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.

 

[RaceRanger97]

Wasn't sure if it was just my area or not, but ya...there are essentially no other full kill Ford Rangers in my area. I wheel in the sierras constantly and I've only seen one other ranger amongst the hundreds of Jeeps/Toyotas. I think it comes down to cost and time to build them into something capable of handling big rocks. For Toyotas, the recipe has been dialed for decades and there's an easy button for everything and it can be done cheap, therefore used trail ready Yotas are a dime a dozen. For jeeps TJ-JL, although more expensive, you can buy bolt on parts of your choice and hit the hard lines a couple weeks later. Meanwhile, Rangers are not easy to do dual cases, there hardly anything out there for suspension "kits" and you have to custom fab everything else. I was dedicated to building a very serious V8 Ranger crawler with power windows and A/C that I could cruise to work legally and Its cost me +/- $45k. meanwhile, I'm wheeling the hard stuff with friends that picked up their Yotas on 40s for 10K. Buuuuttt EVERYONE loves the Ranger when they see it on the trail, so there's that...

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

@RaceRanger97
Does that 45 include your labor?
I always find it interesting to see the financials included with the build.

 

[RaceRanger97]

@RaceRanger97
Does that 45 include your labor?
I always find it interesting to see the financials included with the build.

No Labor, Did it al myself with help of a few friends.

 

[sgtsandman]

No Labor, Did it al myself with help of a few friends.

I think what he is driving at is, how much is your time worth and how many hours did you invest in doing the whole build? So, if the work you do is worth $37 an hour, multiply that by the number of hours you spent and add that tot he project cost.

To be fair, I've never considered how much my time is worth either. I have spent about $5,800 in wood, hardware, and paint rebuilding my utility trailer and making it sturdy enough to survive logging trails. Adding what my time is worth would easily double that. I can see why they charge what they do for off road trailers even though they get material at wholesale and have shop equipment to speed up the build process.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I think what he is driving at is, how much is your time worth and how many hours did you invest in doing the whole build? So, if the work you do is worth $37 an hour, multiply that by the number of hours you spent and add that tot he project cost.

Depending on how you look at it... I kinda don't care.

I could have a garden, vacuum my yard, watch birds, play video games or go to bed at a decent time with my currently unavailable free time. Nope, I would rather work on a 40yo rusty truck that is worth nothing to anybody but me.

 

[broncc]

Mine is definitely much more mild than what you had in mind. To provide some amount of context why I don't post much: its a combination of that I keep breaking it and as I get older its harder to get time with friends.



No trailer no garage so I try not to break it too bad...

 

[RaceRanger97]

I think what he is driving at is, how much is your time worth and how many hours did you invest in doing the whole build? So, if the work you do is worth $37 an hour, multiply that by the number of hours you spent and add that tot he project cost.

To be fair, I've never considered how much my time is worth either. I have spent about $5,800 in wood, hardware, and paint rebuilding my utility trailer and making it sturdy enough to survive logging trails. Adding what my time is worth would easily double that. I can see why they charge what they do for off road trailers even though they get material at wholesale and have shop equipment to speed up the build process.

I mean, I’m not sure what value I would put on labor when working on my own vehicle, But I do own a shop and we are $110 an hour to customers. If you took a stock Ford Ranger to any decent shop in California and ask them to duplicate my build it would cost $100k +.

 

[sgtsandman]

Depending on how you look at it... I kinda don't care.

I could have a garden, vacuum my yard, watch birds, play video games or go to bed at a decent time with my currently unavailable free time. Nope, I would rather work on a 40yo rusty truck that is worth nothing to anybody but me.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. What I put into either of the trucks, or the trailer doesn't matter to others all that much and will do little to raise it's resale value. But it makes me happy and I'm getting them to do what I want, within realistic expections, most of the time.