No 3.0L V6 for 2008 B-series

[Bill]

The article is about Mazda's future plans. No mention of discontinuing the B-series, or changing its platform. Just another mention of uncertainty.

Why is Ford keeping us in the dark?

B series: Demand for compact pickups is waning, so the Mazda version of the Ford Ranger will lose the 3.0-liter V-6 for the 2008 model year. That leaves just the 2.3-liter four-banger and the 4.0-liter V-6.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/FREE/70820007/1530/FREE

[almostclueless]

THANK GOD. No more of that boat anchor.

[Dave R]

Too late the demise of that POS.

[b_aldredeg]

about time becises you coudent give me a truck that had a 3.0 in it

[arrabil]

You 3.0 haters rule. I think its why mine was so cheap... lack of demand. Cause there wasn't anything wrong with it.

[almostclueless]

You 3.0 haters rule. I think its why mine was so cheap... lack of demand. Cause there wasn't anything wrong with it.

Nothing at all....for those who want a ranger thats as much of a slug as the four cylinder models....

[arrabil]

With 4.10 gears and the stock tire size there was nothing sluggish about it even with an auto. And when I had a lot of weight in it for 800 miles, I wouldn't have wanted the 2.3.

If you want a barn-burner, getting a 2-ton truck is the problem, not the 3.0 engine.

[Ranger44]

If you have 4.10's and a 5 speed....there is nothing slow about the 3.o. or 2.3 for that fact. Then again you have to know how to drive a 5spd. Plus I'd rather have a reliable engine then power. If you want power get a v-8. My experience with ohv 4.0's were never that great.

[LearjetMinako]

Can't say thats good news. It does mean that I will no longer receive an electro-shock every time I change a filter on the 3.0. But it could be the end for the Ranger, or maybe an another engine for the better.

[ZMan]

Nothing at all....for those who want a ranger thats as much of a slug as the four cylinder models....

well compared to a Duratech ya...but go back a few years and compare it to a 2.3l lima, you'll be quite surprised.

[LearjetMinako]

well compared to a Duratech ya...but go back a few years and compare it to a 2.3l lima, you'll be quite surprised.

Even then, the 3.0 was still a joke. My little old 2.3 kept pulling against the 3.0. Besides, gotta love the Lima 2.3/2.5 pride.

[almostclueless]

Heck, I wish they offered a special edition 4.5 of some sort, as long as a 5SPD was an option with it.

[4x4RangerGuy]

The 3.0 may be slow, but it's bulletproof. I have RARELY had a 3.0 equipped Ford come in for work at my shop. With Rangers, all I get are 4.0 and 4cyl trucks. I'd never trade my 3.0 for anything. It may be slow, but I drive a truck, I don't need fast. I need reliable, and nothing beats the 3.0 V6 in that dept.

[Wicked_Sludge]

anyone that thinks the 4 bangers make the same or more power then the 3.0 doesnt know how to drive...its as simple as that.

the new trucks not having a 3.0 option wont effect me much as i probably wont own anything newer then about 96 or so anyway (at least not for a play vehicle).

[Bill]

People are getting defensive over nothing.

All four of the engine families used in the Ranger have been reliable. Ford isn't discontinuing the 3.0L and the 4.0L due to quality issues. The fact of the matter is they are outdated engines. The Vulcan goes back to the mid-80's. The Cologne goes back to 1968 when it was originally a 1.8L, which came from a V4 built in the early 60's.

At this point there is no reason to keep the 3.0L around. Performance of the 2.3L is just shy of the 3.0L, without the weight of a cast iron block (I think the Duratec is 40lbs lighter than the Lima). If you want to get technical about it, the specs are on Mazda's website. 143hp vs 148hp / 153ft lbs vs 180. After driving both, the 3.0L is a little better with the air conditioner running and they are both sluggish under about 2200 rpm.

