No 3.0 in new Rangers

[Ferris Bueller]

I just got a 2009 Ranger brochure. They don't list the 3.0 V6 in it. Is this the first year without the 3.0?

[rusty ol ranger]

Good riddance.

Probely is, i think the only reason the 3.0 was around anymore was for the ranger wasnt it?

The taurus uses the 3.5 duratech.

I wish theyd rebirth the 2.9L and a smaller 4.0SOHC.

later,
Dustin

[Wicked_Sludge]

im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.

i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.

id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/images/vulcan30.jpg

[85_Ranger4x4]

im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.

i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.

id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/images/vulcan30.jpg

The 5.0 has only been dead for 7, I think the 4.2 in the F-150's that died this year was pushrod.

[Wicked_Sludge]

ahh i forgot about the 4.2. i guess for that matter, the 3.8 wasnt replaced until 2005. and then theres the 3.9 used in the minivans up until last year.

and i didnt count the deisels since thats apples and oranges.

the last 5.0 ford made was in '96 for the f-150's.

so it wasnt quite the only pushrod motor :icon_twisted: but definitly the only one that mattered :beer:

[mongoose289]

they put the 5.0 in the explorers until at least 2000

[Sevensecondsuv]

they put the 5.0 in the explorers until at least 2000

2001 was last year of solid rear axle explorers and the 5.0. 2002's got IRS and the 4.6


Since the 4.0 SOHC is also slated to be replaced by the 3.5 in everything but the ranger next year, I wonder if the ranger is going to get the 3.5 as well for the V6 option?

Better gas mileage and more power. Sounds good to me.

[Wicked_Sludge]

ahh your right...i forgot about the exploders.

looks like '01 was the last year for it then.

[4x4RangerGuy]

im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.

i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.

id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/images/vulcan30.jpg

:bawling:

[Kdawg532]

im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.

i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.

id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/images/vulcan30.jpg

:bawling::bawling::bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling::bawling:

farewell my little buddy you will be missed

[pacodiablo]

Good riddance.


Why? It is one of the most reliable engines offered in any vehicle, not just the Ranger. I get 20-21 MPG in mostly (80% +/-) city driving too...I don't care what you think of the Vulcan, that's good for a V6 automatic Super Cab pickup.

I don't know why you hate the Vulcan so much. It's a pushrod, all iron, 60* V6, just like the Cologne motors.

[Wicked_Sludge]

rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way :icon_cheers:

[85_Ranger4x4]

Why? It is one of the most reliable engines offered in any vehicle, not just the Ranger. I get 20-21 MPG in mostly (80% +/-) city driving too...I don't care what you think of the Vulcan, that's good for a V6 automatic Super Cab pickup.

I don't know why you hate the Vulcan so much. It's a pushrod, all iron, 60* V6, just like the Cologne motors.

It has marginally more power than the 2.3, and gets similar milage as a 4.0. If I ordered a truck I would not check that box.

Colone's haven't been pushrod for quite awhile now. And they (as well as the 2.3) are very reliable engines.

My automatic SuperCab 4x4 F-150 with a 5.4 gets 18mpg hwy, if I am going to downsize to a small 2wd pickup with the small V-6 it should by all means get more than 5-6mpg better than my fullsize with the big V-8.:rolleyes:

[Wicked_Sludge]

It has marginally more power than the 2.3, and gets similar milage as a 4.0. If I ordered a truck I would not check that box.

boy this arguement gets old. the 2.3 lima was never rated for more than 112hp in n/a form, vs. the 3.0's 145ish. and i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.

My automatic SuperCab 4x4 F-150 with a 5.4 gets 18mpg hwy, if I am going to downsize to a small 2wd pickup with the small V-6 it should by all means get more than 5-6mpg better than my fullsize with the big V-8.:rolleyes:

my 3.0 will hit 24 MPG regularly on the highway, thats exactly 6MPG better than your f-150...and thats with a 4wd. some of the 2wd 3.0 guys have gotten up to 28 or so.

open mouth. insert foot. :icon_thumby:

[85_Ranger4x4]

boy this arguement gets old. the 2.3 lima was never rated for more than 112hp in n/a form, vs. the 3.0's 145ish. and i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.:

The DOHC 2.3 and the SOHC 4.0 have been its competition since the early 2000's. Might as well compare it to the old 2.0 and 2.8 as well if we are digging up extict engines to try to make the 3.0 look good.

