 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / December 20062001 Ranger engine swap from V6 to V8...hybrids and Yugos pass me on Interstate at 92 mph
This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended cab....ridiculous for a 4.0 L SOHC angine with a 5 spd OD automatic transmission. It smokes the Michelins off the line, and I get 55 in 1st gear, 92 in 2nd, and then it shifts to 3rd, 4th, 5th and OD, staying at 92 mph, and nobody makes a chipset that removes the speed limiter for my year engine, grrr! It redlines at 5600 rpm, so it might possibly turn 125-130 mph IF they didn't have that stinking chipset programmed so low. I am embarrassed when a Yugo or a Metro passes me at 90. I am ready to snatch out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? Call these guys, maybe they can help you... They did a custom one for my F-450... BD Diesel Performance... Toll Free. 1.800.887.5030 Tel. 604.853.6096 Ford Speed Eliminator Is the factory 95 mph speed limit not fast enough for you? How about 130 mph+!!! Sounds great doesn`t it, all this new power and the top end MPH too. Easy underhood installation makes everything a breeze. Just be sure to have those Z rated tires handy. http://www.bd-power.com/ford/product.php?pn=Ford%20Speed%20Eliminator&tt=ford > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the > speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and > programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:38:24 +0000, someone rearranged some electrons to form: > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the > speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > snatch out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed > parts and programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8 It most likely doesn't have speed-rated tires and certainly doesn't have adequate weight balance and handling to go that fast, so keep away from this idiot as he is going down the highway.  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 17 days 19:07 > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has > the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and programmed chips for it. > Anyone tried this swap to a V8? 92 mph is plenty fast to be going with one of these when you consider that the highest speed limits on the interstate are substatially slower than this. > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended cab....ridiculous for a 4.0 L SOHC angine with a 5 spd OD automatic transmission. It smokes the Michelins off the line, and I get 55 in 1st gear, 92 in 2nd, and then it shifts to 3rd, 4th, 5th and OD, staying at 92 mph, and nobody makes a chipset that removes the speed limiter for my year engine, grrr! It redlines at 5600 rpm, so it might possibly turn 125-130 mph IF they didn't have that stinking chipset programmed so low. I am embarrassed when a Yugo or a Metro passes me at 90. I am ready to snatch out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? If you want to go fast, a pickup truck is not the thing to be doing it in. You can get into trouble really fast at 92 when you have the handling of a brick. > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the > speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and > programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? And you are going where in such a hurry? How about posting the routes you regularly drive so the rest of us can stay out of your way. Most dangerous driver on the road is NOT a DUI -- it's an a.shole who likes to go fast, especially when he's in a vehicle that is not meant to be stable at higher speeds. ". . . smokes Michelins off the line." Hmmmm -- your Daddy must be buying your tires. "55 in 1st gear." Sure you do. Yugos and Metros are passing him at 90?. He's full of sh#t. >> This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the >> speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > "55 in 1st gear." Sure you do. > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the > speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and > programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? Please post your VIN so we can avoid buying this truck on the Beat To sh.t market. Try looking @ Sniper Tuning for a reprogrammer to eliminate the artificially low limit. http://www.snipertuning.com/new/product.phtml?p=21 talks about what you can do with the programmer. I have one, used it on a '98 Ranger 3.0L, increased milage from ~17 to ~20 mpg. Lots of parameters are adjustable, this thing allows access to most, if not all. ~cbp > This is my 8th Ranger over the years, I love them.... BUT Ford has the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended cab....ridiculous for a 4.0 L SOHC angine with a 5 spd OD automatic transmission. It smokes the Michelins off the line, and I get 55 in 1st gear, 92 in 2nd, and then it shifts to 3rd, 4th, 5th and OD, staying at 92 mph, and nobody makes a chipset that removes the speed limiter for my year engine, grrr! It redlines at 5600 rpm, so it might possibly turn 125-130 mph IF they didn't have that stinking chipset programmed so low. I am embarrassed when a Yugo or a Metro passes me at 90. I am ready to snatch out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed parts and programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? > Try looking @ Sniper Tuning for a reprogrammer to eliminate the > artificially low limit. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> snatch out the 4.0 and swap to a 5.0 or 4.6 so I can at least get speed >> parts and programmed chips for it. Anyone tried this swap to a V8? Tuners CAN NOT address Fords new (2005 and newer) speed limiters... If you guys think speed is dangerous, try driving on the highways of California in a brand new 325 horse 570 torque truck that is speed limited at 80 miles per hour (power starts cutting out at 76)... Now that is dangerous... > ...Ford has the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge extended cab....ridiculous for a 4.0 L SOHC angine with a 5 spd OD automatic transmission. > ...it might possibly turn 125-130 mph IF they didn't have that stinking chipset programmed so low. Anybody that drives a Ranger over 55 mph is asking for trouble, and a certifiable Damnfool© to boot. Hell, you can tell just by looking at a Ranger that the stats, were they available, would show that the Ranger rollover problem is worse than the Explorer was ever rumored to be -- not to mention, it's one very unattractive motor vehicle. Jack >> ...Ford has the speed limiter set on it to 92 mph on this 2001 Edge > extended cab....ridiculous for a 4.0 L SOHC angine with a 5 spd OD > automatic transmission. And excatly what is the application for driving a pick-up truck faster than 90 mph? If you want to go fast, get something designed to go fast. > > ...it might possibly turn 125-130 mph IF they didn't have that > stinking chipset programmed so low. > > Anybody that drives a Ranger over 55 mph is asking for trouble, and a > certifiable Damnfool© to boot. I have driven one at 75 mph many times. No problems at all. > Hell, you can tell just by looking at a Ranger that the stats, were they > available, would show that the Ranger rollover problem is worse than the > Explorer was ever rumored to be -- not to mention, it's one very > unattractive motor vehicle. Stats are available. There is not a significant rollover problem with Rangers and for that matter, there wasn't one with Explorer 4 Doors either (2 doors are another matter). Toyota 4Runner and Chevrolet S-10s had higher rollover rates than Explorers. Why don't we hear about those? Rangers have a better injury loss rating than most small cars, and even some full size trucks (like the Tunder 4 door). Ed > Stats are available. There is not a significant rollover problem with > Rangers.... Cite for rollover rate, Ranger v Explorer? > Rangers have a better injury loss rating than most small cars, and even some > full size trucks (like the Tunder [sic] 4 door). Cite? -- though I can believe it in the case of the small cars. In spite of all the internal safety gadgets & frontal crush zones, these small cars so many folks drive these days scare me. I don't like looking eye to eye with somebody else's headlights. Jack This should be the only Cite you need.... http://www.safercar.gov/ >> Stats are available. There is not a significant rollover problem with >> Rangers.... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jack SignatureRegards, Ed White http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/ - my automotive opinions http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html - my oil filter comparison > >> Stats are available. There is not a significant rollover problem with >> Rangers.... > > Cite for rollover rate, Ranger v Explorer? From http://www.iihs.org/laws/comments/pdf/nhtsa_ds_akl_082201.pdf 1995-1998 Rollover Rate per million registered vehicles: 2WD Ranger - 69 2WD S10 - 86 4WD Ranger - 87 4WD S10 - 101 2WD 4 Door Explorer - 84 4WD 4 Door Explorer - 51 4WD 4 Door 4Runner - 119 Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo - 150 Toyota Tercel - 53 (worst car listed) Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door - 196 (worst vehicle listed) They don't list rollover rates for Tacoma Pick-ups in this document, but they were bad as well. >> Rangers have a better injury loss rating than most small cars, and even >> some full size trucks (like the Tunder [sic] 4 door). > Cite? -- though I can believe it in the case of the small cars. From http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html Injury Loss Ratins Average is 100 - lower is better - I picked some examples, feel free to pick others 2WD 4x2 Reg Cab Ranger - 93 4WD 4x4 Suber Cab Ranger - 79 2WD 4x2 Super Cab Ranger - 87 2WD Tundra Access Cab - 89 4WD Ford F250 Super Crew - 31 Scion tC - 172 Honda Civic 2 Dr - 172 Toyota Echo - 189 Suzuki Aerio - 235 Scion xB 4dr - 156 One thing I found interesting was how poorly some of the Toyota products do in terms of injury loss rating. I have heard several people recommend the Scion xB as a safe small car - but clearly it is not. Ed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.