Are Rangers geared poorly?

[177CIOfPureLove]

I have just about had enough of my 88 STX. The thing takes so much just to get moving, it really is too hard to drive, compared to even my 4x2 89' ranger. There is nothing low about 1st gear in idle, its like the thing just runs away. Even in 4wd low, its nothing like the crawl of a jeep or anything like that. It has an fm146 and 3.73 axles.... I figured it would be geared better than my 89, being equipped with 3.50 or whatever. Nothing binds, I even swapped a 1 piece drive shaft in. All the brakes are new and they don't stick. she rolls easy. It just takes a lot of gas on the clutch engagement in 2wd to get going. When i am moving a boat around on a trailer in my backyard, i always leave the hubs open and move things around in 2wd low just to avoid slipping the clutch so much. I shouldnt have to do this. I can move things around with my 89' without low (Even though I wish even that truck had a lil lower 1st gear). This was without the 31's being mounted, I had 235's and it was prob. worse than when I put the 31's on. I find it hard to believe that it came from the factory like that. I think that being this way makes it harder on all of the parts in the drive train because it isnt smooth or gradual. I have considered swapping a mazda trans in, but the ratios are not much different for 1st gear. What would I need to do? 4.10's? I drive on the highway to work and back, not sure if this is the best course of action. What do you guys think have you experienced the same?

 

[straycat]

Whenever you swap to any taller then stock tires you are going to have issues with something. If you want to run taller tires then swap gear ratios!!! I run 33's and run a 4:10 and I love it. I can pull my trailer or boat without any problems. Now...if I lived in a very hilly area I would run another gear ratio due to the hills I would be going up. But, no real issues here in Florida.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

I would say the same as straycat. your tires now- 235/75r15=29" are 3"-4" bigger than stock. Just guessing but your 3.73 is now equivalent to 3.25

Richard

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Later first generation Rangers had 235/75-15's optional. Mine has had 235's for as long as I have had it with 3.73's and really I think if the engine was decent it would get around very well, but I also have an automatic.

The calculator in the tech library computes a 205/75-15 tire (I think what my truck was suposed to have came with originally) as a tad over 27", and a 235/75-15 as a tad under a 29" tire, so your engine is only seeing less than a inch difference in radius (actual tire sizes vary with manufacturer too) A change from a 205 to 235 would cause a tad more than 3 MPH difference on the speedometer.

If you want to talk about craptacular gearing, try out my parents '94 Explorer with factory 235's and 3.27's...

Here is a breakdown of RBV transmixers with ratios, it might help you out.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/ManualTransmission.html

 

[177CIOfPureLove]

Yeah, she had 235's on it when i bought it. And it was rough. That thing would look like a skateboard with 205's on it from the factory. I just put 31's on it and it finally looks right. Lol. If you have an automatic then it wouldnt matter. An auto would seem better to run this thing. Auto is not an option for me lol. It just seems like everything is abused in everyday driving. And thats driving it as smooth as possible. Hard to explain. I know how to drive a stick, its all I ever owned were sticks. This thing isnt fluid.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yeah, she had 235's on it when i bought it. And it was rough. That thing would look like a skateboard with 205's on it from the factory. I just put 31's on it and it finally looks right. Lol. If you have an automatic then it wouldnt matter. An auto would seem better to run this thing. Auto is not an option for me lol. It just seems like everything is abused in everyday driving. And thats driving it as smooth as possible. Hard to explain. I know how to drive a stick, its all I ever owned were sticks. This thing isnt fluid.

I just thought about it, but I also suppose there is a difference in driving style between a small rural Iowa town and just about anywhere in New Jersery too...

 

[strvger]

the '83-'84 1st gen 4x4, 2.8l rangers had 3.08 gears as standard equipment AND 195/75x15 tires!!!!!

let's just say that ford rangers weren't geared "optimally"... imho.

