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

[bobbywalter]

not that one.


though it does make a noticable difference.

 

[Snoranger]

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

It’s not bad… it just bring our engines up to the same HP rating as the 2.3 in the Mustang. There’s much better option out there, but this didn’t effect the factory warranty.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

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.

I guess I wouldn't think 75hp would be that big of a deal...

No need to swap engines, my Ranger on occasion is slightly heavier and slightly less aerodynamic (maybe) than the Bronco with the slide in camper in it... it does fine.

 

[Blmpkn]

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.



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.

My poverty spec bronco has the lowly 3.73s and it'll still light (a) tire up pretty good from a dead stop.. this is with 35s too. Just a hair under 100lbs per wheel&tire. The 4.5:1 first gear is really nice..

I'd love to step up to 4.46's though.. it's just a long way off unfortunately.

 

[bobbywalter]

I guess I wouldn't think 75hp would be that big of a deal...

No need to swap engines, my Ranger on occasion is slightly heavier and slightly less aerodynamic (maybe) than the Bronco with the slide in camper in it... it does fine.

your ranger is perfect for the time period technology. it is why it is my favorite truck on this sight....what you built is literally perfect in my eyes.


i always had at least 6 inches of lift and 33s generally 260-280 wheel which exceeds 300 crank.....with that base load and dirty air was always at the max in fuel psi and detonation but worked awesome for the time. and I estimate is close to the same base load as the bronco.



the bronco I would guess is closer to 1k heavier than your ranger...700 with the normal topper you run ect at least. that and 70 hp...is quite a bit....

where it changes, is that spooling ridiculous torque it has on tap and near infinite gearing....that is galactic in difference.

this all things being equal....

straight swap your power train into the bronco which is a cow....

and comically un-aerodynamic..

directly compared to your nimble ranger and you would definitely get what I am saying. 75 hp not sounding like alot is hard for me to fathom....but you are used to it.

would be sounding awesome but in comparables would be misery. the 10 to 12 mpg at a mere 70 mph the final kick in the berries. go the other way and I think it would be crazier.

maybe not.

its the only way to appreciate just exactly what we have with this modern platform.

i have had a myriad of power trains in a single platform and cost per mile is always a thing for me.

if it wasn't....i sure as hell wouldn't have that slug in my rig. but it is extraordinary in cost effective operation. and it is 6k with me in it empty.

something a 2.3 eb or 302 can never do.

but at least those can do cool burnouts and haul ass.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Oof, rode in my friends daughters '82 square body with a 6.2 and a 700R4 (I think that's what's still in it... he's a tranny guy, I know it's been gone through and drives right) for the first time the other day and sure it worked but seemed a bit soft on power... although it did hold it's own on the tractor pull, out pulled a worked over 6.9 that picked the wrong gear at least... That thing does give her like 17mpg though, it's a pretty cherry rig for a youngin, she loves the dang thing...

Anyway, yeah just got through this thread and boy it's all over the place . I like my '90 Ranger with ~6" lift and 35" tires for general and high speed stuff but for real high speed stuff it needs better balance so what I plan to do with my '00 V8 Explorer should cover it... Jana 54 on 36"-37" tires with a 10.25 out back with as little lift as possible (spring over in the back is the goal). I really want to do that but other dumb things have gotten in the way, getting closer though... need to get bigger injectors and a tuner though... it really needs more than 5k rpm...

 

[SenorNoob]

But back on topic, I think there still has to be an interest out there for an older affordable vehicle you can take off-road on the weekend and drive to work during the week.

That's still the plan with mine. I'm just too consistently broke to make it happen... Major step closer now. Just gotta go line it back up today.