Why 4 > 6

[jenniffermichell]

Hi..
That is great i never thought on it but to read all the passage i got useful information regarding it... awesome..

 

[LittleHorse]

your post makes the assumption that V6's make a lot of power. I can tell you my 2.9 is just about the most anemic feeling engine I've ever driven. It's not going to get me into any more trouble than anything else I've ever driven.

 

[racsan]

i havent read through all this, but i'll weigh in. ive had both a 2.3 lima and still have a 4.0 O.H.V. both rangers were supercabs with 3.73 gearing, both have the M5OD manual trans. the 2.3 was a '88 2wd weighing in at approx 4,000 pounds , the '93 is a 4x and it weighs about 4,300 pounds. both had grill guards and 'glass toppers. while the '88 2.3 got excellent milage, it just lacked the tourque at times, running empty up a major road in ohio, (71) not only would you have to drop it down to 4rth gear to maintain speed, it sometimes would have to be shifted down to 3rd and held to the floor. yes on level ground it was good for 28 mpg. my 4.0 on the other hand has took on some much more hilly WV. roads, never had to downshift out of O/D. it has gotton a best of 19.5 but is a much better tow rig because of torque. the 2.3 is a good motor, but sometimes you just need a few more squirrels to get the job done. most of the time the 2.3 would work for me, but there are times it just wouldnt do, every time im hooked up to my box trailer is one example.

 

[bcost882]

People might think of this as a battle but they have strong points and weak points. Honestly i wish ford had put the straight six in the ranger that would be sick and I would take that over either the L4 or v6 but sadly they did not

 

[racsan]

i read once where someone put a 300 I-6 in a gen 1 4x ranger. they had a body lift so the oil pan would clear. doesnt seem like there is enough room between the firewall and the front core support for that. they had a C4 auto in it. heck if i were putting the 300 in a ranger, id go with the creeper 1st 4 speed manual!

 

[Hopman]

For the record, there has been EXACLTY ONE time when I wished I had a V6. That was on the I-84 east onramp, comming out of Port Jervis, NY, on that looooong upgrade.

Over a 2,000 mile trip (fron Bow, NH to Indy, IN & back) I managed about 25 mpg, even crusing around 70 the whole way. My truck did not come equipped with the burden of A/C.

I use my truck for daily driver and don't tow with it. Hauling bulky stuff, yes, but not towing.

 

[LearjetMinako]

Wow, a lot of dicuss of 4cyl vs 6cyl. Not to add fuel, I'll put in my like's.

I like the 4cyl engine. It has enough power to do what I need it to do. And will get me there while not drinking up the gas tank. 4x4 option would be really nice to have for those troublesome times when I may need it. But not always required. A more powerful 4cyl would also be nice since the old Lima 2.3L is a bit gutless. But because of the gutlessness, I have to think ahead and try to predict what other drivers may do. Which in turn, has saved my butt more than once.

Here is an idea for Ford. The new Ford Escape has the new Duratech 25. Isn't about time Ford maybe thought about dropping it into the Ranger. The Duratech 23 has been around in the Ranger since mid 2001. Seeing how they drop the V-6 3.0L and left a mid power gap in its wake. Replacing the 4cyl with a more powerful version but yet same MPG, would be a good idea.

 

[Southern_Trendkill]

Anybody can take a 6 and make like Danica Patrick,

How? My V-6 Ranger got passed by Priuses all the time. Awesome truck, but I can accelerate faster with a pedal-cart.

 

[erocka1982]

ive had a couple rangers with the 2.3 and a 5 sp. i loved them. you cant beat the milage they get and IMO they got a little power but you cant ask too much out of a 2wd 4cyl truck. theyre designed to be economical. now my 4.0 4x4 gets terrible gas milage. i dont remember the specs but im pretty sure it gets close to what the f150 gets.

 

[Ranger44]

I owned a 2.3 4x4. It had a 5spd. I loved that truck! When it was running right I managed a constant 24.5-25 mpg. That wasn't babying it either. Then again it had 4.10's and 235 75r15's

My current 3.0 4x4 w/ 5spd, whether with 3.73's or 4.10's, I'm getting a 18mpg.

A dream truck, and I may go for it, is my current truck with a turbo'd 3.0 or even better, a turbo'd 2.3. The 2.3 has a VAST aftermarket and is a solid engine, as most Inline engine are.

Ford is making the Ranger as an affordable commuter that can haul the occasional smaller payloads. It's not meant as a Truck in the heavy duty sense. If you haul, why not buy full size? They are designed to.

If you look at Ford's newest project, It's a 4cyl with a turbo. Gas mileage w/ power. Hmmmm. Still think it'd be gutless? If Ford is smart, they'd match it with a nice 4.10 base and optional 4.56 gearing.

 

[LittleHorse]

How? My V-6 Ranger got passed by Priuses all the time. Awesome truck, but I can accelerate faster with a pedal-cart.

seriously.

We're talking about the difference between 'slow as balls' and 'slower than balls'.

 

[Original_Ranger84]

I Ford is making the Ranger as an affordable commuter that can haul the occasional smaller payloads. It's not meant as a Truck in the heavy duty sense. If you haul, why not buy full size? They are designed to.
.

Theres always the V6 ranger for the people that haul too much for 4 cylinders rangers but not enough to warrent getting a full sized.

 

[LittleHorse]

yeah, and I like the idea of a small truck...If I hadn't found such a good deal on my F-150 I wouldn't have a full size, I'd have a Ranger because I don't haul much more than a little bit of lumber for small home improvement projects, a motorcycle now and then...nothing I need a full size for.

 

[Ozwynn]

For the record, there has been EXACLTY ONE time when I wished I had a V6. That was on the I-84 east onramp, comming out of Port Jervis, NY, on that looooong upgrade.

Over a 2,000 mile trip (fron Bow, NH to Indy, IN & back) I managed about 25 mpg, even crusing around 70 the whole way. My truck did not come equipped with the burden of A/C.

I use my truck for daily driver and don't tow with it. Hauling bulky stuff, yes, but not towing.

whats your point. My wife drove my 2500 Silverado 4x4 from Berrien Springs MI to New Ulm MN and I drove it back and we averaged 24 mpg...... V8 Diesel 4x4 automatic extra cab and had the A/C on ...... its called cruise control

if the only reason you bought your truck was for a DD then you are not that bright.......... I would have bought a saturn for a DD and got 40 mpg and then rented a truck (or have a $500 beater sitting for when its needed) when I needed one and been light years ahead as far as money saved..... IF THIS WAS YOUR ONLY REASON FOR BUYING A 4 CYL RANGER....

Don't get me wrong, not knocking the 4cyl....... my first experience with a ranger was when my mom brought home a brand new 1989 base white base model 2wd with a 4cyl 5spd ..... no rear bumper, no stereo, no A/C..... we could load it up with 30 or 40 bails of hay and drive very slowly the 3 miles home.... and it towed out 16' wooden boat just fine..... it was cheap to run and it got the job done...... but her daily driver was a Suzuki Samurai...... got over 30 mpg, the ranger got 25.

 

[Hopman]

if the only reason you bought your truck was for a DD then you are not that bright..........

Actually, I bought it because I needed a vehicle, and this one came along at the right time & right price. I do use it to haul smaller loads, such as furniture or brush. It just so happens that I've fallen in love with my Ranger after realizing how versitile it was. The truck kinda foune me.