Why did the Exploder get the V8, and not us?
Thread Starter
|
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
The Exploder mighta been geared lower...woulda made a noticeable difference...otherwise your stick-equipped 4.0L SOHC shoulda left it in the dust.
Looking at your sig though...you have a 4.10 rear end Wendell...that's surely the lowest ratio available in the Explorer...so I can't imagine an auto with what, a 2.something first gear ratio, having better acceleraton than your five speed.
I do remember there being quite the discussion about the 4.0L SOHC manifold being able to be switched from the new Explorer to the Ranger...some people wanted to try it (musta been a year or two ago now), dunno if anyone ever followed through on it.
Looking at your sig though...you have a 4.10 rear end Wendell...that's surely the lowest ratio available in the Explorer...so I can't imagine an auto with what, a 2.something first gear ratio, having better acceleraton than your five speed.
I do remember there being quite the discussion about the 4.0L SOHC manifold being able to be switched from the new Explorer to the Ranger...some people wanted to try it (musta been a year or two ago now), dunno if anyone ever followed through on it.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
I didn't mean it would beat my ranger, I meant it pulled hard for it's weight. I feel a 4.0 ranger with an auto carring the same weight in the bed as what the explorer weighs wouldn't take it from a dead stop. My ranger boogy's, the explorer better pack his lunch if he pulls up beside me, cause he's got an all day job a head of him ha ha. Someone on another forum tried to swap on the explorer manny and had alot of fitmit issues, I don't know the details, but they said it wasn't worth effert. They said you could get the same torque increase with bama, with a lot less hassle.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Apples to Oranges
Maybe you guys are comparing apples to oranges.
The 06/07 V8 Explorer has 292hp/300ft of torque.
The 05 V8 Explorer has 239 hp/282 ft of torque.
And the V6 Ranger has 207hp/238 ft of torque.
So the ranger would compare much better to the 05 then the later ones. So which ones did you drive?
Dave
The 06/07 V8 Explorer has 292hp/300ft of torque.
The 05 V8 Explorer has 239 hp/282 ft of torque.
And the V6 Ranger has 207hp/238 ft of torque.
So the ranger would compare much better to the 05 then the later ones. So which ones did you drive?
Dave
Last edited by Dave257; Jan 29, 2007 at 10:32 PM.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
Were not comparing the 4.0 ranger to the v8 explorer, 4.0 to 4.0 in both vehicles. The explorer 4.0 has 210 hp and 256 pounds of torque comapred to the ranger 4.0 at 207/238. When I test drove an 06 explorer, I could feel all 256 pounds ha ha. I thought it ran very well with the 4.0 for it's weight, thats all I'm saying. I haven't driven a v8 explorer, but I did drive an 06 v8 sport trac 2wd and it would push back in the seat at 3/4 throttle. I believe the sport trac would be lighter, so I don't know if thats a fair comparison either. Has anyone driven an 06, or 7 v8 explorer ? As Dave has said, they upped the ponies in 06 by over 50 hp.
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 785
From: Simi Valley, CA
The day the Explorers first hit the showrooms, people started asking for a V8. Here was a 4 door vehicle that could tow and carry 5 people and all their gear in a smaller size than a crew cab truck, or a van. Having the 4x4 option was also a plus.
So, the simple reason why Rangers didn't get a V8, is because there was no large demand for it, and it couldn't do what the Explorers could.
So, the simple reason why Rangers didn't get a V8, is because there was no large demand for it, and it couldn't do what the Explorers could.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
NumberDummy, what brought you away for the general automotive forum I thought you were imprisoned there ha ha. Feels good to get out and walk around alittle huh ?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Ford Parts Specialist
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 88,826
Likes: 785
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by wendell borror
NumberDummy, what brought you away for the general automotive forum I thought you were imprisoned there ha ha. Feels good to get out and walk around a little huh ?
Remember...rust and I never sleep.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
From: Broken Arrow,Ok
Okay, so some people say we don't need a V-8 in a Ranger, That it is not practicle. If this is the case then why have the Lightning SVT? 500hp. fastest production truck. Is it needed, is it practicle? I don't think so. But I'll bet it's FUN!! Give me a V-8 supercharged Ranger fixed up like the Lightning SVT and watch me smile!!
FTE Chapter Leader
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 21,086
Likes: 245
From: Fresno, CA.
CAFE is not just for Ford. Dodge has to abide by those rules also, and they don't have any problems putting a 318 or 360 in their Dakotas. As for raising the price of the Ranger that of course would be true, however, Ford could at least have the V8 as an option so those of us who want one can just pony up the extra $$$ and get one. 
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Its true Dodge made some v8 small trucks, but you would have to look at all the trucks sold and what the average MPG was to see if they made the CAFÉ standard. CAFÉ standards are based on Average MPG for all the trucks sold in the MY. So for every one you sell with a big v8 you have to sell maybe 1.75 4 clys to keep the average up. It has been a long time open secret that the 4 cly Ranger parts hauler trucks that can be had for just above cost at about 10 grand on fleet buys are produced to up the average CAFÉ fuel ratings. Then they can sell the 25 grand 4wd rangers and 40-50 grand F series that fall below the standards for a big profit and still make the CAFÉ average.
Now not trying to start an argument, but if they could free up the intake/exhaust and get a mileage improvement they would do it. Instead they jump through hoops selling high MPG trucks cheap so they can sell the profit makers.
Dave
Now not trying to start an argument, but if they could free up the intake/exhaust and get a mileage improvement they would do it. Instead they jump through hoops selling high MPG trucks cheap so they can sell the profit makers.
Dave
FTE Chapter Leader
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 21,086
Likes: 245
From: Fresno, CA.
I am well aware of the CAFE standards, and how they work. My point is, that if Dodge can make small trucks with V8's in them, then Ford should be able to do it also. And I am sure they could if they wanted to. The desire is not there I guess. Or maybe they think the market is not big enough to invest in. In any case, it doesn' matter, the 302 Ranger engine swap is very popular and fills the niche without the concerns of CAFE.
Thread Starter
|
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
I notice I don't see many V8 Dakotas around here, that might be why, they must limit selling of them somehow to make the standards balance out.
Seems with all the fleet sales it'd be easy to weigh out anything in the way of lots of power. Plus, for trucks, the Ranger engines all get good gas mileage, so I don't see how a V8 could have thrown it off all that much (though that would probably have been a different story in the 90s).
Seems with all the fleet sales it'd be easy to weigh out anything in the way of lots of power. Plus, for trucks, the Ranger engines all get good gas mileage, so I don't see how a V8 could have thrown it off all that much (though that would probably have been a different story in the 90s).