I think the big complaint about the 3.0L is the fuel economy, which is only slightly better than the 4.0L, but only has a little more power than the 2.3L. After comparing the fuel economy, most people would weight in the 1-2mpg difference with the extra power the 4.0L has, and choose the 4.0L if the feel they need the power, or choose the 2.3L if they want the fuel economy.

The replacement for both the 3.0L and the 4.0L will be the Cyclone family, which is the Duratec 35 and 37. The Duratec 37 is the one that will be going into the F150's. 3.7L and 270hp. Half of the people reading this would probably kill themselves if they had a 270hp engine in their Ranger.

[ZSK]

:agree: The 3.0 was never an option when I or anyone else I know was looking at newer Rangers. It was either MPG with the 4cyl or more power with the 4.0. My brother has the 3.0 in his ranger and it just makes me love my truck even more. We both get the same 23 mpg highway (his is Reg Cab flareside 4x4 mine Ext cab std. side 2wd) but hook up a trailer or load the bed down and I'll get better mileage and easier towing.

The 3.0 has its following but it's a smart move for Mazda to eliminate it simply because of numbers.

[BDAB]

even though I would take a 3.0 over a 2.9 any day of the week and twice on sunday. I still think its a boat anchor.

Long live the mighty Four point oh liter

[Bill]

Long live the mighty Four point oh liter

The 4.0L will probably live through the end of the 2008 model year. Production is scheduled to end this year. There are probably enough for the 2008 Rangers, and a few new ones for replacements. Supply of the 3.0L is probably very tight as well. I've noticed the inventory of the 2008 Rangers is mostly 2.3L and 4.0L's.

Cast iron OVH and SOHC engines will be long gone and replaced with a Duratec by 2010, according to Ford.

[4x4RangerGuy]

I guess I must be nostalgic. What is it about the American public and power? My 3.0 turns my 32" A/T tires with 4.10s perfectly fine. Whatever happened to a truck being a truck and not a sport sedan? I wish they would keep the 3.0 around. Reliability matters in a truck, at least if it's being used as a truck. Though these days I will admit the role of the truck has changed unfortunately. It's now more family friendly...

[Ranger44]

I agree with the above....a truck is not a sports car. Reliability .....

[BDAB]

I had an 88 BII that the engine and trans died in on the same trip. I swapped in a 3.0L and trans from a wrecked 93 ranger I had laying around (or else I would have swapped in a 4.0), and it was reliable, also had to pull some nasty hills (these are what killed the 2.9) to get to work. My Explorer with 31's and 3.73's went up the same hills better than the BII with 31's and 4.10's. and my Explorer was far from a sports car when I got it.

A 3.0L in a Ranger is like a 305 in a G20 van or a Suburban.

[Simple_serf]

See, I was raised on the 3.0, and I personally like them. the torque difference between the Duratec and the vulcan are enough to make me choose the vulcan over the duratec...Oh, and the fact that it's made out of IRON rather than aluminum. I have engines that are over 100 years old still running that are made of iron. Most aluminum engines I have eventually melt down or can't be rebuilt.

Aren't the duratecs mazda/mazda design engines? If so, I want nothing to do with them. I had more problems with my b2200 engine wise than I could count. Additionally, aren't the duratecs considered Non-rebuildable? Again, I don't really want antyhing to do with stuff that isn't MADE to last.

Funny... I have a 2.5 Lima in my truck, and I haul lots of crap with my truck without any problem.

Now the 3.0 has been around for awhile. To me it makes sense to keep it around as a base engine and to use it in cars...It never really was a truck engine, but nither was the Lima, or the 2.9, or the 2.8....they all like to be wound up a little. i'm just tired of good solid reliable designs being replaced with stuff that hasn't really proven itself.

I'm guessing that just about every Ford engine will be a duratec before long?

[almostclueless]

If you guys dont care about power, go buy an suzuki samarai.



I'll be driving an 08 4.0 ranger in 18 months with a BIG s___ eating grin on my face.

[ZMan]

People are getting defensive over nothing.

