# Making truck faster **URL:** \ **Category:** Maintenance/Repairs\ **Tags:** ford, ranger\ **Created:** [May 23, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921 "2018-05-23T17:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![George\_San\_Jose1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e5b9ba/32.png) [@George\_San\_Jose1](https://community.cartalk.com/u/George_San_Jose1)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/21 "2018-05-24T01:46:03Z")
Suggest to use your money to buy a bigger replacement engine that’s compatible w/your truck, or just buy another truck with a bigger engine, rather than trying to get more power out of this truck using tack-on parts. It’s not going to be an effective use of your resources otherwise. Unless you want to learn how to install a turbo unit of course, then by all means, do your research on the topics posted above to make sure it is legal and will work, and go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Richie\_toast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@Richie\_toast](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Richie_toast)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/22 "2018-05-24T01:53:59Z")
I use this truck for work mostly and I tend to carry things that weight 250-300lbs and I live in West Texas . There tends to be a good amount of hills and I drive long distance hence the v4 mileage wise but it doesn’t have enough power in 5th gear to keep pushing at 5th to maintain or accelerate up the hills which aren’t necessarily steep but high enough for me to slowly lose speed even with my foot on the gas . Yes I could downshift but 75mph in 4th is not really something I want to continue to do every time I come across a hill ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:55am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/23 "2018-05-24T01:55:18Z")
I think you’d find the 4.0 OHC V6 would make a HUGE difference. ---
**Author:** ![VOLVO-V70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/8e8cbc/32.png) [@VOLVO-V70](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VOLVO-V70)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/24 "2018-05-24T02:00:57Z")
[quote=“Richie\_toast, post:22, topic:117921”] Yes I could downshift but 75mph in 4th is not really something I want to continue to do every time I come across a hill There is no valid reason to drive this loaded vehicle up a hill at 75 when 60 or 65 might only make you arrive 3 minutes later. [quote=“Richie\_toast, post:22, topic:117921”] I drive long distance hence the v4 mileage wise You are really going find it hard to purchase speed parts for this v4 Ranger . ---
**Author:** ![db4690](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/db4690/32/2583_2.png) [@db4690](https://community.cartalk.com/u/db4690)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 3:25am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/25 "2018-05-24T03:25:52Z")
> [@Purebred](#): > > Do NOT get a pushrod 4.0. What do you have against that engine . . . ? We’ve had many of those engines in our fleet’s Rangers and Explorers They didn’t present too many problems for us ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 8:58am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/26 "2018-05-24T08:58:22Z")
The pushrod 4.0 only has, I think, 20 HP more than the 3.0. The SOHC 4.0 has a lot more power. That is why for the OPs desire for power I said that. I did have the pushrod 3.0 in a Ranger, for me it was adequate, but then I got a 4X4 Explorer with the SOHC 4.0. A world of difference. I was only speaking from a power point of view, nothing against the quality of the pushrod engines. Not sure if same family of engines but also had the 3.8 pushrod in a couple of T.Birds. Fine engines too. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:13pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/27 "2018-05-24T12:13:32Z")
> [@Richie\_toast](#): > > I drive long distance hence the v4 mileage wise It has a V-4? Whatever you do, do NOT get rid of that engine, because you have the **only** Ford Ranger ever made with a V-4, and that makes it extremely valuable. I wonder how much extra the original owner paid for Ford to install a V-4 in his truck, instead of the I-4 that was standard equipment. 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![FoDaddy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/fodaddy/32/717_2.png) [@FoDaddy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/FoDaddy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:13pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/28 "2018-05-24T12:13:48Z")
To quote Mr. Regular; “On a long enough timeline everything gets an LS” ---
**Author:** ![FoDaddy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/fodaddy/32/717_2.png) [@FoDaddy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/FoDaddy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:19pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/29 "2018-05-24T12:19:11Z")
> [@Purebred](#): > > Not sure if same family of engines but also had the 3.8 pushrod in a couple of T.Birds. Fine engines too. The 3.0L OHV = Vulcan, iron block iron heads. The 3.8L = Essex, iron block aluminum heads. The 3.8L’s claim to fame is it’s ability to blow head gaskets with near clockwork regularity. The later split port versions 96-up on FWD applications and the stroked 4.2L variant, , 99+ up on RWD applications (just the Mustang at that point), we less likely have head gasket problems, but the single port versions were not exactly trouble-free at least not compared to the 3.0L. ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/30 "2018-05-24T12:47:13Z")
Just going by my experience. The '84 T-Bird, CA car must have been built on the right day-got 35 MPG. It was totaled when t-boned. Replaced it with a nearly identical '86, never more than 26 MPG, when traded in had over 125,000 miles with no problems. ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:51pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/31 "2018-05-24T12:51:24Z")
Ther fly in the ointment is that the OP appears to have little mechanical acumen. When it comes to modifications, engine swaps, and so on there is ALWAYS once hiccup after the other while doing the job. Once the job is near done and running there will quite likely be problems sorting out that particular set of hiccups. If you have to pay someone to do this kind of work it will get godawful expensive. Ford had a V-4 many years ago but it was installed in some SAAB 96s and Sonnetts. It was also an industrial engine with little power. ---
