What's the best engine year of an X?

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by Rhett Browning
Rangers are so much lighter that a Ranger with a 4.0 can really move.

Not really, for some reason the Ranger is slower than an Explorer with either the ohv or sohc V6. The only rangers that could edge me out were the 4.0 w/ a 5 speed manual if I'm in the 94', even my friends 4.0 Ranger auto is slower than my 94', and the times magazines have got and people have gotten on the ranger forums with the sohc V6 were slower than the 4dr or 2dr Explorer w/ the sohc engine. I thought that was weird too, b/c like you I know the Rangers are lighter but for some reason they are slower.

 

[Robert]

With regards to the Ranger, it depends on how it was equipped. In 1994 the 4.0L 2WD Ranger came with two different axle ratios. The standard axle was a 3.08. When equipped with an automatic, it was fairly slow. I ordered my '94 SuperCab, 2WD 4.0L ranger with the 3.55 limited slip axle and a 5-speed manual. In stock trim with 500 miles on the odometer I ran a best 1/4 mile ET of 16.823 seconds at 80.78 MPH. My best ET I ever got out of it was 16.557 at 82.11 with a cat-back exhaust and 10K miles on it in 05/94. With my cat-back, SuperChip, K&N drop in & Pro-Flow MAF sensor it ran 16.598 @ 81.52 in 09/94 with 15K on it.

By comparison, my '97 4x4 SOHC Explorer with 30" tires and 4.10 axle ran a best ET of 16.374 at 83.04 MPH in Phoenix in 03/00 when it was completely stock with 50K on it. The times that I have seen for the SOHC Rangers are also a bit slower than my '97 runs. I think it is probably due to a bad overall gear ratio. Ford probably figures that with the added horsepower, they could choose a lower ratio (numerically) to get better mileage. Since the SOHC runs better at higher RPMs than the OHV, two identical trucks where one has an OHV and 4.10 and the other one has the SOHC and 3.55, the OHV will leave it behind off the line. Eventually the SOHC will catch up and then pass by. Now if they both had 4.10s, then they would be fairly even from the start, but the SOHC would quickly start pulling ahead.

My Ranger had better 60' times than my Explorer (2.227 vs. 2.342) does but that is probably due to several things (lower weight, lower torque curve peak, manual transmission).

 

[twooverpar]

I knew someone who had a 1st Gen X with a factory V-8 as well. It even had V-8 badges on it.

 

[410Fortune]

Once again, my 5.0L is faster then your SOHC, but your OHV 4.0L Ranger, beat my 5.0L 4 door Explorer...blah blah blah. DONT FORGET ABOUT GEAR RATIO's!!

You cant say "my 4.0L Ex was faster then all the 4.0L rangers I ever raced. so therefore all 4.0L Rangers are slower then all 4.0L Explorer's"

You also must compare the gear ratio's and tire size!
There is absolutely no way a OHV 4.0L Ranger with 3.73's and 30" tires would be slower then a 4.0L OHV 4 door Explorer with 3.73's and 30" tires, it just cant happen, the Explorer weighs 1500# more approx.

Geesh!

I can tell you my 88 BII, with a 93 OHV 4.0L (slightly modified) 4.10 gears, a custom torque converter and transmission, and 31" tires is pretty quick off the line, I can take a SOHC 4 door Explorer with 3.73's gears and stock tires, because my BII is lighter and I have a bunch of mods, but mostly because I have the 4.10 gears....back when I had 3.73's my buddies 97 Limited SOHC was faster, now I can barely edge him out.....until about 60 MPH when he starts pulling ahead....



Anyways back on topic, I would rather build a 91-94 Explorer into a prerunninr because It has the TTB front end. the 95+ IFS suspension is not as good as the beams for long travel.......

If you want to build a prerunner from an Explorer, first start off with 2wd, lock the rear, then get a equalt length bent beam kit from the aftermarket....you can learn all about them here:

www.offroadrangers.com

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by 410Fortune
Once again, my 5.0L is faster then your SOHC, but your OHV 4.0L Ranger, beat my 5.0L 4 door Explorer...blah blah blah. DONT FORGET ABOUT GEAR RATIO's!!

