3.73, it would get 23/27. i think i hit 28 once. the problem with it was lack of torque. it did fine on flat ground, but in hilly areas forget about 5th and sometimes forget about 4rth. the 4.0 would easily take on wv. highways and never leave 5th. yeah, the vaccum guage was in the dump, but that motor didnt feel as it was loaded down like the 2.3 would have. hard to beat the 2.3 for milage though. maybe his cat is plugged some, how long was the 02 sensor bad? i had a cat clog on the 2.3, burnt a valve because of it.

The current 4 has much more HP now and more torque. Its actually more powerful than the late 80's early 90's 3.0 6cyl.

 

[paxlineman]

wow when i posted this thread i had no idea on what a response would be. thanks everyone for your inputs.

 

[91rangerxlt]

i had a '88 2.3 s/c 2wd std trans, same gear as now, 3.73, it would get 23/27. i think i hit 28 once. the problem with it was lack of torque. it did fine on flat ground, but in hilly areas forget about 5th and sometimes forget about 4rth. the 4.0 would easily take on wv. highways and never leave 5th. yeah, the vaccum guage was in the dump, but that motor didnt feel as it was loaded down like the 2.3 would have. hard to beat the 2.3 for milage though. maybe his cat is plugged some, how long was the 02 sensor bad? i had a cat clog on the 2.3, burnt a valve because of it.

i dont know how long he ran it with a bad o2 sensor. i know that his cat rattles alot. the stuff inside of it makes it rattle when he gets on it. i dont know i cut my cat off on my old ranger.