i just thought it was pretty quick for a little pick up with a v-6 5spd. yes it suprised me to. i thought it would be much slower than that, like you said 8 or 10. i don't know if its the way its built or what! or the way its geared or if it was reprogammed. we bought it used, in 98. i just thought it was odd. sorry! and i don't mean any disservice to anyone.
and your right! for what i think is stock or darn near it. maybe alittle more than meets the eye.
and i to have a book case full of manuals on cars and trucks that i have worked on.
my wife drives the truck daily, and all i'm saying, is i'm proud of my truck and i maintain it myself and i'm a mechanic. by trade! i'm a ford owner and i like my truck!
ford ranger
jack
Jack,
Its really nothing personal. I've seen your posts here and I think you're a good guy and mean well. I've had the same exact mistake myself. Here's the problem with timing your own vehicle.... I've tried it countless times myself. Every single time, not matter how carefully I try to measure it I've always off by 1-2 seconds. The reason, I guess is by the time I've hit the pedal, checked the speedo and then the time clock, go 0-60, see the speedo hit 60, etc. look back at the clock, I usually think my truck is faster than it is. I even did this at the Ford proving grounds many years back in a Ranger Edge with the newly improved 4.0L (improved at that time). It was running like a scalded dog and I did a burn out on Ford's test strip.
Next round I took off without laying rubber and it felt fast! Between the two runs I drove a supercharged Harley Davidson F150 and I could have sworn the Ranger was faster. I kept thinking "wow, they made huge improvements!"
Fourth round was the HD F150 head to head against the Ranger. It left the Ranger in its dust. As near as I can tell I was buffaloed by what gets so many of us: sound and engine feedback. The Ranger was much louder inside the cab, gave more engine feedback and it probably gave me an unconscious que that it was faster.
Don't get me wrong, the 4.0L equipped Ranger can be a darn fast truck. The 5.4 in stock form in the 2004-2008 F150 has sluggish trottle response in comparison.
From my own testing with 2 different meters (Autometer PTEC performance meter, measures G force, reaction time, 1/4, 0-60, etc. and a DashDAQ data logger I can tell even someone who tunes vehicles and does lot of data logging can misguess. Back when I first got the Roush F150's supercharge tuned I thought was pulling a high 4 0-60 which is fast as hell. I was very, very wrong. On a cold day it would pull a mid to high 5, on a hot day it was a half to a full second slower. Only thing that saved me from embarrassment at the hands of some Lightning owners was my truck is a 4x4 and I could launch in 4 wheel drive giving me fast 0-30 times then they had and they usually gave up when they saw it.
Since then the truck has had many mods done and now I have verifiable results in the high 4s and we'll see if it gets better when it gets colder here in Georgia (the supercharger really picks up power when its cold). First, I have to get the rear axle taken care of, it has a lot of slop and I don't want to end up broken down being stupid with the throttle!
The 4.0L is a fine engine. Very reliable and not prone to the pinging the 3.0L Ranger gets (its the way its tuned by Ford). I have to say my 2000 Ranger has been the most reliable Ford I've ever owned --- its still running strong at about 140,000 miles and my daughter now drives it to college every day. She wouldn't be driving if I thought it would cause problems.
If you want to see really good gains with the 4.0L and added mileage, it tunes really well with a chip especially since its such a light truck. Also, if power isn't your ultimate goal the 4.0L can really pick up mileage with a tune made to adjust EGR. There are a lot of mods that can be made for performance, from mild to wild. Camshafts, strokers, connecting rods, intakes, heads, superchargers (Eaton), headers, NOS, etc. Its a good foundation.
__________________ -Ken
If you need to get in touch with me email me at ftsservice at gmail dot com or via AOL IM: motorhavenken. The best is yet to come....
yes he does,
how lucky did i get, to butt heads with 1 of fords top guys! sorry ken! and yes my truck has been very reliable! and i've never timed or retimed my vehicle. ken don't take this the wrong way. i haven't even messed with the programming or the timing you can't! yes i put a cam sensor in it 3 years ago but the preformance ramains unchanged! and my truck has almost 180,000 miles on it and it doesn't skip a beat! my wife loves it! for example my wife was coming home from work and got into it to it alittle hard and got sideways in 4th gear! and the pavement was dry! she walked through the door white as a sheet and said that truck sometimes has to much power! and i have to admit that little truck will get with the program! i have a dodge shadow that'll get 0-60 in......... next year! lol! ken your not bad either! sorry we butted heads and that was my fault! sorry! hey i've managed to keep it running this long i must be doing something right!
i love my truck!
ford ranger
__________________
jack, slackmaster #7
1996 ford ranger xlt extended cab,2wd,4.0L v6,5spd,3.08 gears, tornado intake spacer, msd ignition,sun super tach2, k&n air filter, nascar oil filter.
