5.0 Ranger, hmmmmmm. they don't even make the 5.0 F-150's even more .................. Does any one know why ford discountinued the 302, and 351 engines in the F-150's?

 

They discountinued them because they went to the modular engines. The 4.6 liter(281C.I), the 5.4 liter(330C.I). Both those motors make just as much power(if not more) while acheiving better economy. We had a 99 expediton with the 5.4, 3.73 l/s, and the 17" rims, it pulled our 7000 pound travel trailer, burried up to its axles w/brakes locked thru very wet top soil. (the pin for the emergency brakes got pulled with out us reliezing it). To top it off the truck was sitting down about 6 inches in the ground too. My dads dodge cummins had problems pulling it up a slight incline at the same campground.

I have to agree with the 4.0 feeling like a sports car, with the 4.0 5 speed and 3.73's it simply hauls, add in the 265/75/15's and it handle like a dream, and stops on a dime(except in rain, then you total a buick). It can come up short winded when towing but I think thats due to the 265's. Go for the optional bucket seats and center counsole and its ten times more comfortable and possibly more supportive then my dads mustang.

I get a constant 18 mpg. I have no complaints when I come from a truck that was getting 12 on a good day(down hill, tail wind, in neutral, although I've resently learned how to keep my foot out of it so now I think I might equal the ranger)

 

more power laff. a 1994 302 w/a chip flowmaster k&n is a million times more powerful/faster than the 330

 

so what happens when you put a chip, airriad intake, throttlebody spacer and shift improver kit on a 330? just a thought, we found out, and yes a 6000 pound expedtion would hand my 3500 pound ranger its butt. A 330 makes 260 hp and 345 ft-lbs of tourqe.(3v 5.4=300 hp, 360ft-lbs) a 302 is rated at 225 hp and 280 ft-lbs of tourqe? Another thought the 4.6 makes roughly 230hp, 290 ft-lbs of tourqe.

 

Actually you are incorrect. The 5R55E is an evolution of the C3 light duty transmission. It is used in all 4.0 SOHC applications. The 4R70W which is a C4 base transmission drives the V-8 Explorer, which is why you always hear Explorer owners recommending V-8s since the 4R70W is a very durable transmission, whereas the 5R and its predecessors (The 5R is an A4LD with a revised oiling system and the engagement of OD after first gear to give you 5 speeds) are hit or miss in terms of strength.

As well, the V-8 NEVER came with a manual transmission. In fact, the only reason the 4.0 OHV motor was kept around until the 3rd Generation Explore in 2002 was because it was the only engine that wouldn't shred the weak M5OD manual transmission. The old marbly OHV was dropped because the SOHC now has a manual transmission of which I cannot remember right now.

I too have always wondered why the Ranger never received a V-8. The Explorer began V-8s in 1996, because the Mustang stopped carrying that motor in 1995, so Ford used all of its leftover 5.0s in the Explorer. The reason I can think the Ranger didn't get the 5.0 is because Ford didn't feel like putting in the 4R70W transmission in the Ranger when it was making a lot more money with the 1/2 tons. The Explorer got the V-8 because it costs more to purchase, and is more popular of a vehicle.

Also, I love my Vulcan, but if you want power, there is absolutely no comparison to the SOHC. My Explorer would whoop the Taurus, and that's pretty sad. Now, the Taurus would win in durability. There are 400K mile Rangers and Aerostars running around on stock Vulcans. That motor can be dropped off a cliff without any oil in it, and still run. Vulcan just needs some work done on the restrictive heads and a small forced induction system, and I would gladly take that motor over any other V-6. For now though, the SOHC 4.0 is probably one of my favorite V-6s, and definitely should have been the base V-6 in the Mustang; not that revvy Duratec.

 

Majisto, thank you for the clarification ...you are indeed correct about the 5.0L Explorer and its transmissions. It was the 4.0L Explorers that got the 5R55E.

And I believe what you say about the the 4R70W being a beefier tranny. In fact, your raising that point only seems to strengthen the argument in favor of a 5.0L being feasible in a Ranger. There is no need for Ford to design a whole new tranny (automatic, anyway) to make it happen. It has the time-tested 4R70W already in production, ready, willing and able.

And I also agree 100% with your comments concerning the Vulcan.

 

Had '97 4.0 with good power speed & mileage. Moved to '03 3.0 when maintenance costs/mile quadrupled. Pretty weak acceleration, comfortable at speed, mileage less than 4.0. Good price. Bad decision.

 

i have a 99 ranger 4.0 4x4 auto with the optional 5 speed auto. this is not really scientific or anything but my ranger is rated at 158-160 hp, my dads 2002 sonoma 2WD (lighter than my 4WD) has 207 hp. I drove his truck the other night and froma dead stop i floored it to a sign down the road. When i was beside the sign the speedo said 57 mph. Coming back from school in my truck i did the same thing. same exact mph at the sign. He even has new tires that it wont even spin. I had to ease into my throttle to keep from melting mine. Does the extra gear actually make that big of a difference? I think its funny that his truck has more "claimed HP" and mine is just as fast or faster than his. (of course he wont admit it) lol

 

byt the way my dads sonoma has a vortec 4.3L

 

I'm pretty sure that the Sonoma only has 180 HP if 4x2 and 190 HP if it is a 4x4. But I do agree that the 4.0 feels much stronger than 160 HP. I don't understand why the 4.3 isn't noticeably faster since it also has 25 ft-lbs more torque at a similar RPM as the 4.0. To me the 4.3 is one of the most over rated engines out there.

 

It might be the different trannies. Mine has a 5 speed auto and his only has a 4 speed auto. either way i like my truck better

 

Heh, yeah you're right. Maybe it's just one of those Ford bean-counter's decisions. The same one that didn't light up the cruise controls buttons in my Taurus (They are now lighted this year). You seem to know your stuff about these great light duty trucks. I actually don't know much about the 4R70W, but I do know the C4 my uncle has in his Bronco is one tough little 3-speed auto. Hell, that's one tough truck. It's a Ford truck. I expect nothing less.

 

If it makes you feel any better the taurus this year doesn't have rear air, or lights in the truck and glove box. Actually they might. 2003 didn't for sure though.

 

This is funny, considering the "old marbly" OHV 4.0 produces the SAME torque as the SOHC 4.0L.

 

I drove my 98 OHV 4.0 to the dealership, and got into a 2002 (new at the time) 4.0 SOHC, and was unimpressed with what I found. Not that it was bad or anything, just didn't feel any better than mine. In fact, my truck had a canopy on with lots of stuff in the back (much more weight). When I saw the 207hp I thought, "ooh, bet it's a lot faster than mine.." Wrong

Brian