Think a good 4.0 pushrod ranger will take one o' them newfangled 5 banger canyons?

 

Yes, the colorado is no match for a ranger. Have you even seen the interior of the car??

 

If you're talking acceleration, no. I've been in both and the Colorado/Canyon is faster than my Ranger, especially over 4000 RPM's. I think the 4.0 OHC is better though, because it has more peak torque, but just doesn't rev quite so high. If you're talikng overall quality of the vehicle, the Colorado is a joke. It looks and feels cheap.

 

The 4.0 makes peak HP at 5,200 RPM...that's revving pretty high in my opinion. With almost 20 more lb./ft. and more of a proven record I think I'd go with the 4.0L any day. I do not believe a Colorado could whip a Ranger at a stoplight. The Ranger doesn't get the credit it deserves. That 4.0L is impressive on the top end. My brother has a Mustang GT, and he even commented on the top-end power of my truck.

 

Compare the specs of the Colorado/Canyon vs. the Ranger. The Ranger makes more torque, and lower. Over at the Colorado forum I've seen people complain a little about the I-5 being sluggish from a stop, and this would be the reason why. It's also why the I-5 has about the same towing capability as a 3.0 Ranger.

The 4.0L SOHC will stomp an I-5 Colorado. By the time the Colorado gets to the higher revs, the Ranger will already be ahead of it, and the 4.0L SOHC will pull tight up till 5200RPM. Not to mention that while GM's I-5 does make about 15-20 more ponies than the 4.0L SOHC, the bulkier design of the Colorado is sure to soak them up.

As far as the OHV 4.0, I think you will get him off the line pretty good but I don't know what it would be like in a quarter mile. Put a 3000 LB trailer on the back of both and then race him, you'll probably mop the track with him. After all, trucks are supposed to be able to haul and tow things.

I just bought a 4.0L 4X4 Ranger, and I pick it up tomorrow. I would consider the capable 4.3L S-10 to be better competition to it to the Soccer-mobile Colorado! Not only that, but for what the truck is capable of the prices are an absolute joke! Oh well, to each his own I guess.

 

when i first saw the colorado, i wanted one, until i saw the specs on the i5. i have no idea why they put that i5 in it. i have an s10 with the 4.3, which will eat one of those colorados alive.

 

Like I said, I've been in the Colorado. It was a 4x4 ext. cab. It was faster than my 93 4.0 OHV, even with my chip. I'm sure the SOHC 4.0 would whip it, especially in the 4x4 models. The Colorado/Canyon might be pretty quick in the lighter 2wd form due to it's higher HP. The specs on the I-5 really arent all that bad, it's just a little short in the Torque department compared to the SOHC 4.0, it peaks in torque with 225 at only 2800 RPM's, the same as my OHV 4.0, and gets it's peak HP of 220 at 5600.

 

I think the new Toyota Xrunner will be much better competition for the Ranger. The new xRunner toyota puts out 240 HP and has an optional SuperCharger which bumps the ponies up to about 300HP.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/futur...ner/index.html

 

Wow, That a great looking truck. With a 300 hp sc v6 and 0-60 times under 6 secs I WANT one. Come on ford lets see what you can do to up the stakes...
Dave

 

I dont know though, I think that cheby (much as I hate to say it) might be going in a good direction with the i5. I mean, you cannot deny that any inline motor is going to last longer (under normal conditions) than the normal V design. Although, top end, the v has it.

 

WHY ????? Please explain

 

Well, in an inline engine, such as that newfangled I-5 and the good old 300, gravity has less effect on rotating components because they are straight up and down so that the cylinders take more time (or mileage) to become worn or in the case of V type engines, out of roundness.

 

Well, they had to use counter-balances in the I-5 to keep it running smooth so I don't look for it to last longer. The I-6 and I-4 are good designs...but I'm not quite sure what GM engineers are thinking with the oddball cylinder count. GM seems to be worried that a lot of potential customers are thinking the same thing too from a press release I read.

 

Well I always thought that "out of round" cly wear came from the fact that the piston rocks back and forth at the wrist pin. Causing the piston to wear the piston skirts and the clyn wall. When you check a cly for out round it is always in linline with the wrist pin/crank and 90 deg oppsite the wrist pin/crank. My experence shows Inline motors show the same wear pattens. It Could be gravity i guess.
Dave

 

uh... I'm not too sure about the gravity thing, but I was more refering to the fact that the pistons aren't pushing against each other (which creates a loss of efficiency). This is why if they ever perfect it... these rotory motors can really hold some potential (certainly they have their problems too), but on a rotory motor, you have one mass rotating in one direction at all times which is by far more efficient (specially against a v or inline motor b/c the pistons go up... have to stop... then come back down... then stop... then go up... you get the picture. There is far too much stoping then going).

Hope this helps.