Why 4 > 6

[Hopman]

Okay, I'm not going to try to turn this into a war, but I'm a bit tired of some of the people out there dissing 4-banger RBV's. I'm the proud owner of a 2.3. I have NOTHING against those with V6's.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. 4-bangers offer more of a challenge to drive. With a 4, you have to actually THINK about the road ahead. You can't pass on a whim and at will or power your way out of a situation. Anybody can take a 6 and make like Danica Patrick, but it takes a master like a Sterling Moss to make a 4 sing like Paveratti.

2. Less power = Less trouble. Most of us (at times) do our best Tim Allen "More Power!" imitation, but sometimes more power can be too much of a good thing. A good example of this can be on a slick road. You apply too much of a good thing and you're likely to end up in trouble.

3. Less cylenders can mean more $$$ in your pocket. More mileage = less money spent at the pump.

4. Less motor equals less weight. Having a lighter truck means that the handeling is better, relativley speaking. This makes for a more fun truck on the back roads, espeaclly when backed by a stick shift.

5. I think that 4-bangers tend to "sing" better. It's more of a tenor voice versus a "baritone" of 6. I joking say that when my truck's at full song, it'd make Paveratti jelous.

Call me crazy, but I LOVE 4-bangers. Good things come in small packages.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I rather like my 4 banger. Truthfully, after having put the 302 into DeathTrap, I'm going back to a 6 after it dies. I actually don't like the V8 (sacrilege?).

The next rig I build will be a 4 cylinder and lighter/smaller. Again, running into too many problems with the "heavy duty" stuff.

 

[Hopman]

I like Colin Chapman's (the genius behind Lotus & the McLaren F1 supercar) design philosophy: He doesn't reduce weight, but "adds lightness." He belives in keeping things simple.

 

[TaddeoEG]

Okay, I'm not going to try to turn this into a war, but I'm a bit tired of some of the people out there dissing 4-banger RBV's. I'm the proud owner of a 2.3. I have NOTHING against those with V6's.

So then why does you entire post diss V6s? Sheesh, its all about preference and NEVER, EVER, EVER make absolute statements.

Compared to the 'Stang GT my V6 Ranger REALLY makes me THINK about driving in the sense to which you refer!

I can get in just as much trouble in the Ranger as in the GT. Your comment about slick roads is a perfect example. Any pickup with an empty bed can easily get away from you going around a turn or curve on wet roads.

The Stang actually gets better mileage than the Ranger.

"Voice" thing isn't even worth commenting on since there are so many variables, notable exhaust.

Why can't everyone just get along without feeling the need to put others down all the time?

 

[ranger_mclaren]

3. Less cylenders can mean more $$$ in your pocket. More mileage = less money spent at the pump.

I love the 2.3 myself I've helped build many myself but not to diss'em but i think have'n a 2.3 in a 4x4 is a bad idea if all you have in mind is making the truck bigger, my '86 had a 2.3 witha 3' lift and 32x11.50 Pro Comps and a roll bar with 3 KCs and was getting less than 12 MPG on a good day and it was a 5 speed. They can't really take alot of abuse Like keepn it floord through mud holes all day then drive steep hilly twisty roads all day then use it for towing and hualing roofing stuff. I rebuilt the top end of the motor at 200,000 miles then the bottom went out a 220,000 at which I decided to give up on the motor it left me stranded too manny times, and on a windy day I couldn't drive into the wind and keep high speeds and if going up hill I was SOL. I think if you want a 2.3 it should stay in a 2wd or a stock 4x4 I've always been hard on motors and 4 bangers arn't for me but thats just my .02 cents.

So then why does you entire post diss V6s? Sheesh, its all about preference and NEVER, EVER, EVER make absolute statements.

Compared to the 'Stang GT my V6 Ranger REALLY makes me THINK about driving in the sense to which you refer!

I can get in just as much trouble in the Ranger as in the GT. Your comment about slick roads is a perfect example. Any pickup with an empty bed can easily get away from you going around a turn or curve on wet roads.

The Stang actually gets better mileage than the Ranger.

"Voice" thing isn't even worth commenting on since there are so many variables, notable exhaust.

Why can't everyone just get along without feeling the need to put others down all the time?

My buddies ranger 4.0 will out run his girlfriends 4.0 mustang i've seen it.

 

[Fx4wannabe01]

nice post....but talk about taking things a little too seriously....

lol.


