NOTICE Where are the serious off-road Ford Ranger builds!!?? Show me....

[bobbywalter]

So.....there ya go Jim....get TTB on TRS 3

 

[bobbywalter]

Dana 44 TTB Conversion Cross Member – Hollander Motorsports https://share.google/R0NB9R3c1ynGS22Jz




Chevy Silverado TTB cross member – ohhchofab https://share.google/JiXBUBIHZq5evu3uk

 

[bobbywalter]

10 g no gears..
.
damn.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ive been looking at the Skyjacker lifts. They have multiple options. Ive got time to figure it out. She's made it clear she dont want to do anything till its time for tires.

I told myself that too. Dang 5 tire rotates are getting in the way though, we are at 75k miles and still have over half tread on the original Grabbers lol. I am guestimating they will run to about 100k pretty easy.

.Perception is a curious thing I guess.

Driving my bronco and a 24 bronco back to back there is no comparison.

Well....the road noise is comparable


So I am surprised Jim would rather have a 4 liter. I like the 4.0....but I would rather have the 4.3 gm and the 4l60 and I do not like 4l60s. From a drivability perspective they were perfect for mpg and all around useable power.

But the Ecoboost 2.3 and that ridiculous 10 speed blow all of that stuff out of the water. Blows away normal 302 for that matter. A stock explorer 302 will get embarrassed by a modern 2.3 eb.

I don't have any radical seat time in a new ranger but I have run the balls out of several now on medium challenges.

I would definitely edge the ttb for the front...and the rear is a bit stiff compared to earlier trucks as well but the trail control if you have access to it is all win.

For a single rig they are tops. A programmer from 5 star and some home made beef ups for steering and as mentioned I will be cutting it up to work.... WORK. DGAF what it looks like....just needs to work.

For actual offroading type stuff... I don't know if there is really much difference between my Ranger or our Bronco for power. The 302 has "enough" for the most part it just loafs along. I suspect a 4.0 would be similarish. Running 90mph down the interstate... 2.3 all the way.

I was really bummed I didn't get a newer Ranger for a rental when my '150 was in the bodyshop. I was curious how the 2.3 would feel with "normal" gears. 4.46 gears will perk up a lot of engines...

3.55 geared 6spd 5.0 F-150 will still happily mop the floor with the 2.3 tho.

 

[dvdswan]

I was really bummed I didn't get a newer Ranger for a rental when my '150 was in the bodyshop. I was curious how the 2.3 would feel with "normal" gears. 4.46 gears will perk up a lot of engines...

Sad thing is Nissan and Toyota have been doing this for years with their 4 cylinders. My 89 Toy came with 4.55 with 31s and my 96 D21 came with 4.63 with 235s. Mind you these were 4WD trucks. 2WDs came with 4.3s usually. When the Frontiers came out they started putting in 4.9s. Not sure what Toyota did.

Now with the mega speeds transmissions I'm sure they dropped the ratios back down into the 3s for mileage.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Sad thing is Nissan and Toyota have been doing this for years with their 4 cylinders. My 89 Toy came with 4.55 with 31s and my 96 D21 came with 4.63 with 235s. Mind you these were 4WD trucks. 2WDs came with 4.3s usually. When the Frontiers came out they started putting in 4.9s. Not sure what Toyota did.

Now with the mega speeds transmissions I'm sure they dropped the ratios back down into the 3s for mileage.

19+ Ranger's have 3.73's. Not sure about Raptors though.

I am sure the 10spd helps but RPM's are still normal when cruising in our Bronco.

 

[dvdswan]

19+ Ranger's have 3.73's. Not sure about Raptors though.

I am sure the 10spd helps but RPM's are still normal when cruising in our Bronco.

Aren't your tires like a 33" tire though? That would make the ratio higher on an older truck with a 3, 4, or 5 sp. trans. with 3.73s and 33s combo. Right.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Aren't your tires like a 33" tire though? That would make the ratio higher on an older truck with a 3, 4, or 5 sp. trans. with 3.73s and 33s combo. Right.

