pic request double lifted and 35's - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


Snapshots Share photos of vehicles in this sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 10-21-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721




Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-21-2009
brianjwilson's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fx4wannabe01 View Post
It's all about getting the engine in it's powerband...aka where it's actually making some torque to keep the thing moving. RPMS are your friend. Lugging the engine isn't.
Yep. So many people do not understand this concept. Some will argue to the death that lugging the engine at lower rpm means better mileage, period.
I have had the scan gauge in the sport trac and the F150. If I were lugging the engine up a highway in high gear with 35's on my F150, it will easily start sucking down 10mpg or less. It will almost always improve once it downshifts, or I force it to by locking out O/D. Same with the sport trac.

Now a big diesel with a ton of torque, generally you can run oversized tires and still get good mileage on the highway because they ARE making good power at low RPM. The 3.0L and 4.0L, not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-21-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
42's and 3.73's with a 600ft/lb @ 1700rpm truck....thats PLENTY of power to overcome the effective ratio change by those tires.

I wish people would start to actually RUN the numbers...with CORRECT calculations. They'll soon realize the actual numbers, actually figure out and feel the truck for it's overall drivability. Or get a scangaugeII and learn about fuel consumption, again, with a properly calibrated scangauge.

Thanks Brian.



OH...and for what it's worth, the 4.0 SOHC and 3.0 share about the same power output down low in the RPM range, so they're comparable aka can't overcome tire changes too well. The 4.0L OHV has nice torque down low and surprizingly, drives well with 3.73's and 35's. Still nothing quite like the proper 4.88 and 35's.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-21-2009
xp1ik99's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lexington Park, MD
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fx4wannabe01 View Post
zp1ik99....guess what......you've got a 4.0, NOT a 3.0... 3.0 and 35's virtually require 4.88 to be drivable....there just isn't the power to overcome the tire like the 4.0 does. 4.0 on the other hand, is 'okay' with 35's and 4.10's. Not much fun with a manual trans though....you can really feel the tires. Unless....you're talking about an old truck of yours...IDK.


And no...I don't believe for one minute 3.73 and 3.0 and 35's are anywhere near 18+ mpg... what? 60mph in 3rd gear to keep the damn thing driving?


My 4.88, 35's, 4.0, pulls an average mixed driving of about 16.5. On the freeway, average is about 18-19. It's all about getting the engine in it's powerband...aka where it's actually making some torque to keep the thing moving. RPMS are your friend. Lugging the engine isn't. At 75, my rpms are about 3000 and i'm pulling 19-21mpg numbers.





And for what it's worth, I have no problem spinning tires with any of the multiple setups I had(4.10 32, 4.10 35, 4.10 33, 4.88 35, 4.88 35 locked). Ya'll just don't know how to do it. hehehe.
and its because of posts like this people question your intelligance, thank you for informing me of what engine i have in my truck but go ahead and look back to my old ranger i had about 2 yrs ago before my current, there you will find a 1999 black extended cab regular bed ranger with a body lift, some t-bar crank and shackles on 35's with yes a 3.0 and 4.10 gears....guess what, it moved and got 18+ on the highway, have you ever had this set-up or anyone for that matter who is saying its not possible?? if not your opinions are useless and therfore your input is not needed, your clearly only making assumptions

back on topic
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-21-2009
Toms994x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sanford, NC
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by xp1ik99 View Post
and its because of posts like this people question your intelligance, thank you for informing me of what engine i have in my truck but go ahead and look back to my old ranger i had about 2 yrs ago before my current, there you will find a 1999 black extended cab regular bed ranger with a body lift, some t-bar crank and shackles on 35's with yes a 3.0 and 4.10 gears....guess what, it moved and got 18+ on the highway, have you ever had this set-up or anyone for that matter who is saying its not possible?? if not your opinions are useless and therfore your input is not needed, your clearly only making assumptions

