Oversize A/T Tire Experience

[PNW Ranger]

The 3.0 is slow enough as is, it would be awful with bigger tires.

My Ranger is slow, that's for sure. According to my mechanic, the advantage of the 3.0 L V6 is that it will last forever.

 

[Lefty]

My Ranger is slow, that's for sure. According to my mechanic, the advantage of the 3.0 L V6 is that it will last forever.

I've got a reg cab Ranger (which weighs about 500lbs less) with a 3.0. and a 4:10. I installed a KI&N filter, an E fan, dual exhausts, as well as a number of smaller tweaks. One was to tighten the accelerator cable. Another was all synthetic oil. I think I've got 30 inch tires. The net result is a 0-60 of 9.1 seconds. That might be slow for some of you. It won't spin the tires. I would like a little faster, but it's not that bad.

 

[Blmpkn]

I've got a reg cab Ranger (which weighs about 500lbs less) with a 3.0. and a 4:10. I installed a KI&N filter, an E fan, dual exhausts, as well as a number of smaller tweaks. One was to tighten the accelerator cable. Another was all synthetic oil. I think I've got 30 inch tires. The net result is a 0-60 of 9.1 seconds. That might be slow for some of you. It won't spin the tires. I would like a little faster, but it's not that bad.

Your truck must be an auto with all the not able to spin the tires talk..

I'd suggest getting rid of the k&n filter though.. many many "studies" have shown that they let a meaningful amount more dust unto the motor when compared to a paper filter.. even when properly oiled. Another thing is.. when an oil filter gets dirty enough.. it starts letting even MORE stuff into the motor.. compared to a paper filter.. when they get that dirty they don't even let AIR through.. let alone contaminants.

Really.. do some deep digging on k&n filters. You'll be surprised at how poorly they filter. The dustier the environment.. the worse is is.. and the saltbelt suuucks for dust. They use so much salt&calcium on the roads up here.. when the roads are dry.. traffic will kick up an incredible amount of dust. Allllmost as bad as driving down a bone dry dirt road... literally..

Dust from dirt is bad enough.. but you DEFINITELY don't want to be sucking up dust that's corrosive.

 

[Lefty]

Your truck must be an auto with all the not able to spin the tires talk..

I'd suggest getting rid of the k&n filter though.. many many "studies" have shown that they let a meaningful amount more dust unto the motor when compared to a paper filter.. even when properly oiled. Another thing is.. when an oil filter gets dirty enough.. it starts letting even MORE stuff into the motor.. compared to a paper filter.. when they get that dirty they don't even let AIR through.. let alone contaminants.

Really.. do some deep digging on k&n filters. You'll be surprised at how poorly they filter. The dustier the environment.. the worse is is.. and the saltbelt suuucks for dust. They use so much salt&calcium on the roads up here.. when the roads are dry.. traffic will kick up an incredible amount of dust. Allllmost as bad as driving down a bone dry dirt road... literally..

Dust from dirt is bad enough.. but you DEFINITELY don't want to be sucking up dust that's corrosive.

You mean you can spin the tires with your 3.0?

 

[gw33gp]

I'd suggest getting rid of the k&n filter though.. many many "studies" have shown that they let a meaningful amount more dust unto the motor when compared to a paper filter.. even when properly oiled. Another thing is.. when an oil filter gets dirty enough.. it starts letting even MORE stuff into the motor.. compared to a paper filter.. when they get that dirty they don't even let AIR through.. let alone contaminants.

Really.. do some deep digging on k&n filters. You'll be surprised at how poorly they filter. The dustier the environment.. the worse is is.. and the saltbelt suuucks for dust. They use so much salt&calcium on the roads up here.. when the roads are dry.. traffic will kick up an incredible amount of dust. Allllmost as bad as driving down a bone dry dirt road... literally..

Dust from dirt is bad enough.. but you DEFINITELY don't want to be sucking up dust that's corrosive.

If you have seen many many studies that show K&N filters let a meaningful amount of dust through, the studies are either flawed or they don't know what meaningful means.