Sorry...I like to have the power to be able to pass. The power to get me out of situations should there ever be the need. I came from a 2.5L 115hp truck. Talk about a gutless wonder. But the advantages are great....30mpg and that lovely Lima engine growl out of the exhaust. IDK if you've noticed, but the majority of the site is geared towards 4wd's. We need power or we need deeeeep gears. 4cyls just dont give us what we want: drivability. Why do you think people put v8's in these trucks?

I'd loooooove to build me a 2.3T street pounder though!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Hehe, the 2.8 makes less power than a modern 4, gets very slightly worse fuel milage (rated 21mpg), has a nice high pitched buzz when you wind them up... not much of a baritone sound at all. Personally I am not much for the sound of small displacement engines so the glasspack phase was shortlived. For toughness and longitivity, I would put a 2.8 up against anything, mine has been thru the mill and has yet to quit on me for good.

My 110 hp when new (it doesn't have that much now) is more than enough to get me in trouble, and is barely enough to get me out.

I don't want any more of a challenge when driving, my sick and dying 2.8 will spin out on snow and ice just as easy as my very healthy 5.4. You have to try to get either to act up in 4x4 when the roads are bad.

I love the growl of a V-8, which is why there is a 302 waiting in the wings to replace the 2.8. It is nothing wild (stock '78) but should be able to hold steady at the speed limit and maybe pass someone once in awhile.

 

[Hopman]

My 4-banger is perfectly driveable. Maybe I just got luckly with mine.

I'm sorry if I came off as too serious.

Also, my truck IS a 4x4.

 

[Fx4wannabe01]

I understand that. I saw you turn a thread about 2010 trucks and how you can build them into a 4cyl vs v6 thread and why not have a 4cyl 4x4?


Point is: NO ONE WANTS EM...thats why they axed 'em!! Why keep making specific parts for a 4cyl 4x4 when nobodys gonna buy them....shoot....nobody buys regcab 4x4's anyway. That's why they're so rare to begin with. with the weight of these trucks fully loaded, NOBODY will live with themselves with a gutless as all hell truck when a compeditor is making a truck for the same price with twice the power.

 

[Hopman]

That's why I started this thread because I was off-topic in the other one.

The reason why nobody buy 4-bangers is becuase that Americans want "more more more." 4-bangers ARE NOT GUTLESS!!!!!!!! At least mine isn't. You just need to know how to use what you've got. Anybody can take a 6 (or other car with big HP numbers) and fling it around like a semi-pro, but it takes skill to make a 4 do the same thing with less power.

I'll conceed to the fact the 4-banger slushboxes have no balls, but mate a 4 with a stick & it's magic. Sadly, nobody wants a stick anymore. Autos take the fun out of driving, but that's another story.

 

[ranger_mclaren]

I love 5 speeds' its all I drive. japanise car companys are good at getting power out of 4 and 6 bangers without poweradders. but know one likes'em...

 

[TheBeast]

I have a 97 ranger 2wd single cab XLT short bed. It's a 2.3 5 speed. I drove that thing like a bat out of hell for a year. Then gave it to my old man, only had 80k miles. Bought the 95 ranger 4x4 4.0. It's slightly lifted, 31's on it. Good truck. Tons more power, but its more torque. To be honest, the 2.3 truck I could speed anywhere. The 4.0 truck gets up to speed no problem, but it's just torquey and makes it happen. Pulls anything and will spin like crazy even with 3.73's. Your making it seem like that big of an extreme. I agree more power, many people get in over there head and start being risky. I driven mustangs everyday for my whole life just about, and have been pretty fortunate so far. Depends on the person I think

 

[Hopman]

+1 for manual transmissions! I learned how to drive stick on a 10-speed Freightliner semi. If I have a choice, I'll take a stick every time, even if I'm driving in traffic all day.

 

[red93terror]

Well, the 3.0 in my truck only makes 5 more hp than the 2.3. its gutless. sounds great with flowmasters though. but im running 32s and 3.73s. im sure if you get the 4 banger 4x4 with some 4.10s and no more than 31s it would be a little terror on the trails

 

[exbass94]

I'm a big fan of the Duratec engine. They are really peppy and will scoot along REALLY well, even with an auto trans. I used to drive one at work all the time and I had no trouble accelerating to 75-80 mph. If Ford made a Duratec with 4x4, I definitely would have bought one.