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

trading off the ranger =]

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 29, 2009
  #26  
rangerrick's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: Columbia NJ
Originally Posted by gotmud?
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
Old Nov 29, 2009
  #27  
kx592's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: asbury
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
Old Nov 29, 2009
  #28  
gotmud?'s Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
From: avon park florida
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
Old Nov 29, 2009
  #29  
morris's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,841
Likes: 2
From: South Detroit.
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
Old Nov 29, 2009
  #30  
Ngabr1's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
From: CT
looks good man, get some new tires on it and it will look even better
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2009
  #31  
gotmud?'s Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
From: avon park florida
900 r 16 militarys on the way =]
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2009
  #32  
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,470
Likes: 6
From: Muncy, PA
nice truck
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2009
  #33  
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
From: Owensboro, KY
Originally Posted by rangerrick
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
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonsfx4
General Ford Ranger Discussion
17
Jul 1, 2007 12:31 PM
FMD
General Ford Ranger Discussion
14
Apr 15, 2006 08:27 PM
butchs03edge
General Ford Ranger Discussion
15
Jan 21, 2006 02:00 PM
RescueRangerFX4
General Ford Ranger Discussion
9
Jun 18, 2005 04:17 PM
01BlkEdge
General Ford Ranger Discussion
18
Sep 19, 2004 08:27 PM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM.