| From | Message |
Mark P.
Dodge Dakota
9/15/2001
13:58:15
|
 Subject: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Let me start by saying that i have a '01 4.7, 5-spd, reg. cab. Even with limited mods (Airaid Intake, Flowmaster 40 Exhaust) I have been able to beat all of the cars and trucks that have lined up beside me...that is until the other day!
As i was coming out of a gas station, some kid in a yellow Ranger pulled up. He thought he was bad with his 'bumble bee sounding exhaust'. But I talked to him and asked to see his engine...it looked like a non-modified 4.0 v-6...it even had what looked to be a factory intake. He asked me if i wanted to line them up (my truck and his).
I readily agreed and thought he was just stupid.
To make a long story short, we started on the roll at about 20mph, at which point i gave him the signal and i mashed it. At 80mph he was about 1/2 car length ahead of me and slowly pulling. I couldn't believe it...I ran through the gears very smoothly and everything! CAN ANYONE HELP ME UNDERSTAND?
|
CW
Dodge Dakota
9/15/2001
14:25:36
|  RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
NOS, thats all you need to know. You did nothing wrong he was on the bottle thats all. I know of no 4.0 ford that could touch a 4.7 Dak, even with a bad driver in the dakota.
|
Jacob
Dodge Dakota
9/15/2001
14:36:07
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah mark he had the bottle. but they are pretty quick stock. I have seen one do low 16s in the 1/4 mile. but you should beat him otherwise, meaing no NOS
|
Mark P.
Dodge Dakota
9/15/2001
14:47:33
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
I apperciate you guy's responce...i thought it may have been because of his 'canary yellow' paint job...LOL
|
Bob
GenI
9/15/2001
22:20:07
|  RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Mark I owned a 97 reg. cab 5spd stick 4.0 140hp Ranger with a 355 gear and no air or power stuff.The truck weighted about 3,500lbs. it ran good and I could smoke 4.3 s10's and 4.0 Cherokee's.But there is know way in h*ll that a stock 4.0 Ranger is going to beat a 4.7 Dakota {period}.I am a die hard Ford man,and I tested a 2001 Ranger with a 200hp 4.0 with 4x4 {you can't get that engine in a 2x4}and I was not impressed at all.
|
cbsdakota
GenIII
9/16/2001
04:52:48
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Hell, even I can whip a 4.0. My buddy had a stock 87 V6 5 speed and he stayed right beside one all the way. :) He must have been on the bottle.
Project QUIKV6
|
Jdak
Dodge Dakota
9/16/2001
22:13:34
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Ihad a 94 -cab 4.0 with custom intake and flowmaster and I have so it was good until 60 where those things have one hell of a time going ay faster. I got my 98 dak withthe 3.9 x-cab 12 day ago and with the rangers mods it would keep up until about 55 but when I put the intake and everything on the Dak their is no chance
|
CyberWolf
Dodge Dakota
9/17/2001
09:13:50
|  RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a '94 Splash Regular Cab 4.0 3.55 LS 5 speed. It was ordered as the fastest combo you could get in a Ranger. It was very quick and honestly more fun to drive than my dak. Sometimes I wonder about how much faster my dak really is. To me it seems maybe even slower than my old Ranger. I'm thinking that maybe its just because it was a lot smaller. I would be worried if I pulled up next to my old Ranger.
2001 CC Sport 5 speed 3.92LS w/ some mods
|
Josh
Dodge Dakota
9/17/2001
14:38:53
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
That ranger was seriously pimped out.
I had a '98 reg cab, 4x2, 4.0L (160hp), 5 speed with limited slip. With drag radials, exhaust, throttle body, mass air sensor and intake pipe, she still only ran 16.11
|
CyberWolf
Dodge Dakota
9/17/2001
17:37:57
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
I havent got a clue what my old Ranger ran in the 1/4. Like I said, maybe it only felt fast because it was so small compared to my dak. I would have figured that it would have ran high 15's at least.
|
toxic13
Dodge Dakota
9/19/2001
13:40:11
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
just wondering. if he was on the bottle, then wouldn't you have noticed that when you looked at his engine? it's pretty easy to notice.
|
Mark P.
Dodge Dakota
9/19/2001
19:55:22
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
I only glanced at his engine...It was after dark and I didn't strain my eyes to see everything. He had a sticker on his window that said "K&N Filter-charged" so I looked at his intake and found it to be factory (though he may have had a factory fit K&N filter). There definitely was no supercharger or any other blatently obvious billeted parts.
|
toxic13
Dodge Dakota
9/20/2001
09:31:40
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah, i also forgot about the somewhat disguiseable direct port nos...although, i don't know why anyone would do that to a ranger
|
bobby
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/16/2002
01:59:29
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
In the reviews of the 94 ford ranger splash it was compared to the 4.7 dodge as far as the amount of power. I have a 94 splash with intake exhaust, chip, and i switched over to electric fans and got rid of my fan and fan clutch and i have no problem spanking dakodas.
|
bobby
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/16/2002
02:01:06
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
sorry, I mean dakota
|
yates-in-DE
GenIII
8/16/2002
02:27:44
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Bobby,
Exactly when where these comparisons made the '94 Ranger with the 4.7L Dakota. I've not recently read any retro comparisons. That would be flogging a dead horse. In '94 the 4.7L wasn't even a Rumor, much less in production. And trying to compare Apples and Persimmons just doesn't make any since. Ford 4.0L vs. Dodge 4.7L.