My 09 FX4 off road with 4.0, manual tranny and 4:10 gears plus a torson rear diff only hit's around 8 seconds in 0-60. Thats screaming off the line and reving out every gear,"well", only 3 grears, thats all it takes to get to 60. My wife starts the stop watch as soon as I dump the clutch and she watches for the needle to hit 60 and stops the watch. I'm to busy driving it. I'm sure were still not the most accurate, but it gives me an idea. 1st, 2nd and and 3rd are all torque, 238 pounds of it. 4th and 5th would be hp. The ranger has good weight to power rato with the 4.0. If you think about, the 4.0 sohc has about the same hp as the older 5.0 stangs. With a 3 valve head, direct injection and vct, I could see 260 hp out of the 4.0. However I'm sure it would get the 3.5 before they did anything else with the 4.0. After 2011, the ranger will be 4 cylinder based and I'm sure the F-100 will get the 3.5.
__________________
2009 FORD RANGER fx4 off/road, 5-speed manual, torson diff and rancho's!
I agree the 4.0l V6 is a superb motor and in all honesty I would be sad to see it go. We have a 95' Expl 2dr 4.0l OHV w/4spd Auto and an 03' Expl 4.0l SOHC w/5spd Auto. Despite the 03' being heavier it will run away fom the 95' and is rather peppy all being considered. never had problem with them either, rock solid.
I think an updated 4.0l would be a superb engine for the F-100.
guys,
i like my little truck and it is a powerhouse! and it will broil the tires if your not careful. i drive differently than my wife does, but you can feel the power. my wife drives it back and forth to work. i drive stock car and that truck is quicker then my car. and yes that truck is very releiable and runs very well. flawless!
jack
__________________
jack, slackmaster #7
1996 ford ranger xlt extended cab,2wd,4.0L v6,5spd,3.08 gears, tornado intake spacer, msd ignition,sun super tach2, k&n air filter, nascar oil filter.
Hope it happens, Colorado or Durango size, good gas mileage and XL, XLT and maybe a upscale option list. For my work, a Ranger is too small. I would love something to use days I don't need a real truck (F250 and F350)s in the fleet.
Yeah, Ford should have come out with the F-100 a while ago. I went new truck shopping six months ago and ended up with a GMC Canyon... the Rangers just dont have the head room....
I just thought of another reason why Ford would want to name it the F100. GM is nipping at Ford's heals when it comes to production numbers. By dropping the Ranger and replacing it with an "F-100" they can add all the people who would normally buy Rangers to the "F-series" production statistics and keep the crown longer.
__________________ -Ken
If you need to get in touch with me email me at ftsservice at gmail dot com or via AOL IM: motorhavenken. The best is yet to come....
I don't really care whether they ditch the Ranger name really and go with F-100. Just make a good, smaller, peppy truck that isn't to hard on fuel. Also make it reliable and not ugly please.
I just thought of another reason why Ford would want to name it the F100. GM is nipping at Ford's heals when it comes to production numbers. By dropping the Ranger and replacing it with an "F-100" they can add all the people who would normally buy Rangers to the "F-series" production statistics and keep the crown longer.
I heard someone else on here mention that a little while ago and I agree, that would make the F-series numbers look much better. I'm sure it was one of the things on Ford's mind when they considered the F-100 name.
Dave
__________________
2009 Ranger FX4 Super Cab 4x4 5 speed manual, 4.0 V6, leather buckets, 6 disc CD, Vista Blue (play truck)
2006 Ranger XL 4X2 Regular Cab 2.3L 5 speed manual, Pioneer CD stereo, Oxford White
(work truck)
Why dont they use the 3.5-liter twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V-6 that they ae going to put in the 2010 taurus SHO that thing puts out an estimated 365hp would be plenty in an f100 especially if you could pair it with a 5 or 6 speed manual tranny. I would be interested!
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
-Ken
