trading off the ranger =] - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 11-29-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbia NJ
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmud? View Post
well i havent posted in a while and i finnally got a deal on a f-250.

the guy wants to trade out right because of better gas mileage.

tommorow i will be the owner of a:
1997 f-250
460 v8
c6 automatic
manual case
ext cab


nice truck has 3/4 ton axles i think it might be a 1 ton rear.
4:10s front and rear. with 35' nitto terra graplers.

i will still be a steady visitor of this forum ya'll are good people and i will post all my new mods.
Well you certainly will not like the mileage from that huge engine. But at least you got one of the two prefered power plants in that generation truck. Plus 4:10's. The 250's came with 3:55's, which sucked *****! The 150's even worse with 2:55's! Whats good about older body style is the thicker build to it, but like I said unless you got the 460ci or the 7.3, it was a dog. So this is where a GM engine swap comes in.
I had a friend who had a 96 F250 with a 351ci and one day he drove my 2500 and was so impressed with it, that he went out and bought one. He got better mileage with that 363ci in his 2500 then he did with his old 351ci.

If you didn't get that 460, your ranger would most likely take that generation truck in acceleration. They lacked horses back then. 96 F250 with 351 had only 210hp, 96 F150 with 302 had only 199hp, and with 6 cylinder, 145hp. Put bigger tires on any of these trucks and man they were like snails on the road, unless you swapped out the gears to bigger gears. I like the front ends with chrome package on that generation, and would love to drop a Vortec 6000 or higher in one.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-29-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: asbury
Posts: 84
Yep ^^^ hes right. My stock 7.3 is slow as s*** but if you attach a trailer to it, you wont notice a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-29-2009
gotmud?'s Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: avon park florida
Posts: 401
ya i havent been really doggin it at all im just babying it till i work out all the lil bugs and **** lol but for 35'sand 4;10'sauto it will get up and go 265hp and 400lbs of tourqe at 2200 rpm =]
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-29-2009
morris's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Detroit.
Posts: 7,833
i've seen fog lights put into the intake holes in the bumper. this was on a bronco that didn't need the holes for intake. i think they are for the deisel since the gas engines had a air filter much higher up behind a headlamp.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-29-2009
Ngabr1's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 483
looks good man, get some new tires on it and it will look even better
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-09-2009
gotmud?'s Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: avon park florida
Posts: 401
900 r 16 militarys on the way =]
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-09-2009
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
nice truck
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-09-2009
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerrick View Post
Well you certainly will not like the mileage from that huge engine. But at least you got one of the two prefered power plants in that generation truck. Plus 4:10's. The 250's came with 3:55's, which sucked *****! The 150's even worse with 2:55's! Whats good about older body style is the thicker build to it, but like I said unless you got the 460ci or the 7.3, it was a dog. So this is where a GM engine swap comes in.
I had a friend who had a 96 F250 with a 351ci and one day he drove my 2500 and was so impressed with it, that he went out and bought one. He got better mileage with that 363ci in his 2500 then he did with his old 351ci.

If you didn't get that 460, your ranger would most likely take that generation truck in acceleration. They lacked horses back then. 96 F250 with 351 had only 210hp, 96 F150 with 302 had only 199hp, and with 6 cylinder, 145hp. Put bigger tires on any of these trucks and man they were like snails on the road, unless you swapped out the gears to bigger gears. I like the front ends with chrome package on that generation, and would love to drop a Vortec 6000 or higher in one.
most trucks up untill the late 90s didnt have more than 200hp/250-300tq stock. at least in half tons w/ half ton engines. 350 chevy/351 fort/5.9 dodge all had around 200 hp/tq. they were still strong durable engines and would pull just about anything you wanted to w/ em. if you wanted to go fast back then you bought a muscle car. back then trucks were meant for work.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
might be trading the ranger in jasonsfx4 General Ford Ranger Discussion 17 07-01-2007 01:31 PM
thinkin bout trading in the ranger for...... FMD General Ford Ranger Discussion 14 04-15-2006 09:27 PM
Trading in the Ranger butchs03edge General Ford Ranger Discussion 15 01-21-2006 03:00 PM
Might be Trading the Ranger!!! RescueRangerFX4 General Ford Ranger Discussion 9 06-18-2005 05:17 PM
might be trading in my Ranger 01BlkEdge General Ford Ranger Discussion 18 09-19-2004 09:27 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.