Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
    Results 36 to 58 of 58

    Thread: Odd Resto-mod Build 1984 diesel Ford Ranger

    1. 01-14-2012 04:31 PM #36
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Due to gearing, they are actually reasonably quick up to like 30 mph.
      So in normal around town driving they are fine.
      But holy hell don't try and merge into 70 mph traffic from a slow start.
      There is this one idiotic entrance ramp near one of my office's that literally has a 90 degree bend turn right before the merge. In the wet I sometimes unintentionally drift my truck just trying to keep from having to drop down to 2nd gear.
      I hate ramps like that, and the 300 is definitely not fast, but still ...


    2. Member
      Join Date
      Nov 7th, 2007
      Location
      Cleveland
      Posts
      9,262
      Vehicles
      '14 GMC Sierra
      01-14-2012 05:07 PM #37
      Quote Originally Posted by InfraRedline View Post
      I hate ramps like that, and the 300 is definitely not fast, but still ...

      I honestly don't know if I could daily drive something that slow

    3. Member
      Join Date
      Apr 10th, 2003
      Location
      NS, Canada
      Posts
      856
      01-14-2012 06:00 PM #38
      That Ranger is a bit faster than my 1994 S10 diesel, which is heavier and has less HP than the Ford.
      Nice job on the truck. You should get awesome fuel mileage from it, and a lot of miles out of that engine.

      It certainly does take a different skill to drive something under-powered in traffic. You actually have to do some quick mental calculations before passing, or pulling out. Like, flooring it for 5-10 seconds before pulling out to pass, and hoping the person you're passing doesn't decide to be smart, and give it some gas, cause then you're screwed. Of course at that point, if they don't want dents and paint scraped down their car/truck, they usually slow down when you start pulling in anyway.

    4. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      Tennessee
      Posts
      64,052
      Vehicles
      88 F150, 04 RX8
      01-14-2012 06:19 PM #39
      Quote Originally Posted by InfraRedline View Post
      I hate ramps like that, and the 300 is definitely not fast, but still ...

      Automatic?
      4 speed manual?

      I am in 2nd gear before getting through the intersection (5 speed manual).
      |˙˙ʇǝuɹǝʇuı ǝɥʇ uo ʇxǝʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ɯopuɐɹ pɐǝɹ noʎ :ǝɯıʇ ǝǝɹɟ ɥɔnɯ ooʇ ʎɐʍ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ןןǝʇ oʇ ʍoɥ˙˙˙|http://hotlinktest.com/

    5. 01-14-2012 06:36 PM #40
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Automatic?
      4 speed manual?

      I am in 2nd gear before getting through the intersection (5 speed manual).
      I've only ever driven 5-speed manuals. Can't remember the axle ratio, but yes I generally start in 2nd.

      The video isn't mine, but here's from the info from the youtube link:
      1992 Ford F150, 4.9L inline 6, M5OD transmission, 2.73 rear end (why?) No major modifications. Surprised it took less then 20 seconds, standard cab, short bed weighted down to 4800 lbs with sandbags for winter.

      Fairly new to driving manual transmission, probably should have shifted a hell of a lot sooner.

      Truck is a eventual candidate for a Cummins 4BT swap if the 4.9L ever craps out
      Good luck waiting for that to happen.

    6. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      Tennessee
      Posts
      64,052
      Vehicles
      88 F150, 04 RX8
      01-14-2012 06:41 PM #41
      Quote Originally Posted by InfraRedline View Post
      I've only ever driven 5-speed manuals. Can't remember the axle ratio, but yes I generally start in 2nd.
      Start in 2nd gear? You have driven the four speed with the super low granny gear 1st.. or a 5 speed with a very low rear end.
      |˙˙ʇǝuɹǝʇuı ǝɥʇ uo ʇxǝʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ɯopuɐɹ pɐǝɹ noʎ :ǝɯıʇ ǝǝɹɟ ɥɔnɯ ooʇ ʎɐʍ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ןןǝʇ oʇ ʍoɥ˙˙˙|http://hotlinktest.com/

    7. 01-14-2012 06:54 PM #42
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Start in 2nd gear? You have driven the four speed with the super low granny gear 1st.. or a 5 speed with a very low rear end.
      I'm sure I've driven that 4-speed on the older ones long ago, but my mom's current truck is a 5-speed ~2000. The axle is low, but not some super-low aftermarket thing or anything. First does feel like a granny gear, but I dunno ... I don't drive a lot of trucks and this thing doesn't have a tach so I'm not sure where first tops out or anything. I do drive manuals and have a good sense of mechanical sympathy (especially for my mom's vehicles), so it's not like I'm slipping the clutch a bunch on 2nd gear launches. It's easy to do, and moves off just fine in traffic. Very nice truck - love that motor in a lightish regular cab manual.

