What's up with this new Ranger of mine? 4.10 on a 4x2?

[scotts90ranger]

It must be a custom order or something... '97 Ranger XLT, extended cab, 2.3L, 4x2, manual transmission, manual windows, 60/40 front seat, no air conditioning, has power steering and steel 14" wheels. It didn't come with the original drivers door so no idea on stock door tag but just climbed under the thing and it has a 4.10:1 7.5" axle according to the tag.

I know all 2.3L 4x4 Rangers had 4.10's but I haven't seen or heard of any 4x2 with manual transmission coming with 4.10's, thought that was an auto trans thing.

I thought the thing was gutless, but I'll get the extra 2.3L it came with out of the bed in a few days which should wake it up... I wish it had a tach but I'll get to that... I know it's not gutless but it isn't the 5.0L explorer I'm used to anymore, or the turbo 2.3L Ranger I'm used to...

 

[sgtsandman]

I'm not familiar with the configurations for that year but my general impression is that manual RWD Rangers had a 3.73:1 rear end. From my experience with my RWD Ranger, 4.10:1 is a much better match. It originally had a 3.45:1 rear end and struggled to get out of it's own way. We'll have to wait for those with more knowledge to post to know for sure.

 

[4x4junkie]

Indeed my '97 Ranger brochure does not show a 4.10:1 option on a 2WD.

Maybe the rearend was swapped out for another by a PO?

 

[scotts90ranger]

It wouldn't surprise me, but not the owner that I bought it from... they changed the drivers door since it was smashed in from the ditch encounter where they bent the heck out of an I beam pulling it out, the front lip of the door hit the fender and instead of pulling the fender out to fix the problem they pounded in the front lip of the replacement door... which I'm sure will help me get rid of this white door that is now a crossbreed of '94 and '97 parts...

I'll put a GPS in it once it's street legal to see if the speedo is accurate, that should tell if the axle is original. If it isn't accurate, what's the options on an OBD II Ranger to correct the speedo?

 

[Dirtman]

I've got 4.10s in my 2wd 2.3... different generation but it was my understanding the 4.10s helped compensate for the less powerful 4 cylinder.

 

[scotts90ranger]

I understand and it makes perfect sense, but my '90 Ranger with a 2.3L came with 3.08's because that's what made sense to them then and with very similar tire size...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I understand and it makes perfect sense, but my '90 Ranger with a 2.3L came with 3.08's because that's what made sense to them then and with very similar tire size...

Your 90 had 3.08s?

Ouch.

 

[racsan]

I swapped in a 4.10 axle to my 2wd manual 2.3 and its a big improvement over the 3.45 that it originally came with. the truck I got it from at the junkyard was a 98 2wd shortbed, 2.5 with a automatic. only other 4.10 truck there that day was also a 2wd 4cyl auto, a supercab (but I dont rmember the year) the axle I picked had less milage and hadnt been there very long, the other truck had been there quite awhile and would of been harder to got it out. one of these days I'll get the right speedometer gear, had 225/70/14's originally, now I mostly run 225/70/15's. speedometer is off 10mph. with 235/75/15's its off 7 mph. overall the 225's are a better fit, esp when towing. Ive had 2 other 2.3 trucks, both came with 3.73's. I breifly had a reg cab 2wd 3.0 automatic and it had the 3.45 also.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ive thought about puttin a 373 or 410 behind my 2.9. Just to help the clutch when im towing.

Got 3.45s now.

 

[8thTon]

I think my '90 2wd 2.3/5spd was 3.08 too - it helped mileage, and I loaded the heck out of that thing many times, but 5th was only for cruising on the flat. The 4.10's work well with the 3.0.

 

[19Walt93]

My father bought one of our first Rangers in the fall of 82, short box 2wd, 2.0, 4spd, with no options. It had a radio because I put one in it. It came with 3.08's and he lugged it down so much the valves were sticking in the guides within a couple years- a common problem addressed by a TSB. I did a valve job and reamed the guides to the new spec and it ran fine until he did it again. When he died in 89 I bought it from my mother because it was running lousy and I didn't want her to have to give it away to get rid of it. I did another valve job thinking I'd sell it in the spring but ended up keeping it 6 years before I bought an F150. A 2.0 with no power + 3.08 gears + NH hills = a horrible combination.

 

[Dirtman]

Didn't the older rangers with the 3.08s have those tiny little tires on 14" rims though? 3.08 still sucks donkey balls but the tiny tires help make up for it.

 

[sgtsandman]

My '98 came stock with 14" tires, I think they were 225/70R14s but it's been a while so I'm not 100% sure. In any case, it was geared with 3.45:1. Way too tall of a gear for the truck unless you live out in the Midwest. At minimum, it should have had 3.73:1.

Seeing a Ranger with the smaller wheels and a set of 3.08s in it would be possible. Especially with some of the smaller sizes the earlier trucks came with (205/70R14 & 215/70R14). Still a horrible idea but possible.

 

[Dirtman]

I dont even offroad and I'm going to switch from 4.10 to 4.56 when I redo my rear...

I can't even imagine driving a 4 cylinder with 3.08s. Especially an older lima 4 cylinder.

 

[sgtsandman]

Hell, I'm going to re-gear my 2011 to 4.56 when I install a rear locker and front LSD and it has more umpfff than any of the four cylinders. I found 4.10 to be fine with the '98 but it is a stick, so had a little more get up and go than the same truck with a slush box. The CR-Vs had 4.56 from the factory and I was quite happy with their get up and go. I wouldn't think making that move would be a bad call. Just not something you can go to a junk yard a get an axle on the cheap to do the swap.