TRS-3 20th Anniversary Ford Ranger

[Craig0320]

There is always going to be something faster out there. So far I have gotten a lot of compliments on the engine in my truck when I pop the hood. I like the wow factor of the 5.0 in there. Plus I drive it daily and I am not that hard on it. I have floored it three times since I finished it and that was because someone was riding with me like my two buddies and my wife that hates going fast(well worth it).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Which NA 4 cylinders are you referring to?

The FRS/86/BRZ is one example with a NA 2.0 flat four and people call them underpowered to boot. Just a hair over 200hp, within spitting distance of an HO at 225.

There is always going to be something faster out there. So far I have gotten a lot of compliments on the engine in my truck when I pop the hood. I like the wow factor of the 5.0 in there. Plus I drive it daily and I am not that hard on it. I have floored it three times since I finished it and that was because someone was riding with me like my two buddies and my wife that hates going fast(well worth it).

No regrets on mine, a few years ago it would have been fast but now a plain old Mustang GT has almost twice the horsepower... and mpg.

 

[fastpakr]

The FRS/86/BRZ is one example with a NA 2.0 flat four and people call them underpowered to boot. Just a hair over 200hp, within spitting distance of an HO at 225.



No regrets on mine, a few years ago it would have been fast but now a plain old Mustang GT has almost twice the horsepower... and mpg.

Oh, okay. Yes - plenty of small displacement NA 4 cylinders that make similar horsepower, but to get there without boost they need a lot more RPM. Nothing wrong with that, but a bad fit for a truck.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Oh, okay. Yes - plenty of small displacement NA 4 cylinders that make similar horsepower, but to get there without boost they need a lot more RPM. Nothing wrong with that, but a bad fit for a truck.

Im way behind the curve on new stuff, but, i havent seen a NA 4banger that can outtorque even a wheezing 302

 

[Craig0320]

The FRS/86/BRZ is one example with a NA 2.0 flat four and people call them underpowered to boot. Just a hair over 200hp, within spitting distance of an HO at 225.]


200HP AND 151TQ. I will take my 288lb torque in my stock 5.0 any day. I am running a little more than that because my ranger is 400-500 pounds lighter than the explorer.

 

[fastpakr]

Matching the torque of a larger displacement engine without boost is near a physical impossibility. Horsepower can be done by shortening the amount of time it takes to fill the cylinder, then spinning it faster. Torque effectively requires you to get more air into the cylinder, which is really hard at the same atmospheric pressure.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Oh, okay. Yes - plenty of small displacement NA 4 cylinders that make similar horsepower, but to get there without boost they need a lot more RPM. Nothing wrong with that, but a bad fit for a truck.

Bad fit for a truck but could be beside you at the light. Just saying 200hp ain't what it used to be.

 

[Craig0320]

Bad fit for a truck but could be beside you at the light. Just saying 200hp ain't what it used to be.

Are they feeding the horses steroid carrots now?

 

[pjtoledo]

Are they feeding the horses steroid carrots now?

last I heard it's non-GMO or go home.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Are they feeding the horses steroid carrots now?

200hp used to be pretty hot. My old turbo Eclipse was one of the hottest things in the high school parking lot in the early 00's. It was a couple 4.6 GT Mustangs, the pointy Camaros and me.

Now the wifes Edge (boring family car) has the same hp as her dad's '01 Mustang GT. 200hp is no big deal now.

 

[Craig0320]

last I heard it's non-GMO or go home.

Good info.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I will say this, a few years ago when i bought my 97 i test drove a few new(er) F150s with the coyote, i was pretty damn impressed with its snappinesss. However, it seemed like it had to constantly downshift, it was quicker then my old 460, but my 460 will hold O/D alot better. I understand with the 6sp its pry a pretty deep overdrive, but most of the newer engines ive had experence with just seem to really lack the, um, resiliance (for lack of a better term) that the old ones had.

Ive often asked myself though, how would a old engine (lets say a mid 90s roller 302) feel when mated to a modern 6,8,10 speed auto? Or, how would an ecoboost or coyote feel saddled to an E4OD, or hell, even a C6? I got a feeling the differences might be surprising.

 

[fastpakr]

There will always be advantages to increasing the number of gears available. Yes - if you took a modern automatic and put it behind the older engine, it would be an improvement. Likewise to a modern engine being hamstrung with an old 3 speed auto. That's not to say that each piece isn't an improvement. For example, the Coyote engine didn't necessarily -have- to downshift, the ECU was simply programmed to know that it selecting a lower gear was a more efficient/powerful choice at the time. You see extra downshifts because they're available and often a better option than staying in the same gear the entire time.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I guess im just old school. If i gotta rev over 3500 to get anything done or worry about the trans cause its constantly hunting i dont want it.

That, coupled with the fact im not a fan of dash layouts/interiors on anything new, is why i bought something with a pushrod big block sitting ontop of twin I beams.

 

[Jim Oaks]

I find Rangers for sale, but it seems like they all have the 4.0 with over 200,000 miles. I would propably have to do some type of basic overhaul, timing chain, etc on anything I find to feel comfortable driving it all over the country. The only thing that makes me apprehensive about 5.0 swaps is keeping them cool on the trail.