back on topic
Here's a question. Did you have your speedometer and odometer calibrated properly after the tire change? When you upgrade tires it throws off your speedometer AND odometer. In the even that you didn't, your calculations for MPG were off. I had a 3.0 with 3.73's and 31's. It was a freakin DOG. Was it driveable? Of course it was. You are missing the point though. Shane explained it perfectly.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-21-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
I suppose i'm just a dumbass who doesn't know anything and hasn't experienced anything then...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-21-2009
xp1ik99's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lexington Park, MD
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms994x4 View Post
Here's a question. Did you have your speedometer and odometer calibrated properly after the tire change? When you upgrade tires it throws off your speedometer AND odometer. In the even that you didn't, your calculations for MPG were off. I had a 3.0 with 3.73's and 31's. It was a freakin DOG. Was it driveable? Of course it was. You are missing the point though. Shane explained it perfectly.
yes and sucks about your truck idk what to tell ya, i understand the point, opinions are expressed generally with no facts or know how, i stated my opinion on what my experience was than people who have never had that set up go and stomp on it cause they think it isnt possible....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fx4wannabe01 View Post
I suppose i'm just a dumbass who doesn't know anything and hasn't experienced anything then...
ok ill go with that
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-21-2009
billabong98z's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 176
xp1k whats your problem, no ones saying its "not possible" to drive a 3.0 with 4.10's and 35's, its just that it wont be quick or fun to drive. and yes i have a 3.0 with 33's and 4.10's and it still dogs it in town.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-21-2009
Toms994x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sanford, NC
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by xp1ik99 View Post
yes and sucks about your truck idk what to tell ya, i understand the point, opinions are expressed generally with no facts or know how, i stated my opinion on what my experience was than people who have never had that set up go and stomp on it cause they think it isnt possible....
I NEVER once said it wasn't possible. I can tell you it sucks based on CALCULATIONS. I have a 350 in my other truck with 2.56 gears. It is comparable to my old 3.0 with 3.73s and 31's in acceleration. It blows to get up to speed, and it's still kind of a pain to keep it there. If you want to continue to strain your truck, by all means do it. We're just trying to get the point across that your setup is not practical. I have 4.56's for sale if you're interested.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-21-2009
korey89's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South, FL
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by xp1ik99 View Post
ok ill go with that

I lol'd
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-21-2009
00Ranger4digbeast's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hudson,Fl
Posts: 252
wow.....off thread much?..anyways....
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-21-2009
mlw20lu's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loxahatchee, FL
Posts: 1,825
^x2 lol i love the people that love to disagree. everyone lives in different areas and different altitudes which affects things. and EVERYONE has different driving styles.. ive done the math and ive done the calculations EVERY time i fill up and yess i average about 17 to 18+ mpg with 35;s and 3.73's I dont drive like an a**hole everywhere. I leave on time and am never in a hurry. if anyone would really like to prove me wrong Ill do the math for you below:

236 miles on the odometer NOT Correct. since i have 35's ive actually driven 283.2 miles.
and since i run my tank down to the gas light each time i put in anywhere between 15 and 16 gallons of gas..
so if unless every calculator in the world is wrong 283.2/ 16 equals 17.7mpg

so **** off you retards
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-21-2009
mlw20lu's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loxahatchee, FL
Posts: 1,825
no offense to those who are cool and just dont hate in threads lol
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-21-2009
Woods-Rider's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 1,108
Didnt know the newer gen rangers came with different size tanks. I run mine till my gas light is on most of the time and it takes 18.xxx gal.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-21-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
The light turns on different in every truck...idk...Mine comes on with 2.5 gallons left in the tank, which would be 17 gal at fill up. Xcab/shortbed same tank size at 19.5
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-22-2009
mlw20lu's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loxahatchee, FL
Posts: 1,825
x2 but i usually catch it early and get ~16
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pic request: 98+ 2wd XL/XLT's double lifted w/ spindle lift + BL gts007 Snapshots 8 10-26-2012 04:17 PM
PICTURE REQUEST: Double Lifted 06+'s immortal_vision Suspension Tech 9 12-22-2010 01:26 PM
PIC REQUEST: Double Lifted 3" body 4" suspension on 33's? immortal_vision Snapshots 1 04-17-2010 03:44 PM
Pic request: body lifted Edges and 01+ 4x4's gts007 Snapshots 30 01-09-2010 09:34 AM
PIC REQ: Double Lifted trucks with factory step rails... Fx4wannabe01 Snapshots 34 02-20-2009 01:07 AM


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 01:53 PM.


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.