When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Don't forget about the speedo if you're gonna go with bigger tires. Also... I had 31" tires on my old Bronco 2, and what a difference in gas mileage that made. It was seriously a gas guzzler. Really had to plan ahead for hills. Gears would have probably helped, but it was just a temporary beater before I got my Ranger.
Joe brings up an excellent point. With the 3.0L's already lackluster power, depending on gearing (what do you have in the rear end, and tranny?), you may find it an unhappy combination in the end.
I had 245's on my 01 2-wheel drive, 2" of lift in the front and you can run 31's, they recomend 3" of lift, but I know guy's that run 31's with 2" spring spacers. Its' pretty cheap to lift a 4x2 ranger.
I have to ask why you'd suggest this...235's are an available stock size...hardly bigger than my 225's that are less than 27".
For fuel mileage and economical savings with the best performance for your truck. Anything bigger will cut fuel mileage, jump up the costs, and require adjustments for accurate speed/odometer readings.
Last edited by sfcwoodret; Jul 17, 2007 at 09:23 PM.
The 3.73 is sort of a high (numerically low) ratio to be running 31"s...you will notice a definite loss of torque around town and have to rev it more to move it. Remember that larger tires way more and effectively lower your final drive ratio.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.