trading off the ranger =]
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.
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.

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.
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 =]
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.
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FMD
General Ford Ranger Discussion
14
Apr 15, 2006 08:27 PM
RescueRangerFX4
General Ford Ranger Discussion
9
Jun 18, 2005 04:17 PM