You cant say "my 4.0L Ex was faster then all the 4.0L rangers I ever raced. so therefore all 4.0L Rangers are slower then all 4.0L Explorer's"

You also must compare the gear ratio's and tire size!
There is absolutely no way a OHV 4.0L Ranger with 3.73's and 30" tires would be slower then a 4.0L OHV 4 door Explorer with 3.73's and 30" tires, it just cant happen, the Explorer weighs 1500# more approx.

Geesh!

I can tell you my 88 BII, with a 93 OHV 4.0L (slightly modified) 4.10 gears, a custom torque converter and transmission, and 31" tires is pretty quick off the line, I can take a SOHC 4 door Explorer with 3.73's gears and stock tires, because my BII is lighter and I have a bunch of mods, but mostly because I have the 4.10 gears....back when I had 3.73's my buddies 97 Limited SOHC was faster, now I can barely edge him out.....until about 60 MPH when he starts pulling ahead....

I already new that but didn't want to get into specifics about the ratios and tires ect. ect. Stock for stock and same gear ratio's ect. ect. , for some reason the automatic OHV ranger is slower than my 94', now if its a manual they are barely quicker. Same thing for the sohc Ranger, again for some reason it runs slower than a sohc explorer. The guys on the Ranger forum even said it and are wondering why that is. I've driven both the ohv and sohc Rangers and for some reason they just don't feel as quick as the same engine in an Ex. Look at their times, the average time a sohc gets in a mag is around 9 seconds to 60, sohc 2dr or 4dr runs 8.2 to 8.5, even if the ranger had 3.08 gears (not available on sohc) it's 1500lb lighter weight would make up the differance, yet it doesn't. I'm not bashing on it or anything, I was just confused, along with the ranger guys, and even the magazines, who wonder why the ranger is slower.

- also, friends 93' Ranger has 3.08 ratio and stock tires vs. my 94' w/ 3.27. The differance between 3.08's and 3.27 gears is not noticeable, both are sh!itty ratios anyway. But his being 1500lbs lighter more than makes up for the ratio (plus I have my huge system and everything), but I'm always ahead. Again I'm not bashing, and the ranger guys have been trying to figure this out before.

 

[expo5.0]

stock 5.0 in a first gen???????????????????????????????

 

[Fischer]

Yup.

 

[Jason_25]

Nah. I don't beleive it. No way.

Prove it.

 

[410Fortune]

No Explorer ever came with a 5.0 until 96.

91-95 Explorer's ONLY came with the pushrod OHV 4.0L.
at least in the USA.

Saleen:
A Ranger may have problems hooking up, the tempature outside may have been different when they did the runs, the Ranger may come with larger tires then the Explorer, etc etc etc.... the SOHC in a 97 ranger makes the same HP as the SOHC in a 97 Explorer. If magazines say the Ranger is slower, I would sure like to know all the conditions about the runs they made, the trannys in each truck, the track conditions, etc...

Could it be the tailgate creates drag and the Explorer is more aerodynamic? I seriously doubt it. I would be my bottom dollar that if you took a 98 SOHC Ranger with 3.73 and an auto up against a 98 Explorer SOHC with 3.73 and the auto the Ranger will win, not by much, but it will win. Very interstesting if it does not......

 

[expo5.0]

yeah, there is absolutely no way that your friend is telling the truth about that engine in his explorer. if you can prove this you need to.

 

[410Fortune]

It just didnt happen. There is no 91-95 Explorer built by Ford with a 5.0L in it.

Ford has done some strange things, they did build some 89 BII's with 4.0L's in them, they also built some 89 BII's with 2.9L's and D35's and 8.8 rear axles.

 

[Rhett]

heh. Didn't mean to start anything here. I've driven a Ranger with a 4.0 auto and it felt a lot faster than my Explorer, maybe just my truck though (I have 3.27's). On the other hand, a friend of mine has a 97 Ranger with the 2.x liter in it (is it 2.5L)? anyway, it's the one with 2 spark plugs per cylinder...and it truly is slower than my OHV Explorer. And that's pretty slow (snicker).

And, about the 5.0 being in some 94 Limiteds from the factory...nooo way. In fact 1996 was the first year for the 5.0 in Explorers. From 91-95 the only engine offered was the 4.0 OHV.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by 410Fortune
Saleen:
A Ranger may have problems hooking up, the tempature outside may have been different when they did the runs, the Ranger may come with larger tires then the Explorer, etc etc etc.... the SOHC in a 97 ranger makes the same HP as the SOHC in a 97 Explorer. If magazines say the Ranger is slower, I would sure like to know all the conditions about the runs they made, the trannys in each truck, the track conditions, etc...