    8. Member bustedbucket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 22nd, 2010
      Location
      Dat two one fifth
      Posts
      768
      Vehicles
      Jaggernaut & egg of robin
      01-14-2012 10:00 PM #43
      Am i the only one who likes the way that ranger looks in the before pic more than the after? Has a certain charm. Better looking wheels at least IMO.

      There's definately a certain knack needed to pilot super slow vehicles in today's hustle-bustle traffic. The slowest i've driven and owned was my old '83 rabbit 4dr n/a diesel AUTO. Made for some interesting times and a few pissed off fellow motorists!

      The ford 300? I like those. Nifty induction sound. Such a "trucky" engine for lack of a better term.
      '86 Jaguar xj-s 5.3HE coupe, cobalt blue metallic/blue
      '08 Hyundai Accent SE hatch, ice blue/gray
      Bisixually disposed, lucas charged and coventry clothed

    9. Member 03GTI4Me's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 24th, 2003
      Location
      NorCal
      Posts
      2,032
      Vehicles
      Jetta GLI; Acura RDX
      01-15-2012 01:46 AM #44
      Great website.

      I had an '86 Ranger XL as my first vehicle. It had the 2.3 4cyl, not the diesel, but overall almost identical. Brought back some memories.

    10. Member devianb's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 6th, 2008
      Posts
      2,054
      Vehicles
      1988 Trans Am
      01-15-2012 02:25 AM #45
      Quote Originally Posted by bustedbucket View Post
      Am i the only one who likes the way that ranger looks in the before pic more than the after? Has a certain charm. Better looking wheels at least IMO.
      I liked the way it was before too. That 0-60 is shockingly slow!!!

    11. Member Broduski's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 18th, 2008
      Location
      Central NC
      Posts
      4,530
      Vehicles
      My driveway looks like a shady used car lot
      01-15-2012 03:28 AM #46
      All you fancy-pants people with EFI and 5 speeds attached to their 300s.

      3 speeds and a carb. OG, yo.
      77 F100, 83 244, 94 540i

    12. Member two.twoliter's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 4th, 2004
      Posts
      1,621
      Vehicles
      '91 Volvo 740 Wagon, '86 Volvo 240DL sedan 4 speed + OD
      01-15-2012 05:06 AM #47
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Due to gearing, they are actually reasonably quick up to like 30 mph.
      So in normal around town driving they are fine.
      But holy hell don't try and merge into 70 mph traffic from a slow start.
      There is this one idiotic entrance ramp near one of my office's that literally has a 90 degree bend turn right before the merge. In the wet I sometimes unintentionally drift my truck just trying to keep from having to drop down to 2nd gear.
      Why be afraid to use 2nd gear? I used to daily drive an s10 with the 120 hp 2.8 v6 and a tall geared 5 speed, so I imagine the power to weight is similar to an f-150 with the 300. The key to getting anywhere in a hurry was not being afraid to keep the revs up a bit. I would regularly use 1st gear up to 30 mph and 2nd to 50 in regular driving, which was nowhere near redline.
      Previous: 87 325e, 90 Accord Coupe, 99 Neon ACR, 91 CRX Si, 93 S-10, 00 Protege ES

    13. Member MCTB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 29th, 2005
      Location
      Crosstours EVERYWHERE!!!
      Posts
      8,637
      Vehicles
      '12 Focus SE, '72 MGB GT, '58 MGA, '15 Outback Limited
      01-15-2012 05:31 AM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by Obin Robinson View Post
      LOL! That is a mobile chicane. The truck makes more noise than it does speed.

      obin
      Thats the way the Cruiser is. N/A 3B (90 hp/ 160 ft lb) and H55 5 speed makes for a slow beast. I think it accelerated about the same pace, maybe half a second faster. Still loved it. I made a sticker up on Cafepress for the rear glass for the cars behind me to see: "Slow Diesel- Tailgating wont get me to go any faster."