**Author:** ![FoDaddy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/fodaddy/32/717_2.png) [@FoDaddy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/FoDaddy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 12:59pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/32 "2018-05-24T12:59:37Z")
My family’s experience with the Essex 3.8L 1995 Ford Windstar (company car) : Head gasket failure around the 60k mile mark 1995.5 Ford Windstar (family car) : Head gasket failure around the 65k mile market, and again at the 120k mile mark 1996: Ford Windstar (company car) : Head gasket failure around the the 80k mile mark 1992 Ford T-Bird SC (my car) : Made it 170k without a head gasket failure. The SC model had low compression heads due to the supercharger. 1998 Ford Windstar (company car) : didn’t have a head gasket failure 2001 Ford Windstar (company car) : didn’t have a head gasket failure 2004 Ford Freestar (company car) : didn’t have a head gasket failure It should also be noted that the 1995, 1995.5, 1996, 1998, and 2001 all had transmission failures before 90k miles as well. Additionally my aunt and uncle had a 1995 Taurus Wagon with the 3.8L and a 1998/99 Windstar with the 3.8L The Taurus suffered a blown head gasket, and the the Windstar _two_ blown head gaskets, there were also 4 transmission failures between the two vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:01pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/33 "2018-05-24T13:01:54Z")
> [@ok4450](#): > > Ford had a V-4 many years ago but it was installed in some SAAB 96s and Sonnetts. Yup! Back in the '60s, Ford of Germany developed that engine for the Ford Cardinal–which was not actually produced. So, the engine wound-up in the Ford Taunus (that is correct–TAUNUS, not Taurus!). As was stated, SAAB eagerly adopted the engine to replace their 2-cycle engines, and it made for a much-improved car. That engine was also used in small Ford Transit vans. Later, that same Ford V-4 proved to be a God-send for owners of NSU RO-80 vehicles. The RO-80 was the first production car with a Wankel rotary engine, and the failure rate of those early engines was incredibly high. NSU did provide replacement engines under warranty, but after NSU went belly-up, many RO-80 owners found that the Ford V-4 was an easy bolt-in modification, and by using that sturdy engine, they no longer had to replace the Wankel engine on their own dime every couple of years. ---
**Author:** ![Rod-Knox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Rod-Knox](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Rod-Knox)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:11pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/34 "2018-05-24T13:11:10Z")
Does the truck have over sized wheels and/or tires on it? If so overdrive is likely useless. I installed 235x15 tires on an S-10 to replace the 215x15s that were the OE size tires and lost a great deal of performance and fuel mileage dropped also. ---
**Author:** ![B.L.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@B.L.E](https://community.cartalk.com/u/B.L.E)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 3:25pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/35 "2018-05-24T15:25:40Z")
I replaced the 185X15 tires with 195X15 tires on my Toyota Yaris, mostly because Discount Tires had them in stock. My gas mileage is about the same but now I have to use the GPS as an odometer to figure my gas mileage. When my car’s trip odometer reads 400 miles, my GPS will usually indicate around 430 miles or so. The first time I drove it with the new tires, I immediately noticed that the GPS mph display didn’t perfectly agree with my speedometer display. If you don’t correct the odometer reading after putting on slightly larger tires, the larger tires will ALWAYS result in lower gas mileage according to your odometer. ---
**Author:** ![anon86613489](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@anon86613489](https://community.cartalk.com/u/anon86613489)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 4:45pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/36 "2018-05-24T16:45:31Z")
That engine was used over many years and was a sweet little one too, it was long lasting and reliable and very smooth duo to the balance shaft. > **[Ford Taunus V4 engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taunus_V4_engine)** > > The Ford Taunus V4 engine was a 60° V4 piston engine with one balance shaft, introduced by Ford Motor Company in Germany in 1962. The German V4 was built in the Cologne plant and powered the Ford Taunus and German versions of the Consul, Capri, and Transit. > In common with other V4 and V6 engines, but unlike longer V engines with more cylinders, the connecting rods do not share a crankpin on the crankshaft. > The V4 was later expanded into the Ford Cologne V6 engine that was used in the Ford Capri... There is a few fun facts at the bottom. Hmmm, now i’m thinking. I know a guy who has put one of those engines in his Morris minor. If I could make him do a transmission kit and find one of those 200 hp engines - man, that could generate a lot of fun. I’ve seen his car, it fits perfectly in the engine bay. Oh - well, lots of ideas, not enough mo… eeh time, I mean TIME. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/37 "2018-05-24T17:59:36Z")
I never knew the Taunus V4 had a balance shaft - neat! That might be the first use of one. ---
**Author:** ![anon86613489](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@anon86613489](https://community.cartalk.com/u/anon86613489)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/38 "2018-05-24T18:06:17Z")
And they had it all the way back to -62, and it worked very well. At idle, it was close that you could stand a dime vertical on it on the air filter housing and it could run smooth at idle down to around 400 rpm when warm and a good adjusted carburator. Edit Surprice-surprice. Also for me. The balance shaft was invented in 1904. > **[Balance shaft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_shaft)** > > In piston engine engineering, a balance shaft is an eccentric weighted shaft that offsets vibrations in engine designs that are not inherently balanced. The balance shaft was invented and patented by British engineer Frederick W. Lanchester in 1904. > Balance shafts are most commonly utilized in inline four-cylinder engines, which due to their design asymmetry, have an inherent second order vibration (vibrating at twice the engine RPM) that cannot be eliminated no matter how well the internal comp... ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/39 "2018-05-24T18:31:56Z")
Of all the engines listed, I didn’t see anything older than the Ford. So the idea’s been around since 1904, and probably used elsewhere. But I don’t know of an earlier car with one. ---
**Author:** ![anon86613489](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@anon86613489](https://community.cartalk.com/u/anon86613489)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921/40 "2018-05-24T19:14:08Z")
You are probably right. Actually, the earliest other engine I remember was the late -70 Mitsubishi Galant 1,6/2,0 model with a balance shaft and that was an i4. Well, that was a smooth engine too, but it did not last very long. [Previous page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921.md?page=1) [Next page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/making-truck-faster/117921.md?page=3)