4.0 ranger Better Power better economy

[mounties83]

I have a 4.0 ranger with 8.8 rear end with 3.27 gears with 31's. Which would be better for power and economy 3.73, or 4.10. I dont want anything too out there like 5.13's.

 

[4x4junkie]

Are you keeping your 31s for sure?
If so, go with 4.10 gears.

If you're thinking at all of going bigger (33s), then you might look into 4.56.

 

[mounties83]

k thanks

 

[Hahnsb2]

3.73s and 31s with a 4.0 and 5 speed isn't too bad, my friends could knock down 21MPG highway like that, personally I'd choose 4.10s though.

 

[mounties83]

ya i think 4.10's are better. It puts it back near the factory ratio.

 

[4x4junkie]

Its actually much better than factory 3.27s with stock tires.

You'll be happy with them for sure

 

[AllanD]

I've managed 21mpg a couple of times with a 4.0 5sp 4.10's and 235's

AD

 

[mounties83]

Well since i have a 4x4 this requires me to change the front gears as well. Would i get the same ratio for the front? That seems like the logical thing to do but i just want to ask because when i was searching for a front gears, for the dana 35 i believe, i kept seeing 4.11 gears not 4.10? Any idea??

 

[Mac]

'05' 4x4 ext cab with 4.0L, manual and 4.10's, 265-16's, can get 22 mpg in good weather. Works for me.
Dave

 

[bobbywalter]

you need a 4.0 diesel....better power and milage with 35 in tires and 373 gears.




























yeah yeah yeah.....i am just being an assclown

 

[4x4junkie]

Well since i have a 4x4 this requires me to change the front gears as well. Would i get the same ratio for the front? That seems like the logical thing to do but i just want to ask because when i was searching for a front gears, for the dana 35 i believe, i kept seeing 4.11 gears not 4.10? Any idea??

They need to be within .05 of each other (4.09 paired with a 4.11 for example won't create any issues). It's common for differences in tire wear alone to exceed that amount of difference.

 

[strvger]

it is not uncommon to find slightly different ratios from front to rear gears in 4x4's. this is due to the difference in the length of the drive shafts to their respective axles. this actually makes it all equal in the transfer case so you don't destroy any gears there.

 

[AllanD]

Well since i have a 4x4 this requires me to change the front gears as well. Would i get the same ratio for the front? That seems like the logical thing to do but i just want to ask because when i was searching for a front gears, for the dana 35 i believe, i kept seeing 4.11 gears not 4.10? Any idea??

The rather rare factory 4.10 geared Diff that was used from 11-89 through the end of the 1992 model run in AUTO trans 2.9's and 2.3 powered
Ranger and BroncoII had a true 4.10 ratio

41:10 (Ringinion)

The 1993-97 "D28/35" aka "Hybred" diff that replaced it in 1993
used D38 gears in a special D35 housing also had a 41:10 ratio.

if you are seeing 4.11 gears you are looking at "standard cut" gears
intended for a Jeep (XJ or early Non-V8 WJ) rear axle.

They need to be within .05 of each other (4.09 paired with a 4.11 for example won't create any issues). It's common for differences in tire wear alone to exceed that amount of difference.

The common incarnation of this combination were the F-series and FS-Bronco equipped with a 9" rear axle (4.11 ratio)
But the Dana 44 front axle came in a 4.09

Mid-1984 through '95 F-150 and Full Size Bronco which commonly had a 4.09 ratio D44 front diff, but the 8.8" axle was 4.10.
an improvement over the 4.11 ratio common to the 9" rear.

another combination affecting the same sets of F-series trucks
was the 3.50-ish ratio.

the 9" used a 3.50:1 while the 8.8" axle was 3.55.

More confusing the Dana 44 front axle came in a true 3.50 to match the 9", but the 3.55 8.8" axle was paired with a D44 axle with a 3.54:1 ratio.


But you NEED the ratio to be close, the closer it is the less trouble it'll cause.

AD

 

[Tagg]

Need an answer Guys ???

I have 2 Rangers both 4.0L, automatics , 4x4's. 1 of them is a 95 with 33x12.5x15 lugger tread with a 3.27 code 91 rearends getting 12.5 mpg interstate driving and the other is a 96 with 31x10.50x15 all-terrain tread with a R6 rearends getting 19 mpg combination type driving. Both trucks passed Pa State Emissions within past 3 months and neither are showing any engine lights or running problems. What is the correct answer to get the gas mieage up on the 1995 unit ? Thanks.

 

[strvger]

not wanting to overlook the obvious, tow the '95 with the '96.

next option would be to re-gear the '95 that will get you into the correct power band with those size tires. check the library for the calculators and pick which gears would work best for your style of driving with the '95. http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/gearandtirechart.html