      I love that someone took the time to restore something no one else would think of doing. Its something that I think about all the time. I would love to build up an Isuzu Trooper into another camping truck. Theyre cheap to buy, tough and are the right size all around but if something mechanical goes wrong, youre instantly in for a replacement that is more than the truck itself. Makes me wonder, how much does vehicle worth/ resale value actually matter to an "enthusiast?"

    14. Member TrackMagicWS6's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 30th, 2010
      Location
      PA
      Posts
      356
      Vehicles
      04 R32, 97 WS6 M6, 04 Ranger Edge, 88 Fiero GT M5
      01-15-2012 03:16 PM #49
      Hope to drop a 4bt cummins in my ranger someday.

    15. Member
      Join Date
      Nov 7th, 2007
      Location
      Cleveland
      Posts
      9,262
      Vehicles
      '14 GMC Sierra
      01-15-2012 03:21 PM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by TrackMagicWS6 View Post
      Hope to drop a 4bt cummins in my ranger someday.
      Okay so I hear this all the time, and I'm stumped.

      Why is the 4BTAA such a popular swap? It's a horrible choice. It's loud, really clattery, and it vibrates the hell out of small chassis like the Ranger, S10, and Tacoma. It also doesn't get great MPG and it has a really narrow powerband.

      What's the appeal? Am I missing something?

    16. Member MCTB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 29th, 2005
      Location
      Crosstours EVERYWHERE!!!
      Posts
      8,637
      Vehicles
      '12 Focus SE, '72 MGB GT, '58 MGA, '15 Outback Limited
      01-15-2012 05:18 PM #51
      Quote Originally Posted by emmettlodge View Post
      Okay so I hear this all the time, and I'm stumped.

      Why is the 4BTAA such a popular swap? It's a horrible choice. It's loud, really clattery, and it vibrates the hell out of small chassis like the Ranger, S10, and Tacoma. It also doesn't get great MPG and it has a really narrow powerband.

      What's the appeal? Am I missing something?
      People look past all of that because they want a diesel and there arent many US market choices. The 4BTAA isnt even the motor that they are using. Theyre using the regular 4BT because its cheaper. The 4BTAA is marginally better than the 4BT but its still an NVH nightmare. I dont get it either. A lot of people put them into Cruisers because its a cheaper than Toyota diesel option. Those trucks inevitably end up on the classifieds section on Mud for sale. People spend a lot of money doing the swap and then cannot take the NVH that happens afterwards. The Isuzu 4BD1T is a better option and is gaining in popularity but isnt as popular as the 4BT.

    17. Member 8V Fury's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 26th, 2003
      Location
      roseville, california
      Posts
      5,419
      Vehicles
      2004 vw jetta wagon, 1990 vw jetta coupe, 1980 rabbit truck
      01-15-2012 05:24 PM #52
      Quote Originally Posted by Obin Robinson View Post
      LOL! That is a mobile chicane. The truck makes more noise than it does speed.

      obin
      For a second, I thought you were talking about the fart can hondas.
      Quote Originally Posted by Ron@RMAMotorsport View Post
      real deal<p>After spending two months in the mk3 forum it drove into the woods and set fire to itself.

    18. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 30th, 2006
      Posts
      1,725
      Vehicles
      1993 Volvo 940 Wagon
      01-15-2012 05:30 PM #53
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      People look past all of that because they want a diesel and there arent many US market choices.

      OM617 in a Jeep Comanche.

      I was actually thinking about diesel swaps for the Ranger the other day before this thread popped up and thought the OM617 would be a great candidate. I found a few build threads for Rangers with OM617 turbo swaps.
      Quote Originally Posted by Mach700 View Post
      In the absence of Wars, people become lazy and sex slaves (not everybody).

    19. Member adrew's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 14th, 2003
      Location
      Texas
      Posts
      12,423
      Vehicles
      '12 Yaris, '14 Mirage, 2.7 liters total
      01-15-2012 05:36 PM #54
      Quote Originally Posted by The Igneous Faction View Post

      I was actually thinking about diesel swaps for the Ranger the other day before this thread popped up and thought the OM617 would be a great candidate. I found a few build threads for Rangers with OM617 turbo swaps.
      Has anyone put a 2.8 PowerStroke in one yet? That's what they come with south of the border.