I have a total of almost 500K miles on two different Rangers with K&N fair filters on them and there was absolutely no sign the filters let a meaningful amount of dust through. I had the oil analyzed on my 89 STX each oil change and there was no indication of dust getting into the engine. With almost 200K miles on it when I sold it to a co-worker, it used no more oil than it did when I bought it new. My current 02 FX4 is approaching 300K miles and it too uses no more oil than it did when I bought it new. So, if K&N filters pass dust, it certainly is not meaningful or the rings would be worn and those engines would use more oil.

I typically spend 4 weeks every year off-road in dusty conditions. I travel with groups and usually eat a lot of dust that is kicked up. When I clean the filter after the trips, it is caked up heavily with dust on the front side. The back side is as clean as the last time I cleaned it with that pinkish color still showing. I also wipe the inside of the intake tube with a white cloth and there has not been any sign of dust.

If you want to trust those studies, that is up to you. I prefer to trust the 500K miles of experience I have with K&N air filters. I am not trying to sell you on them, I just don't like bad advice being advertised. Of course, K&N air filters must be cleaned and oiled properly for them to work right.

 

[Lefty]

Your truck must be an auto with all the not able to spin the tires talk..

I'd suggest getting rid of the k&n filter though.. many many "studies" have shown that they let a meaningful amount more dust unto the motor when compared to a paper filter.. even when properly oiled. Another thing is.. when an oil filter gets dirty enough.. it starts letting even MORE stuff into the motor.. compared to a paper filter.. when they get that dirty they don't even let AIR through.. let alone contaminants.

Really.. do some deep digging on k&n filters. You'll be surprised at how poorly they filter. The dustier the environment.. the worse is is.. and the saltbelt suuucks for dust. They use so much salt&calcium on the roads up here.. when the roads are dry.. traffic will kick up an incredible amount of dust. Allllmost as bad as driving down a bone dry dirt road... literally..

Dust from dirt is bad enough.. but you DEFINITELY don't want to be sucking up dust that's corrosive.

Yes an auto. I had hoped for a decent reg cab with stick and also 4WD, but gave up searching after a couple years. A couple extra HP would have been nice, also manual, but I'm content to settle for a 3.0 which runs right and tight. Old Rangers are beginning to get rare. The Ford dealer told me that they are still very popular and that they stay on the lot for only a day or two before they are sold.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If you have seen many many studies that show K&N filters let a meaningful amount of dust through, the studies are either flawed or they don't know what meaningful means.

I have a total of almost 500K miles on two different Rangers with K&N fair filters on them and there was absolutely no sign the filters let a meaningful amount of dust through. I had the oil analyzed on my 89 STX each oil change and there was no indication of dust getting into the engine. With almost 200K miles on it when I sold it to a co-worker, it used no more oil than it did when I bought it new. My current 02 FX4 is approaching 300K miles and it too uses no more oil than it did when I bought it new. So, if K&N filters pass dust, it certainly is not meaningful or the rings would be worn and those engines would use more oil.

I typically spend 4 weeks every year off-road in dusty conditions. I travel with groups and usually eat a lot of dust that is kicked up. When I clean the filter after the trips, it is caked up heavily with dust on the front side. The back side is as clean as the last time I cleaned it with that pinkish color still showing. I also wipe the inside of the intake tube with a white cloth and there has not been any sign of dust.

If you want to trust those studies, that is up to you. I prefer to trust the 500K miles of experience I have with K&N air filters. I am not trying to sell you on them, I just don't like bad advice being advertised. Of course, K&N air filters must be cleaned and oiled properly for them to work right.

I will trust the guys that designed the intake system in the first place.

They have dusted many an engine, especially boosted.

I wouldn't call that an advantage, why would you want to drive something that slow for that long?

Reliability is always an advantage. Especially compared to the any other V6 Ranger offering that doesn't include the number 4 and 12 pushrods.

 

[gw33gp]

I will trust the guys that designed the intake system in the first place.

They have dusted many an engine, especially boosted.

You may have misunderstood my post. I am not talking about modifying the intake system. I am talking about using a drop in K&N filter. Or are you saying you prefer to use only Motorcraft or Autolite filters?

I have never used the aftermarket cold air intake systems. Actually, they tend to be hot air intake systems.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You may have misunderstood my post. I am not talking about modifying the intake system. I am talking about using a drop in K&N filter. Or are you saying you prefer to use only Motorcraft or Autolite filters?

