gas mileage

Hello,

Thanks for sharing the photos of your car collection. You really have some oldies.

Take a drive in the Ford Rangers and see if one won't work for you. The 4 cylinders get good mileage, some claim more than 25 mpg highway. The 3.0 V6 is only good for 14 or so in town and 20 or so on the highway. They have almost as much power as your 4.3 had. I bought a Ranger because I liked the seats better. Give one a try.

The 3.0 doesn't come anywhere near the power of a 4.3, the 4.0 might, but the fuel mileage on that thing is dismal. I like to rag my father about that when he gets to talking down my S-10. He gets at best 18 mpg with it, and my 4.3 will give me 23-24 if I behave. He's also had two trannys, and the top of the fuel tank rotted out.

The I-4 (2.8 ltr) 175 hp, 185 pd ft torque in the Colorado is rated at 20/27 mpg with a five speed, Ford says Ranger I-4 24/29, but as your friends attest it aint so., 17/23 with the auto, beats the Ranger I-4 with auto as there is no auto with the Ford 4 banger.. The I-5 (3.5 ltr), 220 hp, 225 pd ft torque gets with 5spd 19/25, that ties the Ranger's 4 banger actual mileage, with auto 19/24, and on the ford site there is no auto listed for the 3.0 The I-4 gets better gas mileage and has more power than the 3.0 V6 in the Ranger, The I-5 out muscles the Ford 4.0, and gets better gas mileage. The

4.0 gets an automatic 5 spd, no manual option. V engines are popular because they allow a shorter nose, but inline engines have always won the battle of torque, and more than a few have won the horsepower contest as well.

Whitelightning

Whatever, but for some reason Rangers outsold S-10s by about 2:1, in some areas its more like 3:1 and its been that way for years.

Maybe because some people only look at the sticker price, and don't realize, or care they are getting less truck, Ranger has always been cheaper than the S-10. Things like 9.560" x 2" rear brakes on the S-10 vs. 8" x 1 /34" on the Rangers early years, and then 9.060" x 1 3/4" in the later years Or 10.5" diameter .965" min thickness spec rotors on the S-10 vs. 9.5" dia..

840 min spec rotors on the Rangers. Heck Chevy's rotor at discard is heftier than the Rangers new out of the box. My frame rails and cross members are heavier construction than my father's Ranger, and the S-10 holds resale value a lot better than the Rangers do. Chevy was never stupid enough to put the clutch slave inside the bell housing so that when it leaks it takes the rest of the clutch out with it. Fords fabulous "spring lock" AC hose connectors, sure have made me a lot of money over the years., but then so have Chevy's evaporators. Both had great 4 bangers in the early years, the 2.5 "iron duke" in the Chevy, and the 2.3 in the early Rangers. The early GM 2.8 was probmatic, but the revised block after '87 was a strong engine longevity wise, the 4.3 is about as bullet proof an engine as any small block Chevy. Fords 2.8 was an abortion, the 2.9 not much better, The 3.0 stays together but that's about it, and the 4.0, well its a thirsty beast all the time and hasn't the power of the 4.3 GM engine. And it only took Ford 40 years to admit a modified straight axle, i.e. the fabulous twin I Beam, isn't any better than a straight axle, and as far as tire wear is concerned it was worse, and is probably the reason so many Explorers end up their roofs when a tire blows. Someday Ford might also figure out how to build an automatic tranny again, somewhere after the C-4 for light duty, and the C-6 for heavy they forgot. I think I would stake the "Green Dot" Ford-O-Matic in my 65 Falcon as being a better tranny than what Ford has been using the last 15-20 years.

Whitelightning

Actually, my 1997 S-10 has the slave clutch inside of the tranny. I was forced to take it into a shop and have the, what should havve been simple, repair made.

I stand corrected on Chevy not doing something so stupid.

Whitelightning