All four of the engine families used in the Ranger have been reliable. Ford isn't discontinuing the 3.0L and the 4.0L due to quality issues. The fact of the matter is they are outdated engines. The Vulcan goes back to the mid-80's. The Cologne goes back to 1968 when it was originally a 1.8L, which came from a V4 built in the early 60's.

At this point there is no reason to keep the 3.0L around. Performance of the 2.3L is just shy of the 3.0L, without the weight of a cast iron block (I think the Duratec is 40lbs lighter than the Lima). If you want to get technical about it, the specs are on Mazda's website. 143hp vs 148hp / 153ft lbs vs 180. After driving both, the 3.0L is a little better with the air conditioner running and they are both sluggish under about 2200 rpm.

I think the big complaint about the 3.0L is the fuel economy, which is only slightly better than the 4.0L, but only has a little more power than the 2.3L. After comparing the fuel economy, most people would weight in the 1-2mpg difference with the extra power the 4.0L has, and choose the 4.0L if the feel they need the power, or choose the 2.3L if they want the fuel economy.

The replacement for both the 3.0L and the 4.0L will be the Cyclone family, which is the Duratec 35 and 37. The Duratec 37 is the one that will be going into the F150's. 3.7L and 270hp. Half of the people reading this would probably kill themselves if they had a 270hp engine in their Ranger.
ones things for sure my OHV doesn't get close to 22mpg daily like my 3.0l does, and its DEFINATLY doesn't get 25 on the highway like my 3.0l does.

[chittybangbang]

If you guys dont care about power, go buy an suzuki samarai.


I hear that they were powered by hampster's.

[Bill]

Aren't the duratecs mazda/mazda design engines? If so, I want nothing to do with them. I had more problems with my b2200 engine wise than I could count. Additionally, aren't the duratecs considered Non-rebuildable? Again, I don't really want antyhing to do with stuff that isn't MADE to last.

The term "Duratec" is a name for the new 4-valves/cyl DOHC aluminium block engines. There are various Duratec families. The I4 originated as a Mazda design. Ford and Mazda designed the 2.3L. I think of the V6 Duratecs has some origins coming from Porsche. The other is entirely a Ford design. They are rebuildable up to the point you run out of room to bore out the cylinder sleeve, according to factory specs. People have re-sleeved them successfully, however. In any event, if you have to bore a cylinder to the point you run out of sleeving, the engine likely has been abused.

I've had several B2200's with no problems. I've known several other people that have owned them without any issues as well. The one exception was someone that insisted the engineers at Mazda didn't know a thing about motor oil and used straight 40w instead of the 10w-30 as specified by Mazda. The end result was a noisy valvetrain for several years and finally a spun bearing when he decided he needed the additional protection from a 20w-50 racing oil. In the event you want to start listing issues, let's start talking about the various annoyances found in the Cologne V6. We can start with the plastic timing gears that fall apart without warning on the 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8L versions, and valve steam seals that wore out at 60K miles. Cracked heads have been a problem on all versions. Coolant leaking into the crankcase has been a problem from time to time. The Vulcan hasn't had as many problems, but by the time the Vulcan came around we had better materials for valve stem seals and gaskets. I think there was a timing problem and a blowing head gasket problem in the Taurus for a few years. Over the years, the Lima has had a few problems. Note that these problems were the typical sort of problems in the past. Since we have better materials these days we don't see as many nuisances. What we see as problems today are production issues, such as the camshaft failure Toyota has with one of their engines.

Funny... I have a 2.5 Lima in my truck, and I haul lots of crap with my truck without any problem.

Nobody suggested you couldn't haul stuff with a Lima. It really doesn't take much to haul stuff. I know someone that hauled a 700lb tower over Altamont Pass with a 70-sh hp Mazda B2000. Acceleration was a bit troublesome, but the job was a accomplished.

Now the 3.0 has been around for awhile. To me it makes sense to keep it around as a base engine and to use it in cars...It never really was a truck engine, but nither was the Lima, or the 2.9, or the 2.8....they all like to be wound up a little.