 

[mhughes165]

I have just about had enough of my 88 STX. The thing takes so much just to get moving, it really is too hard to drive, compared to even my 4x2 89' ranger. There is nothing low about 1st gear in idle, its like the thing just runs away. Even in 4wd low, its nothing like the crawl of a jeep or anything like that. It has an fm146 and 3.73 axles.... I figured it would be geared better than my 89, being equipped with 3.50 or whatever. Nothing binds, I even swapped a 1 piece drive shaft in. All the brakes are new and they don't stick. she rolls easy. It just takes a lot of gas on the clutch engagement in 2wd to get going. When i am moving a boat around on a trailer in my backyard, i always leave the hubs open and move things around in 2wd low just to avoid slipping the clutch so much. I shouldnt have to do this. I can move things around with my 89' without low (Even though I wish even that truck had a lil lower 1st gear). This was without the 31's being mounted, I had 235's and it was prob. worse than when I put the 31's on. I find it hard to believe that it came from the factory like that. I think that being this way makes it harder on all of the parts in the drive train because it isnt smooth or gradual. I have considered swapping a mazda trans in, but the ratios are not much different for 1st gear. What would I need to do? 4.10's? I drive on the highway to work and back, not sure if this is the best course of action. What do you guys think have you experienced the same?

im willing to be u dont have full use of ur accelerator cable, i would check it for play via the walkthrough in the tech library, ur probably using a lot less pedal then u realize once the slacks taken out

you should have no problem roasting the 31's off the rims with power with 3.73's and a 2.9 fm146 combo....im willing to be there is something wrong with ur truck

 

[strvger]

^^ x2. i went to 4.56 gears for my truck and i travel lots of freeway miles as well. good acceleration, pulls the camper well, i can use 5th gear with my add-on cruise, and i still average 21 mpg.
i guess i'd check for codes first. then double check ignition, fuel flow (from tank thru injectors), linkage, clutch, etc. got to be something there that's not working as it should.
just my $.02.

 

[mhughes165]

if u want maybe we can arrange meeting up, i can take a look over the truck, since ur in jersey and all

 

[feellnfroggy]

I had 235's and 3.27 imagine what a pig mine was, i upgraded to 31's which is only a 2" difference roughly, then i upgraded to 3.55's and Its about like stock was agian. If you upgrade to 4.10's you wont be sorry, youll be looking at about 500 more rpms on the highway, but youll get used to it quick and wont notice anymore. your city mileage should go up a little and higway mileage will balance out between the 31's and gears. Im about to mount 33's and Im not doing gears for a long while, not til I find a home and job again, but itll drive equivalent to the 31's and 3.27's i assume. If you want superslow crawl, id buy a doubler. Otherwise, just a gear upgrade. tech library has a wheel/gear reference chart.

You also have a 2.9l with a manual. Yourr gonna be suckin for a long time in general anyways.

 

[Hopman]

I don't have a problem with the gearing in my '94 (2.3, stick & 4x4). The thing came from the factory with a 4.10 rear and it goes pretty good AND still gets 25 mpg!

Granted, I'm running small & narrow tires (215-75R15), even then.

The only downside is that the engine turns 3000 revs @ 70 mph.

 

[adsm08]

A lot of "fluidity" issues on the 2.9s are partially related to the dinky clutch disc. 4.0 clutch upgrade helps.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I don't have a problem with the gearing in my '94 (2.3, stick & 4x4). The thing came from the factory with a 4.10 rear and it goes pretty good AND still gets 25 mpg!

Granted, I'm running small & narrow tires (215-75R15), even then.

The only downside is that the engine turns 3000 revs @ 70 mph.

The extra revs are not really a bad thing either. If you were low RPM's at 70 the truck would be set to get kicked square in the knees on every hill.

 

[177CIOfPureLove]

There is some really good input here guys, thank you! I believe the third thing i did after i got the engine installed and running was to put the zip ties on the throttle to make up for the stretch. I am a pretty able mechanic and under the hood of the eec iv ford ranger I am pretty well at home. Lol. I have about 11,000 miles on the truck since I bought it, mostly highway. She runs really good. The 4.0 clutch swap I think would be very nice, but i was going to opt to that if I changed out the fm146 for an m50d. I think that 4.10s would be awesome to have but on the highway if the motor tachs another extra 500 rpm thats a lot, at say 70 mph. I think adversely affecting mileage (Which isnt super great to begin with) And I must say, I am not saying it wouldnt light up those 31's, I am saying that I wouldnt wanna do what it would take to do that. Lol.