Ratio help trying to hit 110-120mph goal

[Colton Smith]

Hey dudes, gonna rally race my 1989 single cab, short bed 2WD 5 speed 2.3L Ford ranger that is super low to the ground in stock form which is what I am keeping the suspension as and I don't want to go with super tiny tires (for ground clearance)....

I have the 7.5" diff and 2.3L the shortest gear ratio I can find for the girl is 4.56, on 31's I would need like 6.0:1 to limit top speed of 110....

I really only need a top speed of 110 at like 4500 RPM, maybe a little more (if this 2.3L can even get me there....
My trans ratios are 3.72 / 2.20 / 1.50 / 1.00 / 0.79
So rapped out at 6000RPM on 31's we have a top speed in MPH of
(1st-5OD) 32mph,55,80,121,(@4500RPM 115)@6000RPM 153....

That seems sluggish in my opinion and I feel like I would be bouncing from
1st-3rd constantly to keep the rpm's up along with wheel speed/ tire spin....

Have any of you ever ran 31's with 4.56 gears and the 2.3? Is it as sluggish as I am thinking it will be? I was thinking if that is still too doggy maybe go down to a 27" tire like 255/60/r15 (27"/10"/r15) along with the 4.56:1 final ratio. Any thoughts?

 

[adsm08]

Rangers are not meant to go that fast.

 

[Colton Smith]

Rangers are not meant to go that fast.

And it was once said that we will never fly....
I don't need irrelevant comments. I need positive insight dude.

 

[adsm08]

Ok, my "positive insight" is this: if you feel you need something lower than 4.56 the 8.8 has available ratios as far down as 5.13, maybe farther. An 8.8 would be mostly bolt-in.

 

[turbo91xlt]

An NA 2.3 will take forever to get to 100mph btw, let alone 120mph haha.

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

An NA 2.3 will take forever to get to 100mph btw, let alone 120mph haha.

forever ..

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

You could try to find a 4x4 trans and t-case and use the low range with your stock gears. I didn't do the math but it should be close. Especially if you're willing to play with tire size.

 

[don4331]

If you want to keep the 7.5; 5.13s exist for it:

http://www.4wheelparts.com/Drivetra...x?t_c=12&t_s=237&t_pt=5092&t_pn=G/22-2014-513

alwaysFlOoReD:

You don't want to be running at redline in 5th in 4 Lo - 'planets' in reducer would be spinning almost 19k rpms and they aren't design for that (common problem in Rubicon Jeeps, user puts the transfer case is 4Lo, Auto in Drive and then wonders why at 90km/h there are suddenly parts all over the pavement).

 

[Colton Smith]

Im not putting in a transfer case, that's more shit to break and will be spinning too fast to hold up. Yes it will take forever for a 2.3L to hit 100 but I need torque down low so I need a shorter ratio/ smaller tires to accomplish this. I am thinking a max out top speed of 100 wouldn't be a bad goal but I want to be able to use 2-4 gear more than 1,2,3 and rarely, if ever, touching 4 and 5th. lol
My plan it to keep the 7.5" for weight savings. Have you guys ever driven or seen the 2.3L with 4.56/5.13? is it still super doggy on the bottom? I feel like a 32 MPH 1st gear with the 2.3L would be slow slow going.
I was thinking like 20MPH max for 1st

 

[adsm08]

I still think you are working with about the worst possible starting platform for the stated goal.

But you've already written off my opinions because I told you that you are trying to do something outside the design intent without serious mods, so what do I know.

 

[Hagan]

I had 5.13's on my Ranger on stock suspension and stock wheels and tires. Drove like that for several months. It was just as slow as before.

I don't think the Ranger can even hit 110-120 mph at terminal velocity

The problem with gearing is its great on paper. But the 2.3 doesn't make power anywhere. It does that matter if you have a 30 speed manual transmission and a 2 speed rear end. You still need something called horse power and torque.

My car weighs 2100lbs and has 115hp. It's aerodynamic and 100 mph is very difficult to achieve. How do you think a Ranger would do?

If you want to hit your goal you need a turbo or bigger engine.

 

[Colton Smith]

I had 5.13's on my Ranger on stock suspension and stock wheels and tires. Drove like that for several months. It was just as slow as before.

I don't think the Ranger can even hit 110-120 mph at terminal velocity

The problem with gearing is its great on paper. But the 2.3 doesn't make power anywhere. It does that matter if you have a 30 speed manual transmission and a 2 speed rear end. You still need something called horse power and torque.

My car weighs 2100lbs and has 115hp. It's aerodynamic and 100 mph is very difficult to achieve. How do you think a Ranger would do?

If you want to hit your goal you need a turbo or bigger engine.

Being that when I purchased the truck a year ago and drove it home I was doing 70 on the highway comfortably in 5th gear at like 2000 rpm and able to hit 85 at like 5000RPM in 4th and it did 0-60 in like 17 seconds (its slow but not terrible) I know on bigger tires its gonna struggle, 5.13's might be my best bet on 25" tires.

I was also thinking about finding a 2.5L and either just swap the engine or swap rotating assembly with a proper rebuild, new cam and all that, I don't plan on using an all stock engine, the engine is open but I have to leave it N/A since the ranger never came with a turbo.

 

[TxGasRacer]

Not to mention there is a electronic speed limiter on our trucks that will kick in and stop you from exceeding the speeds you are talking about going,on my truck it kicks in right around 90 to 95 miles an hour So Good Luck.

 

[adsm08]

There is no electronic speed limiter on the pre-OBDII units.

And it is possible to get those old rangers to 100. I have done it once in mine, when it had the 2.9. I needed a big ass hill to do it, but I did it.


The real problem that I think is not being taken into account is wind resistance. Wind resistance starts increasing geometrically above 65 MPH, requiring ever increasing amounts of force to cut through, this means that you hit a point where even though the engine can hit higher revs unloaded, it can't make enough power to overcome that drag. Aerodynamics are one of the biggest factor in determining that point. You could hardly make the 89-92 body LESS aerodynamic if you attached a 12x12 sheet of plywood to the front end. It's a f**king shit brick.



I'm going to go back to my original "negative attitude" and say that these trucks were not designed to go that fast. In the 80 the national speed limit was 55, these old trucks were designed to go 55, not much faster. That's why the line for 55 on the speedo is red.

 

[TxGasRacer]

Hey adsm08, Oh Ok I was not aware of that and yes these trucks were never designed to go that fast on a public highway, you know it is funny how some one comes in a post a question and people answer the question and the original
poster chooses to ignore what people are telling him.