2008 model year #'s

DOHC 2.3
143 hp @ 5,250 rpm
154 lb.-ft. @ 3,750 rpm

OHC 3.0
148 hp @ 4,900 rpm
180 lb.-ft. @ 3,950 rpm

SOHC 4.0
207 hp @ 5,250 rpm
238 lb.-ft. @ 3,000 rpm

my 3.0 will hit 24 MPG regularly on the highway, thats exactly 6MPG better than your f-150...and thats with a 4wd. some of the 2wd 3.0 guys have gotten up to 28 or so.

open mouth. insert foot. :icon_thumby:

I bought my F-150 mainly for towing, suppose the 3.0 can keep up with me? It is kinda nice having a truck that is rated to tow 7k (underrated due to 3.31 gears) and still gets decent milage. The most I see a 2008 3.0 Ranger being rated is 2600 (my empty trailer + 600lbs). If I am going to drop that far in towing capacity, I had better gain more than 6mpg.

The 4.0 is rated at 5600 at best, that is quite a step up.

I know you can pull more than that, but so can I... until legalities arise.

[pacodiablo]

Colone's haven't been pushrod for quite awhile now. And they (as well as the 2.3) are very reliable engines.

Dustin doesn't care about SOHC Colognes. The 2.9 was never SOHC. I was referring to the Cologne engines he likes.

I never said Colognes were unreliable. My Explorer had 158,000 on its OHV 4.0 and ran great. It didn't burn a drop of oil between changes. A maintained 3.0 is easily capable of well over 200,000 miles though. Many have well over 300,000 miles. Like them or not, they are tough engines.

FWIW, I have never seen an original SOHC with 300K on it. I know of many that had warped heads at around 150K though.

The Duratec 2.3 has been good so far, but they have only been around for 7 years. The 3.0 has been around for 22 (1986 Taurus).

It has marginally more power than the 2.3, and gets similar milage as a 4.0. If I ordered a truck I would not check that box.

...

My automatic SuperCab 4x4 F-150 with a 5.4 gets 18mpg hwy, if I am going to downsize to a small 2wd pickup with the small V-6 it should by all means get more than 5-6mpg better than my fullsize with the big V-8.:rolleyes:

I have never heard of a 4.0 being able to pull down 21 MPG in the city (more like 16 on a good day). In a 2WD 4.0, highway MPG in the low 20s is doable if you have the 3.55 gears, but I do that in the city with 3.73s...

My 4.0 Explorer could get low 20s on the highway, but the ONLY reason it got 20s on the highway was the awful 3.27 gears in the rear end. It was by far the slowest of all my RBVs too. It got around 14-15 MPG in town, where I do most of my driving...phuck that.

As for the 2.3, it may have almost as much HP as the 3.0, but it has more than the beloved 2.9...come on now, none of these engines are very spectacular power-wise. Even the SOHC 4.0 isn't really very impressive in that respect. Torque is more important anyway, and the 3.0 does have the 2.3 beat there, though it definitely isn't a torque monster either.

A 5 MPG increase over 18 MPG is a 28% improvement. That's pretty significant. To put it in perspective, when I use E85 and really rag on my truck, I average about 18-19 MPG. That's the worst I've done.

Lets assume we each go 300 miles on $3.75/gal gas...
(F-150 5.4) 300 mi / 18 mi = 16.67 ------- 16.67x3.75 = $62.51
(Ranger 3.0) 300 mi / 23* mi = 13.04 ------- 13.04x3.75 = $48.90

(*My truck averaged a little over 23 MPG on a trip from NC to AL over the summer.)

You spent $13.61 more to go the same distance. 300 miles isn't that far.

Assuming 15,000 miles a year...I save $680.50 over you. In the past 6 months I have driven 10,000 miles already, mostly in the city. Can you see where I'm going? I have no use for a 5.4 F-150...I'd be throwing money away. My 3.0 is perfect for me though.

[Wicked_Sludge]

i was comparing the 3.0 to the OHV 4.0 and SOHC 2.3 because those are the engines it was competing with when it came out (apples to apples). as i said before, the 3.0 is an outdated design and CANT keep up with newer SOHC and DOHC motors. your making the 3.0 look "bad" by comparing it to much newer, updated designs (although even in doing so the 3.0 is still middle of the road, with considerable more torque than the duratec).

you never said anything about towing originally. your always going to sacrifice fuel economy for towing capacity...and even then the 3.0 is a good "middle of the road" option, with a maximum capacity (from my '93 owners manual) of 4,500lbs vs. the 4 bangers only being rated for around 2,300lbs. a '93 4.0 is rated at 5,900...again the 3.0 is almost twice as far ahead of the 4 banger as the 4.0 is of it.

why is it so hard to admit that the vulcan is a decent, middle choice?

