4 vs 6 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


New Ideas Have a new idea for your Ford Ranger? General discussion of new ideas for the Ford Ranger.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 09-23-2016
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: miami, fla
Posts: 1
4 vs 6

thinking of buying a good condition 97 , 4 cyl.
dont know much about Ford's 4 cyl. Is there a huge power difference the 4 & 6.
not planning on towing, but dont want to drive a dud.
thanks,
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2016
TheArcticWolf1911's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 1,588
the 4 cylinder and 3.0 vulcan from what I hear are very similar in terms of power. the 4 cylinder is better on gas, but you'll sound like anything but a truck. 3.0 v6 is a bit of a step up, I believe better torque but isn't as good on gas.

In my honest opinion, neither of them are worth looking for. 4cyl and v6 both are horrendously under powered for their application, having to work their iron guts out to get a heavy truck moving. Hence why they never added either of these options to the Ranger's sister, the Explorer.

I personally can't, and won't, recommend any engine except for either iteration of the 4.0 engine. 2001+ uses the SOHC, and the 2000 earlier uses the OHV.

That being said, the 3.0 vulcan is what I would go with out of the two. The 3.0 v6 may be a dog in terms of power, but it is one reliable engine and a half. My 3.0 hasn't failed me yet.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2016
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,258
1997 Ranger 4cyl would have the 2.3l Lima engine, 112hp @ 4800 RPM (1996 - 1997)

1998 used the Lima 2.5l, 117hp @ 4500 RPM (1998 - 2001)


1997 Ranger 3.0l Vulcan V6 engine, 147hp @ 5000 RPM (1996 - 1998)

1997 Ranger also had 4.0l OHV V6, 160hp @ 4200 RPM (1990 - 2000)


2002 Rangers got the 2.3l DOHC Duratec 4cyl, 144hp @ 5750 RPM (2002 - 2012)


Rangers weight 3,000lbs to 3,400lbs and have the aerodynamics of a..............truck, so a brick with 4 wheel

You want peppy, fast and a smooth ride then you want a car, you wanna haul stuff, drive slow, and bounce on bumps, get a pickup

Rangers are the best mid-size trucks made, but they are still trucks, NOT cars

Last edited by RonD; 09-23-2016 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2016
morris's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Detroit.
Posts: 7,833
My ranger was 4100, then again I don't know which ones your giving numbers for.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2016
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,258
Easy to get them to 4,000+lbs, extended cab, 4x4, canopy
A full gas tank adds 120lbs, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2016
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 2
I used to have a 2006 extended cab Ranger with a 3.0 and automatic. It used a lot of gas and felt like a slug on the road.

I now have a 1998 standard cab Ranger with a 2.5 and manual transmission. It feels a lot peppier than the V6 did and the gas mileage is significantly better. It's by no means a hot rod, but perfect as a second vehicle that can make the occasional dump run. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad main vehicle either.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 12:07 PM.