Last post on Aug 05, 2013 at 5:49 AM
You are in the Ford Ranger
What is this discussion about?
Ford Ranger, Truck
#727 of 2995 Don't be too cynical Bolivar
Jul 20, 2003 (8:46 pm)
There are much better Ford Ranger forums out there which contain lots of enthusiasts who have done lots to their Rangers. Like a 3.0l Ranger pulling in low 16 second quarter miles. It all depends on how far you want to go.
Have you ever looked at the exhaust ports, or your exhaust manifold? There is clear oportunity for improvement, but it will cost money and time.
But the point that should be brought up is if it is important to you. Yes, it's easier to start out with more cubic inches, and then you can do performance mods to add more power. This would be the best way to go, but if buying a new(er) truck is not feasible, then why not?
It is not just a small increase to your intake and exhaust. While it can start out that way, there is a sum whole to what you can do, and it can make a big difference over time. Plus some people just enjoy working on their truck, or trying something new. But you are right about the manufacturer claims. My 3.0l makes an advertised 154 horsepower. My gibson cat-back advertises 10-15 hp gain. I figure 5 horsepower is a safe and realistic claim, so I figure I'm at around 160 now (also with a airbox modification).
Also, jtc, remember I mentioned "Peak Horsepower, not mean or average horsepower" which is basically what you will be affecting. Its not like the 2.3l 4 cylinder can't be fast (Anybody remember the 84 SVO 2.3? While not the exact same block it was the same displacement)
But to answer your question JTC, it depends on the pipes you put on. I just put a Gibson cat-back on my truck and love it. Not much louder, but definitely more of a growl. Flowmasters would be more throaty, but it will still sound like a 4 cylinder. Hopefully other 2.3l owners will chime in with their experience with certain exhausts.
But also just remember that you will have a very stout 4 cylinder motor. My 1993 2.3l was still running great after 140,000 miles, and that included many years of teenage abuse.
#728 of 2995 I'm not that cynical. I'm trying to be realistic.
Jul 20, 2003 (11:13 pm)
You said "It all depends on how far you want to go..... There is clear oportunity for improvement, but it will cost money and time.'
That is exactly what I am saying - If you want fast, buy fast. If you don't you are going to pour money into what you initially bought to get fast. And many times you won't get as fast as if you spent that money to initially buy fast.
And I am not talking about people that like to work themselves on their vehicles. I personally understand the feeling of satisification that comes when you've done something successfully yourself, with your own hands.
But many of the people you see posting on these message boards can't do their own work. They are on a limited budget buying into a vehicle, but then are willing to feed additional money into it as time goes by. I just feel this is false economy all the way. If you can't buy fast at the first, save more money before you jump into the first purchase, then buy fast initially. You will always be ahead of the game - in my opinion.
Jul 21, 2003 (10:57 am)
It is more cost effective to buy your power off the showroom floor. That also comes with the nice warranty. But if you can't afford a new vehicle, you can improve what you have. Granted, any big gains will cost big money.
And one thing is for certain, rear wings, stickers, lowering kits, body kits, cutting springs, and 500 pounds of audio/visual equipment does NOT make your car fast...
#730 of 2995 lol fellas
Jul 21, 2003 (1:30 pm)
well im not trying to be in fast and the furious 3 or anything...im just looking for some extra performance...not looking to spend a grand...besides a minor idle problem...i have never had a problem with my 2.5l 4 cylinder...and honestly its no v6...but its quick for only being 119 hp...so yeah...i appreciate your help but i have decided to go open element k&n airfilter, and a magnaflow cat-back exhaust system with 3" pipes...whatya guys think?
#731 of 2995 You should know what I think....
Jul 21, 2003 (11:25 pm)
...Buy a nice evening out with your girlfriend.
Or, open a savings account with that $200-500 at a Credit Union. Then, in three years, this Credit Union might be giving better loan rates than the dealerships (you can't beat their 0% right now, but who knows what the future holds). And, you've got that $500 + Interest (even a little will help) and maybe more because you've gotten into the practice of saving a little each payday....
And you will have a much better chance of BUYING FAST!
Keep this outlook for the next 35 years and you can have a nice retirement.
Otherwise, in 3 years you have a nasty, oily air filter and a rusted out exhaust which will probably detract from the resale value of your truck.
Yea, I know, this is your grandpaw talking to you...
#732 of 2995 Well I took the middle route.
Jul 22, 2003 (4:58 am)
Being my first new vehicle purchase at age 25, I got my 2003 Ranger Edge 3.0l reg cab. I had to get a v6, but couldn't find a 4.0l in a regular cab (fleet order only). Combine that with a manual transmission and it's not slow, but it's not gonna beat up a mustang. I put the Gibson Cat-back on it, but it is stainless steel, so it'll last a good while. 2.5" all the way back, I believe. That and a little airbox modification is all I have done, so it's not fast, but it was a cheap vehicle to begein with, and the upgrades have definitely helped in terms of sound (/appearance) and performance. Soon I will be opening up my MAF sensor which basically entails removing the plastic shielding around the actual sensor. That is supposed to be really noticable during the higher RPMs. So it's stuff like that, that can be done to increase your satisfaction with your vehicle.
But nothing too drastic or bank breaking because I am really curious and tempted to see what the 2005 (or 2006? remodel) of the Ranger will be. If Ford gets off their butt and finally puts in the 4.6l v8, you know what I'll be getting.
#733 of 2995 Thinking about buying
Jul 23, 2003 (4:01 am)
a used ranger and wondered if the 2.5 is adequate w/ manual transmission or do I need the 3.0? Will need a/c to survive summers in St.L. Is either superior from a maintenance point of view?
Jul 23, 2003 (6:39 pm)
hey man, i have a 98 2.5 auto...and i dont mind it...its not as fast as i want it to be...if you are looking to be fast then go with the 4.0...if you just kinda want something that moves and does whats needed...then the 2.5 is the way to go
#735 of 2995 Air Conditioner
Jul 26, 2003 (8:13 pm)
Have any of you had problems with your air conditioning.
I have a '97 Mazda B-2300 (a Ranger) with 47,000 miles and can't get my AC to work. I'll turn on the AC and will hear it click in and then stop. 10 sec later it tries to kick in again and nothing.
#736 of 2995 Valve Clatter-2000 Ranger 3.0
Jul 28, 2003 (4:23 pm)
I am currently driving a 2000 Ranger with the 3.0 engine (company vehicle) with 100k miles. Valve clatter is awful when engine is under load. Any suggestions?