I've never been interested in speed in a ranger, I like lowend grunt, and power. Offroad is where I get most of my kicks, a 100 mph ranger has never been my objective, I would just keep building on my focus if that was my main concern. I traded my 06 zx3 focus for an 06 st focus, I pick it up today. It's pretty fast out of the box. Anyhow, the fact is any engine can achieve higher hp with internal, and external modifications. This, it can't be done mentality gets to be so lame when it's done every day. I just wish Bob would spend some time on other forums that deal with these issues on a regular basis, there are people out there with built 3.0's, who say there close to 200 hp, and I have no reason to call them a liar. I don't have a 3.0, but If I did, I bet ya I would be one of those who would get close to 200 hp , because I wouldn't quit until I did. Now that there is a 4.5 stroker kit for the 4.0, and sage 2 heads, I am sure I won't be going backwards to a 3.0 to find out.

 

Wendell, I'm not going to waste my time on a site like RPS, listening to a bunch of children's BS!!!!!

 

You make a very good point. I have seen several posts from those wanting to go beyond the programmed speed in a stock truck....... an accident looking for a place to happen.

 

There not all children Bob, and most of them know there stuff. You will believe whipples dyno sheet, but you won't believe k&n's dyno sheet, thats alittle pick, and chose isn't it? Your point doesn't even make sense, because a sc only makes 197 hp, that means you can't build the same motor to make around 200. Focus sport makes a turbo for the 2.3 duratec that makes around 220 wheel hp on a stock motor, cosworth makes a stage 1 , 2, and 3 kits that make around 240 wheel hp without forced induction, and they claim it's still very streetable. Golden sells a jeep 4.0 stroker motor that makes 265 hp, while avenger sells a sc for the jeep 4.0 that makes, I think it was a round 250 hp. Forced induction isn't the only way to make power. Your not the only one that knows something around here, and I resent the fact that you say I misslead people, I have a modded engine, you don't, but yet you know it all, even more so than the ones that have them. I don't knock your camras, and lense's, or gps toys, cause there your hobbies, and you enjoy them. So why can't you let those enjoy performance enjoy our hobby? And don't give that crap, it's because it doesn't work, it does work, and there's many people with cars , and trucks to prove it. Once again I'm done with this subject where your concerned, I'll let you do all the misleading, telling people that that performance parts don't work blah balh blah.

 

Waves, how fast did you get your ranger up to? My chip governs my truck to 125mph but i can only get 110.5mph even on 93octane power setting. Truck just lacks areo dynamics to be going at high speeds.

On a side note, i enjoy RPS forums and this place. Alot of good reading and people on both

 

Right at 110mph

 

You would be VERY hard pressed to get more than 1 hp per cubic inch from a naturally aspirated, ohv, 2 valve per cylinder engine, unless you spin it at insane rpm's and then it wouldn't be streetable. That is fact based on physics, not just my opinion.

 

haha wow. That's pretty neat.

 

Well like I said before, it was more of just a one time deal just out of curiosity, like Wendell I did what I did for power on the low end, and for more torque while towing my boat, I wasn't going for big top end, I just haven't ever had a Ranger without a speed limitor and I was curious....I think I was running in the low to mid 4,000's RPM wise in OD.....it was a trip man I 've never seen those kinds of rpm's in OD before and I've had 5 rangers...it's also the lightest any of them have ever felt on the road...don't think I will be doin' that again...lol

 

Wendell, doing the conversion for you, that's about 182HP (flywheel).

 

The simplest and fastest way to enjoy more HP will be to jettison the 3.0 and replace with a 4.0. For now, one quick and dirty would be to consider a different rear axle ratio, such as 4.10's. Do realize that horsepower in a system is constant, torque is not. As you ponder the 5.0 idea, be aware that some locations require that the engine be one that was intended for the vehicle, others don't care what it is so long as it passes emissions, then other could care less about anything (maybe for now though).

*This thread is so good I blew 7-up through my nose .

 

You guys are cracking me up too...

I've got a 3.0 and I agree with the consensus opinion - want more power, ditch it for a 4.0 sohc.

 

go with a chip and a 2 or 4 chamber flowmaster with crossover with dual exhaust. also if you were interested in a 302 try the ford racing performance catalog they have a really good price on 302 shortblock unmolested, same block, crank, and cam from their early explorer run. done 2 for a 89 and 93 mustang the 93 is pumpin about 305 horses

 

There's alot of 302's making well over 300 hp, and thats more than 1 hp per cubic inch. There's alot of 460's making over 500 hp, 390's making over 400 hp, the list goes on. I don't see why you couldn't take an engine that makes a 150hp, and get another 50 hp out of it. The guys over at rps say it can be done, and they play with that stuff all of the time. I don't have a 3.0, but seeing's how the 3.0 is old school tech, why wouldn't the old tricks work, like flowing the heads, a cam, raise compression, and so on. It doesn't seem like getting 50 more ponies is so undoable, unless the motor is totally useless. I am only repeated what they were saying over on the other site, if I have mislead anybody, I'm sorry, but if you can't squeeze 50 more ponies out of a stock engine, it must be very badly designed, or something. You can get close to 90 hp more out of a duratec I-4 without forced induction, and cosworth says it's very streetable, and they know thier 4 bangers. so I'm totally lost if it can't be done with the 3.0, just to get an extra 50. I'm sorry for being stupid I guess.

 

200 + shouldn't be a problem for the 3.0 with good package. 2hp per ci isn't that much of a problem these days.

The Whipple example was for that particular engine combination, but was not limited to that combination.

And Wendell, you arent' stupid. One becomes stupid when he/she thinks they know it all and can no longer learn.

Don't worry about 'ole Ayers. He's had a love affair for years now with spark plugs. Beginnin' to worry about that boy. jim d