Could it be the tailgate creates drag and the Explorer is more aerodynamic? I seriously doubt it. I would be my bottom dollar that if you took a 98 SOHC Ranger with 3.73 and an auto up against a 98 Explorer SOHC with 3.73 and the auto the Ranger will win, not by much, but it will win. Very interstesting if it does not......

Thats why I'm confused, even Truckin/ Trucktrend one of those were testing a 01' Ranger Ext. Cab with 3.73 gears and the obviously the sohc engine. Yet, it would only get to 60 in around 9 seconds which does not make sense. Even when they were 1st available with the sohc I thought "damn that little trucks gonna fly now" well the 1st one to do a test was one of the car mags, and they could only muster a 9.2 to 60. I'm like "??" I think the tailgate would only really create drag at highway speeds and slow you down from there but who knows.

There were a bunch of guys on the ranger forum saying their new sohc Ranger felt sluggish compared to the Explorer they had or have driven with the same engine. We're the 4.10's available in the Ranger or 01' Explorer? The only ones in that year I see are 3.73, why did they stop putting in 4.10's? Even the 02' 4dr Explorers' top ratio is 3.73, perfect match for the 4.6 V8 but I would have thought they would at least have an option for 4.10's on the new 4dr's with the V6.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by twooverpar
I knew someone who had a 1st Gen X with a factory V-8 as well. It even had V-8 badges on it.

Originally posted by Fischer
Not so. I have a friend who has a 94 with a 302. They apparently came in the Eddie B. packages. He special ordered his without the E.B trim but with the 302V8.

There were no V8's available in a 1st gen, they came out on the 2nd gen like everyone said in 96'. Whoever told you it came like that is lying, the only way it's possible is if you did a swap.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by 410Fortune
Ford has done some strange things, they did build some 89 BII's with 4.0L's in them, they also built some 89 BII's with 2.9L's and D35's and 8.8 rear axles.

They did do some weird things like that, I heard about those you talked about also, wander why Ford would offer those options but not market them like that?.

 

[410Fortune]

I think it;s more of a "ut oh we got 40 more BII's built but we are out of dana 28 front axles, what do we do" sorta thing....

I have seen some really Early Explorer's badged as a BII, I have seen a factory OHV 4.0L in a 89 BII, and I have seen some other strange stuff, but there is no way they built gen I explorer's with the 5.0L, it just wouldnt have fit...

 

[skater252000]

So is everyone basically saying the 91-94 Rangers are pretty much as slow as the 91-94 Explorers? Cuz if that's true then I'll just get an X instead of a Ranger like I was thinken about doin. After hearing all this talk about how bad the OHV V6 was I thought the lighter Ranger would be much better. But since it's not that much better, now I'm back to gettin an X! Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. I like the fact that it's got the extra seats in back a lot so I can have more than just one passenger with me.

 

[Robert]

Originally posted by 410Fortune
.... the SOHC in a 97 ranger makes the same HP as the SOHC in a 97 Explorer. If magazines say the Ranger is slower, I would sure like to know all the conditions about the runs they made, the trannys in each truck, the track conditions, etc........

Ford didn't put the SOHC in the Ranger until the '01 model year so you'd have a hard time finding a '97 with one

The times I posted above from my Ranger were just a couple out of the 36 passes I made on 5 different days from 10/93 through 9/94. My Explorer time was one of the only two passes I made with it.

 

[Robert]

The Ranger does not weigh 1500 lbs. less than an Explorer (unless you are comparing a 2WD, short-bed 4-cylinder Ranger agains a V8, AWD Explorer). My '94 2WD Supercab Ranger weighed in at about 3400 lbs. My '97 4x4 Explorer Sport weighs about 4000 obs.

 

[SaleenEXP]

I know that, I was just using Fischer's basis for saying that and comparing that if it was 1500lbs lighter, that would easily make up for the handicap if equiped with 3.08 gears, the ranger should only be around 500lbs lighter or a little more than an Explorer (depending on the Ex. model)