      There's also the 4.5 V6 PowerStroke that came in the Ford LCF, but I don't know if it's too big/heavy.
      Improving the signal-to-noise ratio

    20. Member MCTB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 29th, 2005
      Location
      Crosstours EVERYWHERE!!!
      Posts
      8,637
      Vehicles
      '12 Focus SE, '72 MGB GT, '58 MGA, '15 Outback Limited
      01-15-2012 05:57 PM #55
      Quote Originally Posted by The Igneous Faction View Post

      OM617 in a Jeep Comanche.

      I was actually thinking about diesel swaps for the Ranger the other day before this thread popped up and thought the OM617 would be a great candidate. I found a few build threads for Rangers with OM617 turbo swaps.
      Right, the OM617 is gutless, especially in a heavy SUV or truck. If you just wanted MPG, great choice, especially now that there are adapters for GM and Jeep transmission options. Short wheelbase is probably okay but you would have to gear the hell out of it in order to make it livable in a big truck or SUV.

      Quote Originally Posted by adrew View Post
      Has anyone put a 2.8 PowerStroke in one yet? That's what they come with south of the border.
      The 2.8 powerstroke is a heavily updated Rover 300tdi. Its really great on power but costs a huge chunk of change and parts arent that available in the States.

    21. Member two.twoliter's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 4th, 2004
      Posts
      1,621
      Vehicles
      '91 Volvo 740 Wagon, '86 Volvo 240DL sedan 4 speed + OD
      01-15-2012 07:00 PM #56
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      Right, the OM617 is gutless, especially in a heavy SUV or truck. If you just wanted MPG, great choice, especially now that there are adapters for GM and Jeep transmission options. Short wheelbase is probably okay but you would have to gear the hell out of it in order to make it livable in a big truck or SUV.
      In a 4wd or full size truck it would be gutless, but in a 2wd ranger or s-10 it would be almost quick. Keep in mind my '93 s-10 longbed weighed under 2800 lbs with the v6. That's 700-800 lbs less than a 300d sedan.
      Previous: 87 325e, 90 Accord Coupe, 99 Neon ACR, 91 CRX Si, 93 S-10, 00 Protege ES

    22. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      Tennessee
      Posts
      64,052
      Vehicles
      88 F150, 04 RX8
      01-15-2012 08:11 PM #57
      Quote Originally Posted by two.twoliter View Post
      Why be afraid to use 2nd gear? I used to daily drive an s10 with the 120 hp 2.8 v6 and a tall geared 5 speed, so I imagine the power to weight is similar to an f-150 with the 300. The key to getting anywhere in a hurry was not being afraid to keep the revs up a bit. I would regularly use 1st gear up to 30 mph and 2nd to 50 in regular driving, which was nowhere near redline.
      Note the 4.9 liter inline 6 is wound out at just 3500 rpm.
      The power band is from 1500 to 3500 rpm.
      Like I said before- it drives like a diesel.
      And in my situation- dropped to 2nd gear means I was going maybe 25mph (2nd is wound out at 40mph), which means the rpm dropped too low for it to pull out in 3rd.
      And the 4.9 6 really pulls well from mid range rpm (like a diesel).
      |˙˙ʇǝuɹǝʇuı ǝɥʇ uo ʇxǝʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ɯopuɐɹ pɐǝɹ noʎ :ǝɯıʇ ǝǝɹɟ ɥɔnɯ ooʇ ʎɐʍ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ןןǝʇ oʇ ʍoɥ˙˙˙|http://hotlinktest.com/

    23. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 30th, 2006
      Posts
      1,725
      Vehicles
      1993 Volvo 940 Wagon
      01-15-2012 08:14 PM #58
      Quote Originally Posted by morecarsthanbrains View Post
      Right, the OM617 is gutless, especially in a heavy SUV or truck. If you just wanted MPG, great choice, especially now that there are adapters for GM and Jeep transmission options. Short wheelbase is probably okay but you would have to gear the hell out of it in order to make it livable in a big truck or SUV.
      Perhaps it's irrelevant, but the OM617 is a power/torque upgrade when compared to the 2.5l AMC, 2.3l Ford, GM's 2.5l, and even the small-displacement V6 options from all three, which is what came in the majority of the trucks being discussed.

      Now, compared to modern engines? Sure, it's a dog. But compared to what came stock it's really not so bad.
      Quote Originally Posted by Mach700 View Post
      In the absence of Wars, people become lazy and sex slaves (not everybody).

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •