3.73 vs 4.10

[hihoslvr]

So I'm spec'in out my dream truck tonight: 4x4, 4.0, w/auto, but which axle ratio do I want?! Is the l/s worth the extra $$? Just interested in any "expert advice"...lol. I'd mostly be using the truck on paved roads 90%, some snow, mild off-roading, usually light loads, and limited towing. The sucker would most likely be totaly stock, except for a topper and ventvisors ,w/P255's, (yeah I'm kind of a panze). Hell, maybe I should just get a RAV4...

 

[Will]

I'd get the 4.10 (or lower if they have it) and an open axle so I could put a Lockright in it. I don't like limited slip axles.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

4.10 would be good for crawling/hauling, 3.73 good for fuel economy.

I'd go 3.73 open and throw some 235/75/15s on it, stuff a lockright in the rear (or get a tru-trac), and call it a day. I just have an open diff in my Ranger, but that's what I'm running. The 235's are about a 30" tire so you get a lil clearance without being too huge. Plus you get the better selection of tread designs. With the 3.73s I've been able to average around 20-22 mpg around town and 26-31 highway, 15-18 towing a BII behind it.

 

[Explorin94]

The 2003 FX4 Ranger has the 4.10 with a L/S in it. A buddy of mine has it, chucked a pinion bearing and tore the rear gear out of it. I rebuilt it and drove it to go get him and was very impressed with it.

 

[snake]

For what you are going to do with it I'd say the L/S would be fine. Is it worth the extra $? Absolutely. I've had one in mine since new (factory install) and it works flawlessly. Couldn't imagine pulling out into traffic in the rain without it... Sometimes you get extra stuff for the money in the same package, such as a full size spare or tranny cooler. Look closer into the package and you may see what else comes with it for the $300.

I always go with the lowest gear ratio, go for the 4:10's It may turn a little higher, but the engine will pull easier. Kinda works out on MPG that way and it is a stronger running truck. The '97 F-150 I had proclaimed the same MPG (EPA) with either rear, so it has to be close on a ranger too.

 

[rickcdewitt]

you could step up to 31's later and still have lots of grunt with the 4.10 ratio.you might consider 3.73 if it will live most of its life on the freeway with stock tires though.

 

[hihoslvr]

thanks for the replies, kind of all backs up what I was thinkin'...
It's fun ta play around with the "build your own" feature on Ford's website, but prolly gonna be few years still.

 

[MAKG]

The difference between 3.73 and 4.10 is not huge; it's 10%, and you'll likely have trouble noticing the difference, particularly if it has a stick.

Most used L/S are worn out, which makes them exactly like open differentials. You can raise the rear end to find out. They can be rebuilt.

 

[almostclueless]

I'm going to be buying a 4.0 ranger soon. You better believe I'm going to get 4.10's , because I wish Ford offered a limited edition ranger with around 250HP in a mini-truck.....the mindless jerks at Ford can obsess about ESOF, but they can't try to match dodge's V8 dakotas.


The factory limited slip is a perfectly good setup for those who don't spend every weekend climbing rocks with the thing. The only caveat is if the tires on that axle get uneven in diameter (different brands/sizes/appreciable difference in tire pressures) and it's driven very far, the clutches will wear out prematurely.

 

[Totalled]

Get an open 4.10. Spend the money that would go for the crap L/S on an Aussie locker.

 

[Hawker]

All the 4:10 advice is fine. But read what and why they're saying it. More grunt, ect. You're mostly driving on road. Think about gas going toward $5. The 3:73 might be a wiser choice. I have it in my 2WD with the 4.0 and the best I've gotten is 24 mpg all interstate and typically 20 around town (urban driving). Time to start thinking about stuff like this seriously. I had the LSD (factory) with my 2WD 3.0 previously and I think it smoothed out the acceleration. I'd love to be able to get it in my 08 4.0 2wd.

Something I found out that really helped was adding a rear stabilizer bar. It was a SOB to get in the 08, but once installed it tamed down the rear axel very noticably.

4.0 is a nice engine, but I had no real beefs with the 3.0, but the 3.0 did have the 4:10 rear and I do believe it needed it.

 

[mhughes165]

with 4.10's or 3.73's ur not really gonna notice a difference in gas mileage with a similarly equiped 2wd as far as gas mileage goes.........and, if u were really after gas mileage and SOLELY gas mileage, then u shoulda bought a geo metro, a ranger is a truck, the only rangers that get extremely good mileage is a 4cyl 5spd if u drive it like ur 90, even then ull still get TRUCK mileage

 

[snake]

with 4.10's or 3.73's ur not really gonna notice a difference in gas mileage with a similarly equiped 2wd as far as gas mileage goes.........and, if u were really after gas mileage and SOLELY gas mileage, then u shoulda bought a geo metro, a ranger is a truck, the only rangers that get extremely good mileage is a 4cyl 5spd if u drive it like ur 90, even then ull still get TRUCK mileage

Couldn't have said that better myself...

 

[hihoslvr]

All the 4:10 advice is fine. But read what and why they're saying it. More grunt, ect. You're mostly driving on road. Think about gas going toward $5. The 3:73 might be a wiser choice. I have it in my 2WD with the 4.0 and the best I've gotten is 24 mpg all interstate and typically 20 around town (urban driving). Time to start thinking about stuff like this seriously. I had the LSD (factory) with my 2WD 3.0 previously and I think it smoothed out the acceleration.
4.0 is a nice engine, but I had no real beefs with the 3.0, but the 3.0 did have the 4:10 rear and I do believe it needed it.

3:73 w/LSD is actually what I think I would prefer... I got the 4:10 w/o LSD right now (and 3.0 w/5spd, 2wd), came with the truck, I average about 20 mpg's and I do drive like an old man, usually. Anyway, I was just daydreaming, checkin' out Nissan SUV's last night too...

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

with 4.10's or 3.73's ur not really gonna notice a difference in gas mileage with a similarly equiped 2wd as far as gas mileage goes.........and, if u were really after gas mileage and SOLELY gas mileage, then u shoulda bought a geo metro, a ranger is a truck, the only rangers that get extremely good mileage is a 4cyl 5spd if u drive it like ur 90, even then ull still get TRUCK mileage

I have to disagree, my Ranger gets similar fuel economy to a 4 cyl 5-speed and I'll often lean a lil on the throttle and skip gears on the upshift. Everyone I've talked to around here with a 4 cyl gets pretty much the same fuel economy as me. Of course, it's also rather hilly around here... I'd imagine out west more where it's flatter, fuel economy numbers can change. I did talk with a guy who had a 4.0L 2wd with 4.10s in the rear and he was complaining one day that he never got better than 16 mpg around town in it, though it was an auto...

I'm a believer that properly breaking in a motor can have an effect on fuel economy despite the fact that many seem to think it's now all a myth. I babied the hell out of my Ranger for the first 5,000 miles, then started building up with working it harder after that. IIRC, I also changed oil and filters twice within the first 5k. My first tank of gas lasted over 400 miles. The second I made it 200 miles. Then it settled down and slowly built up and by 10k on the clock I was regularly between 18 and 20 (usually right at 19.5 mpg) around town with a cap and 500# of gear. When I took off the cap for a tonneau cover and cut the gear load in half I was usually around 21.2 mpg around town.

I can agree on the comment about getting a car if you don't want truck economy. Although, has anyone paid close attention to the numbers that the majority of cars and mini-vans put out these days? It's not much better than I get out of my Ranger...