I have never used the aftermarket cold air intake systems. Actually, they tend to be hot air intake systems.

I actually run Wix in my trucks but OE design because I live in a dusty environment. Bronco gets Motorcraft because it is still under warranty.

Drop in oiled filters do not hold up for fleet/farm vehicles, like I said especially boosted ones that pull air with more enthusiasm than a NA engine. Makes it tough for a warranty claim too, my brother (foreman at the local Ford dealer) has replaced more than a couple powerstrokes with oiled filters and sandblasted looking turbos with low compression during the warranty period (which are always denied) We just had a Cummins come on here (I work at the local CDJR dealer) last summer that was dusted with a oiled filter.

By and large most fleets and farmers wrote them off years ago, a couple $15k crate engines (plus install) kinda take the fun out of them.

 

[gw33gp]

None of my vehicles are boosted. I may be getting one in 2025. I will take your advice into consideration if I do get it.

I have been running non boosted engines with K&N air filters since the mid 70's with no problems from dust intake. One of those vehicles I have owned for 44 years.

 

[drew1]

As for K&N, I was kind of suspect on them about 20 or 25 years ago. K&Ns were about it for IDF Webers like I had on a 914. I spent the money for a new Wix Mustang cone filter and a K&N Mustang filter for a test. I was thinking about adapting a cone filter to a daughter's car. As precise as I was able to do, 6.5 HP Shop vac with a tap measuring static pressure on a 2" PVC adapted to a filter. Weighing the oiled K&N and then the Wix and weighing a couple of salad dressing cups of SC soil (sand and clay) for each. A food colored water filled u tube neopheme manometer was used for measurement. A stamps.com postal scale was used for weighing.

From memory: First the K&N, I think about 3/4" of pressure. 1 cup of dust around the filter maybe 1 1/4 indicating more restriction. Both cups it was 2". Wix was from 1/8 to 1/2 less though test. After the test the Wix held about 15 or 20 more grams increase of dirt, yet flowed better.

I was baised since I worked at Wix in 1969 before I went in the service.

 

[drew1]

Now about tires. I ran into this thread because checking out rim sizes and backspacing on 2000 Ranger. This Ranger has been all over the country passing through family members. 2000 4X4 with 16" aluminum rims that are ate up from salt. It has 3.0 with 5 speed manual, 4.10 8.8 rear end. While I had the truck, I replaced the original Firestones, while replacing Firestones was free, with 275 75 16 BFG. It is a short bed and I was more worried about stopping instead of going with a load of sand in the back. I don't think the 3.0 will have trouble with 30" tires. The 7.5 rear end might not hold up with torque required if he goes much bigger than 30".

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Now about tires. I ran into this thread because checking out rim sizes and backspacing on 2000 Ranger. This Ranger has been all over the country passing through family members. 2000 4X4 with 16" aluminum rims that are ate up from salt. It has 3.0 with 5 speed manual, 4.10 8.8 rear end. While I had the truck, I replaced the original Firestones, while replacing Firestones was free, with 275 75 16 BFG. It is a short bed and I was more worried about stopping instead of going with a load of sand in the back. I don't think the 3.0 will have trouble with 30" tires. The 7.5 rear end might not hold up with torque required if he goes much bigger than 30".

7.5 won't care, the 28 spline 8.8 uses the same axle shafts. The big difference in strength is spider gears so keep the brakestands to a minimum and enjoy. Even then my 302 would spin a single 235 for days with a 7.5.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

Argh. Guys…

235/75-15 tires typically get re-labeled as 30x9.50-15, so yeah.

31x10.50-15 tires will fit and work on a stock height Ranger or cranked T-bars and shackle lift. They rub, however, when you lower 4-ish inches.

3.0 is fine with either with 4.10 gears. There is, however, two other places to give some attention. The computer needs to be edited for tire size changes with an automatic for sure. Makes a big difference in performance. You can do it yourself with Forscan or get someone to do it. The other big one is the transmission, a shift kit will make a huge difference too.

 

[PNW Ranger]

Thanks for your reply. Can you provide more information about the transmission shift kit.
Thanks again
PNW Ranger
Alan C.