Hey Mark P,
When you are getting ready to line up with someone, keep your Eye's on them at all times, an Idaho Spud half clogging the exhaust would have given the Ranger the needed advantage. :{D
Later,
My VW Killer
Lynn
|
SuperBee
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/16/2002
20:17:21
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
cyberwolf, its been a while since ive seen that name around
used to be quite popular in the quake 2 days when i played
|
blueballs
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/18/2002
00:01:10
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
there rated at like 212hp with ok torque. Ford is not shy of using gears and light weight.
|
Rockn blk dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/18/2002
01:34:05
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
let me see a r/c 5 speed 4.7 3.92 dak can run 14.7 stock or faster and a stock ranger with a 4.0 and any drivetrain they offer stock will not even hit 15's so whats the debate ford sucks and dodge is better next post.
|
YAAAABUDDY03
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/24/2002
02:30:42
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
alright,.. i have a 1998 Dakota RC I4 5-speed. My friend has 2001 ford ranger EXCAB 4.0 v6 with automatic... I beat him hands down, and he said he punched it... I think he's lying tho... but hey if he's not.. a 4 cylinder dakota with k&N air filter can beat a 4.0 v6 ranger... well i dunno maybe it's just my MAD SKILLS with the 5-speed. hahah
"The 5-speed Man"
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/24/2002
03:55:53
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
ok that is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. i dont even think it is possible to buy a new car slower then an I4 dak. a 4.0 ranger would most likely take out most V6 daks.
i have a hard time keeping up with my non-friends's I4 ranger in my V6 4x4 cc auto
|
JMII
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/24/2002
16:57:23
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 96 4.0lV6 Ranger Extra Cab Splash Edition... serious POS, 70MPH is all it could manage, I had to drive that thing with my foot to the floor all the time. And towing my boat... well let's not even go there - it was a joke. As for handling, I have two words for ya: "I Beam" that think rocked like sail boat in a hurricane. There is no doubt that my 02 4.7 Dak QC runs circles around that Ford. I've done 90MPH with my boat in tow (highway merge vs a semi) and still had more room to push my right foot down.
- John
|
LI Blackdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/24/2002
18:26:01
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah my truck accelerates pretty slow but it has no problem mantaining 98. 100 plus is harder cause od needs to be off
|
ford guy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/30/2002
21:48:43
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
My buddy has a 98 with the magnum v-6 and I just recently got a 96 rangers splash with the 4.0. When I found out that the 4.0 is rated at only 147 horse, I couldn't believe it. He told me that his dodge could kill my ford. I said okay, he took my truck out with me in the passenger, and he couldn't believe how quick it was. I took his dodge out, and I gave it props, but I recommend him not going up against my ford.
|
ford guy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/30/2002
21:54:11
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
p.s all dodges suck
|
LI BlackdkRSX
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/30/2002
22:29:19
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
no shlt i lost to a 2.5 ranger. dodge doesn't seem to understand engines need to produce horsepower as well as torque. they also don't know what power to weight ratio means. that is why i also lost to a 92 accord auto(beat him till about 65 or 75 then he shot by me)
|
Daker777
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/30/2002
22:32:12
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, the new ranger edge has a little extra power in it. If he had a freeflowing exhaust and maybe a few unseen mods, he could easily take you if you were not driving incredibly well. I doubt he had nitrous on it though. The new rangers run in the mid 16's. If you were not driving the truck perfectly or he even got the jump a little, your gone. Nitrous on that thing, even a little squeeze and you woulda got burnt really bad. Seems to close for him to be spraying. But obviously the 4.7 is heads up faster. Ask him to start from a stop and see what is up. I used to have a 99 ranger 4.0 and with all the little bolt ons and 4.10 gears it would zip along. I even ran a guy in a newer ranger with my r/t and I was very surprised I didnt completely anihilate him. But heads up not even a race. The flowmaster and airaid are actually making you SLOWER. Get a k&n, and ditch the flowmaster. In my opinion way better bang for your buck.
|
xplikt
GenIII
10/30/2002
22:49:58
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
At my work the most common complaint in a released document sometime ago among the field guys was the Rangers. There were desperate pleas to not make them get back in them. It was one of the funniest things I've ever read in a memo. The same goes for the local NAPA here, they all fight for the Dakota and Tacoma. Maybe they should get Edges. ;)
-Mike
http://www.dodgetruckworld.com/xplikt/
2002 2WD RC SLT 4.7L 5spd 3.92 LSD
MBRP Single in/out, straight piped 3rd cat, turndown tip
Hotchkis swaybars and springs
Bilstein custom tuned shocks
Roadmaster Active Suspension
Shaved emblems and antennae
|
afi360
R/T
10/30/2002
22:56:05
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
""let me see a r/c 5 speed 4.7 3.92 dak can run 14.7 stock or faster""
ummmm.....i DONT think thats true....if im wrong, anyone who knows anything feel free to correct me.
|
xplikt
GenIII
10/31/2002
00:08:49
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
afi360, I wish.
-Mike
http://www.dodgetruckworld.com/xplikt/
2002 2WD RC SLT 4.7L 5spd 3.92 LSD
MBRP Single in/out, straight piped 3rd cat, turndown tip
Hotchkis swaybars and springs
Bilstein custom tuned shocks
Roadmaster Active Suspension
Shaved emblems and antennae
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/31/2002
09:10:44
| RE: 4.7 vs. Ranger 4.0
IP: Logged
Message:
matt barret ran a 14.78 on slicks with nothing but a K&N filter and a Flowmaster exhaust. maybe that's not stock to some people, but that's not much beyond stock if you ask me.
RC 4.7L 5-spd w/ 3.92 rear end is all it takes. Oh yeah, you have to know how to drive it, too.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