My Ranger has 31's/3.73, Bronco has 32's/4.46.

 

[dvdswan]

My Ranger has 31's/3.73, Bronco has 32's/4.46.

For the Ranger is that stock? So going from the (I'm guessing) 235 that was stock to a 31 you run about a 3.5 gear now.

The manufactures are finally figuring out that increasing the tire size they need to lower the axle ratio to keep the engine rpm in the "happy" cruise range.

60s and 70s trucks went with the lower gears for towing capabilities. Then the gas crisis hit and lower gears started to disappear from the factory and ratios around 3.73 became the norm. Late 70s and early 80s it was very rare to get a truck with 4.56 ratio any more.

Can you imagine what your ratio on the Bronco would be if it came with 235s? Probably 4.1. lol

When I changed ratios on my Nissan because of the 35s, I went to a 5.13 because that was the closest back to stock ratio there was.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

For the Ranger is that stock? So going from the (I'm guessing) 235 that was stock to a 31 you run about a 3.5 gear now.

Ranger's gear ratio is stock... literally nothing else is.

Original tire was like a 215/75R15.

Original transmission was an automatic with a steeper overdrive.

Original engine had 110hp (best in class lol)

Current 5spd has a pretty shallow overdrive, its spinning like three grand to run 70. For cruising I wish I had a steeper OD or a second one. Meanwhile first is too fast so I can't fix it with just a gear swap.

The driveline is basically F-150, 31's and 3.73's shouldn't be too far out of the realm for a stockish OBS F-150...

In normal land the Bronco with 4.46 should be way too deep but the transmission has enough gears to make it work out in the end.

 

[dvdswan]

Original engine had 110hp (best in class lol)

At least is was faster than the VW Bus. lol They only had 83hp.

Isn't it amazing to think "wow, this is the best engineers can do for a clean running engine"?

Google Search

Thanks AI, it's too ashamed to list Ford. lol

Toyota Pickup

• 22R (carbureted): 97 hp.
• 22R-E (fuel-injected): 103–113 hp.
• Diesel: 83–93 hp, depending on the variant.

Nissan 720

• Z24 engine: 103 hp (for gasoline variants).
• Z20 engine (California-spec MPG model): 95 hp.
• Diesel: Horsepower for the diesel option is typically around 70 hp.

Isuzu P'up

• 1.9L I4 (gasoline): 82 hp.
• 2.2L I4 (diesel): 58 hp.
• 2.3L I4: 88 hp.

Mitsubishi Mighty Max (Dodge Ram 50)

• 2.6L (carbureted): Horsepower varied, but one source indicates an electronic fuel feedback system for 1985.
• 2.3L Turbo Diesel: 86 hp.

Mazda B-Series

• B2000 (2.0L gasoline): 80–90 hp.
• B2200 (2.2L diesel): 64 hp.

Chevrolet S-10 / GMC S-15

• 1.9L Isuzu I4
  : An available engine in the S-10, it produced 82 hp.
• 2.5L LN8 Iron Duke I4
  : The standard engine, producing 92 hp.
• 2.8L 60° V6
  : This was the highest-output option, with 115 hp.
• 2.2L Isuzu Diesel I4
  : An economy-oriented diesel engine, producing 62 hp.

Ford Ranger

• 2.3L I4: An engine option for the Ranger in 1985 was a 2.3L four-cylinder.
• 2.8L Cologne V6: A higher-displacement option available that year.
• 2.0L I4 and Diesel I4: These were also available, providing a range of power options for the small truck.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

At least is was faster than the VW Bus. lol They only had 83hp.

Isn't it amazing to think "wow, this is the best engineers can do for a clean running engine"?

Google Search

Thanks AI, it's too ashamed to list Ford. lol

Toyota Pickup

• 22R (carbureted): 97 hp.
• 22R-E (fuel-injected): 103–113 hp.
• Diesel: 83–93 hp, depending on the variant.

Nissan 720

• Z24 engine: 103 hp (for gasoline variants).
• Z20 engine (California-spec MPG model): 95 hp.
• Diesel: Horsepower for the diesel option is typically around 70 hp.

Isuzu P'up

• 1.9L I4 (gasoline): 82 hp.
• 2.2L I4 (diesel): 58 hp.
• 2.3L I4: 88 hp.

Mitsubishi Mighty Max (Dodge Ram 50)

• 2.6L (carbureted): Horsepower varied, but one source indicates an electronic fuel feedback system for 1985.
• 2.3L Turbo Diesel: 86 hp.

Mazda B-Series

• B2000 (2.0L gasoline): 80–90 hp.
• B2200 (2.2L diesel): 64 hp.

Chevrolet S-10 / GMC S-15

• 1.9L Isuzu I4
  : An available engine in the S-10, it produced 82 hp.
• 2.5L LN8 Iron Duke I4
  : The standard engine, producing 92 hp.
• 2.8L 60° V6
  : This was the highest-output option, with 115 hp.
• 2.2L Isuzu Diesel I4
  : An economy-oriented diesel engine, producing 62 hp.

Ford Ranger

• 2.3L I4: An engine option for the Ranger in 1985 was a 2.3L four-cylinder.
• 2.8L Cologne V6: A higher-displacement option available that year.
• 2.0L I4 and Diesel I4: These were also available, providing a range of power options for the small truck.

The GM 2.8 had something weird, like it was a late year thing or something. The "best in class" claim is in the 1985 Ranger brochure, like something changed between when they printed that and the end of '85.

 

[bobbywalter]

Sad thing is Nissan and Toyota have been doing this for years with their 4 cylinders. My 89 Toy came with 4.55 with 31s and my 96 D21 came with 4.63 with 235s. Mind you these were 4WD trucks. 2WDs came with 4.3s usually. When the Frontiers came out they started putting in 4.9s. Not sure what Toyota did.

Now with the mega speeds transmissions I'm sure they dropped the ratios back down into the 3s for mileage.

the mega speed trans allows the low gears and huge tires. they have way steeper 1-2 and much better overdrive.

the Ecoboost 2.3 is a low rpm engine in regards to 4 cylinders if justin swapped his 302 and 5 speed into his bronco....he would shoot it in the face for cowardice .... especially in high headwinds at 80 mph. off road would be tolerable with the current gearing, but no where what the eb does in power flow.

the torque range with a 5 star blows away anything from pre 2k.

there are several tuners now but I have run a few 5star equipped trucks....alot of 150s....and they are incredible....for the dollar.

i have yet to see a n/a 5 star yote 150 beat a 5 star ranger. maybe it's out there. but the ones running in western Michigan are at 400 ft lb at the wheel. that is ridiculous. stock air box and exhaust....just upgraded intercooler and tune. that is a huge step from stock I digress....and not safe for the power train if abused....so I guess I can see where you guys running stock rigs think it is a lighter performer that it is
...what we get used to is a factor.

i know my old Windsor power train which ranged 260-280 whp which was monstrous for the day won't hold a candle to any of these modern engines in the same platform....it would be a horrific step down my truck would get single digits loaded. it was quick and powerful and sounded glorious under load .... but wouldn't come close to outperforming a 2.3 eb with a proper tune and charge cooler.

that said

the rangers run about par bone stock to bone stock comparing 150 yote ...

anything before the 150 yote is a joke save for certain tune 5.4 in regards to the 150 as a work rig. even the 460.

as delivered .

i would like to see opinions on guys with tuned rigs

 

[bobbywalter]

something to remember.....this is my personal transportation ....

it is what I drive to home depot.

a n/a diesel powered POS ranger with no radio or ac. it keeps perspective clear and glorification of old shit true to value...

sure I have a power boost....but simply put, that I buy for my wife.... having a shop truck from work merely compounds neglect to my ranger.

this i hope will change.

but I would take this POS on the adventure that Jim started this thread with.

and that is key. and you can bet I would build a new rig in the same manner.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

i would like to see opinions on guys with tuned rigs

@Snoranger has a tuner in his, I think he has the Ford Performance one.