I'm guessing that just about every Ford engine will be a duratec before long?

The Vulcan has been around since 1986. No, it doesn't make sense to keep it around when there are better performing engines that are lighter, have better fuel economy, and cleaner emissions.

The origin of an engine doesn't have a thing to do with being a car or truck engine. They have been swapped between trucks and cars for years. The only "truck" engines you will find now are engines produced for larger trucks.

i'm just tired of good solid reliable designs being replaced with stuff that hasn't really proven itself.

Reliability is not going to be an issue. Reliability really hasn't been an issue for new engines in the past either, excluding technological issues in the past such as crappy oil quality and junk gaskets that started leaking a year after you bought a vehicle

[Sevensecondsuv]

Man, you guys and change!

Just face it, the 3.0 and 4.0 are going to be replaced with the new cyclone 3.5/3.7. It's going to be vastly more powerful than a 4.0 and get better mileage than a 3.0 (The new 3.5 taurus is rated better MPG than the 3.0 fusion :woot: )

Why are you all assuming that the new engines are going to be junk? If you haven't noticed, Ford has been winning a lot of quality awards lately, awards they weren't winning when the 3.0 and 4.0 came out. My guess is that the 3.5 proves to be less problematic than either of the old engines.

Everyone was screaming when they started putting EFI on cars and trucks. 20 years later we have realized the amazing potential of EFI and most people like it.

The 3.0 and 4.0 have had a good long run and both are great engines. I wouldn't hesitate to drive either one. But change can be for the better. If you live your life getting pissed off every time something changes, you are going to be miserable.

FWIW, Ford has a twin turbo, direct injection 3.5/3.7 in the works. That sure would make one hell of an engine swap for a ranger :drool:

[Bent Bolt]

The 3.0 may be slow, but it's bulletproof. I have RARELY had a 3.0 equipped Ford come in for work at my shop. With Rangers, all I get are 4.0 and 4cyl trucks. .

+1

3.0L is THE most reliable engine Ford has put out for years.

[Bent Bolt]

What is it about the American public and power? My 3.0 turns my 32" A/T tires with 4.10s perfectly fine. Whatever happened to a truck being a truck and not a sport sedan? ..


That is exactly what is wrong with most new trucks today. Vehicles in general would be getting better fuel economy IF the engineers would design the vehicle without the high H/P. Having lot's of H/P is nice but I'd rather have the fuel economy and downshift when I hit a big hill.

[JohnnyO]

+1

3.0L is THE most reliable engine Ford has put out for years.
Look at all the clapped-out 15-20 year old Tauruses running around. Can't kill 'em.

[almostclueless]

Look at all the clapped-out 15-20 year old Tauruses running around. Can't kill 'em.

Yep....the 3.0 proves an engine won't break if it makes pitiful power.


wow.

[JohnnyO]

True. It's a pretty low-stress engine that doesn't make enough power to hurt itself. You should see the UOA's posted at BobIsTheOilGuy.com, they're all good. It doesn't even matter much what oil you use. Someone there told me once that you could fill the crankcase with peanut butter, race the 24 Hours Of LeMans, and get a good UOA. :D
The wife's Taurus has a 3.0 Vulcan. Famous wife quote: "But I AM flooring it!"
For a lot of people it's a good engine. Low-maintenance, low hassle, and they don't care that it's slow. Bud of mine has a 96 Ranger with a 3.0, over 230,000 miles and never been apart.

[exbass94]

Aren't the duratecs mazda/mazda design engines? If so, I want nothing to do with them. I had more problems with my b2200 engine wise than I could count.


At work, I drive a Ranger with the Duratech. It has almost 195,000 miles on it and still runs like brand new. It has also been beat on hard all it's life and has been poorly maintained. It's a very peppy and fun engine. I'm sure it would be a blast if it were hooked up to a manual transmission. After driving that truck, I'm would buy a Duratech in a heartbeat if I needed a 2wd Ranger.

i'm just tired of good solid reliable designs being replaced with stuff that hasn't really proven itself.

There was a time when the Lima and the 3.0 haven't proven themselves. Every engine was a "new design" at some point and nobody knew what their long-term reliability would be until they've driven them for a few hundred thousand miles. An engine can't "prove itself" when it's brand new, it takes years for that to happen. So we'll just have to wait a while, and the Duratech will prove itself (or not) in a few years. But as I've said before, the Duratech has already proven itself to me.

[almostclueless]

It doesn't even matter much what oil you use. Someone there told me once that you could fill the crankcase with peanut butter, race the 24 Hours Of LeMans, and get a good UOA. :D



That was funny....blew snot out of my nose on that one.

[Wicked_Sludge]

The wife's Taurus has a 3.0 Vulcan

theres also a huge difference between a power sucking AX?? and a real five speed. even with 3.73's and 31's i can still chirp tires in second on dry pavement. not bad for an engine originally intended as an introductory class sedan motor.

and 24MPG highway out of a 4x4 truck with 150hp wont get any complaints out of me. talked to a guy just today in fact with the exact same truck as mine (flairside bed even), with a 4.0 and he was only getting 16 highway.

the 3.0 is/was a good filler between the fuel sipping but gutless 4 bangers and the powerful but thirsty 4.0.

[almostclueless]

the 3.0 is/was a good filler between the fuel sipping but gutless 4 bangers and the powerful but thirsty 4.0.


OK...all heckling aside that is true.

[Simple_serf]

Bill, what can I say, I hate aluminum engines. I get tired of dealing with melting parts, stripped parts, etc. I am not a fan of 3 and 4 valve per cylinder engines. More to go wrong.

As to the b2200....

I had valve noise, the damn thing leaked a few quarts a week, you couldn't see though the oil smoke when you started it, and the carb was screwy....nobody could get it to work right...it would always run rich, leading to stalling. This led to plug fouling every few weeks.

The rest of the truck was in pretty sad shape too.

What is amusing to me, is I don't really care about the technology anymore, I just want the damn car to go down the road. Simple is good, rebuldable and field repairable is good. I have too much other crap to do without having to deal with the truck that I am trying to do work with being broken at the same time.

[Bill]

Bill, what can I say, I hate aluminum engines. I get tired of dealing with melting parts, stripped parts, etc. I am not a fan of 3 and 4 valve per cylinder engines. More to go wrong.

As to the b2200....

I had valve noise, the damn thing leaked a few quarts a week, you couldn't see though the oil smoke when you started it, and the carb was screwy....nobody could get it to work right...it would always run rich, leading to stalling. This led to plug fouling every few weeks.

The rest of the truck was in pretty sad shape too.

What is amusing to me, is I don't really care about the technology anymore, I just want the damn car to go down the road. Simple is good, rebuldable and field repairable is good. I have too much other crap to do without having to deal with the truck that I am trying to do work with being broken at the same time.

Melting parts? The odds of melting something in an aluminum engine are no greater than melting pistons. It happens, but it is due to a problem that has been neglected. A fair amount of aluminium engines produced in the last ten years are also capable of cooling themselves if they start running too hot. The Duratec engines are capable of running for short distances in "limp mode" without coolant. You wanna try that with any of the cast iron engines that have been used in the Rangers?

These are DOHC engines. Simply, an additional camshaft and a set of valves. Like SOHC engines, it is very unlikely this is going to introduce the possibility of additional problems as long as the the valvetrain has adequate lubrication.

I didn't have a problem with my B2200. I really wish I kept it. I had the California version which had fuel injection, so no carburetor to deal with. And as far as I'm concerned, all carburetors suck.

[BDAB]

as far as I'm concerned, all carburetors suck.

I agree with bill

[85_Ranger4x4]

I agree with bill

Well they do operate with a vacuum...

[Wicked_Sludge]

Well they do operate with a vacuum...

:icon_rofl:

your right. technically, they DO suck!

[BDAB]

actually the carb is getting blown ......... its the engine that sucks.......