[Maverick]

why is it so hard to admit that the vulcan is a decent, middle choice?

Because it's not. It's an underpowered, out-dated motor that gets poor fuel economy. Sure, there of few of you that claim to pull down some good MPG numbers but the majority of people that have owned/drove them get less than mediocre numbers, myself included. Having owned both, I'd take a 2.3 Duratech over a 3.0 any day of the week. For the most part, the 3.0 was a reliable motor, but so was a 351M or a 360. Still doesn't make the 3.0 or either of those other motors a good choice when there are other (better) options available.

[Wicked_Sludge]

ahh your ignorance betrays you.

driving experience is objective, but numbers dont lie. the 3.0 is more powerful than any 4 banger offered in the ranger. and EPA ratings put the 3.0 solidly between the 4 bangers and 4.0's for fuel economy.

its a perfect fit for people like me...who tow medium sized loads regularly but still want small truck fuel economy. (most 4.0's gets about the same economy as 85_Ranger4x4's v-8 f-150).

[Maverick]

ahh your ignorance betrays you.

driving experience is objective, but numbers dont lie. the 3.0 is more powerful than any 4 banger offered in the ranger. and EPA ratings put the 3.0 solidly between the 4 bangers and 4.0's for fuel economy.

its a perfect fit for people like me...who tow medium sized loads regularly but still want small truck fuel economy. (most 4.0's gets about the same economy as 85_Ranger4x4's v-8 f-150).

Your ignorance shows your lack of experience. I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race. EPA ratings don't mean shit either. They don't compensate for aerodynamics, temperature, elevation or anything real world, because they're conducted on a fawkin dyno! Most 3.0's get the same economy as 85_Ranger4x4's V8 f-150. Hell, I would have been happy if mine had. If my truck had got what yours (supposedly) does, I wouldn't have cared how much of a nutless pile it was. I'm glad your happy with it, I'm glad it works for you. But you are in the minority of people that are happy with the way they perform. I still drive my old 02 at work (our new work truck) and it still averages 13.5-14.5mpg all while being scared to death of any sort of incline or light load. I jump in my F250 after work and don't miss it for a second.

[85_Ranger4x4]

my 3.0 will hit 24 MPG regularly on the highway, thats exactly 6MPG better than your f-150...and thats with a 4wd. some of the 2wd 3.0 guys have gotten up to 28 or so.

open mouth. insert foot.

This is where I bring towing into the picture, while my F-150 gets decent milage that isn't the main reason I bought it. I need to move heavy things, and for a little sacrifice in fuel economy while I am running unloaded, I can move stuff myself as needed rather than mooching a truck from someone else. Not to mention I can seat 6 more comfortable than you can seat 4 (if you had an extended cab)

i was comparing the 3.0 to the OHV 4.0 and SOHC 2.3 because those are the engines it was competing with when it came out (apples to apples). as i said before, the 3.0 is an outdated design and CANT keep up with newer SOHC and DOHC motors. your making the 3.0 look "bad" by comparing it to much newer, updated designs (although even in doing so the 3.0 is still middle of the road, with considerable more torque than the duratec).

you never said anything about towing originally. your always going to sacrifice fuel economy for towing capacity...and even then the 3.0 is a good "middle of the road" option, with a maximum capacity (from my '93 owners manual) of 4,500lbs vs. the 4 bangers only being rated for around 2,300lbs. a '93 4.0 is rated at 5,900...again the 3.0 is almost twice as far ahead of the 4 banger as the 4.0 is of it.

why is it so hard to admit that the vulcan is a decent, middle choice?

Because it hasen't been a decent middle of the road choice for years, since the 2.3 duratech and the SOHC stepped onto the scene... the same reason they pulled the plug on the 2.9, there wasn't enough of a difference between it and the rest of the lineup to justify buying it.

My 2.8 is rated somewhere around 4500-5000 towing as well if I remember right, all 110 hp / 150 lb-ft of its bad self. Their ratings always have been a little goofy over the years, but as of 2008 Ford considered the 3.0 to to be worthy of a similar tow rating as the 2.3, which is a mite pathetic IMO.

[reginald fairfield]

id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...


Right on...

I like the motors for daily driving, even towing is fine if you know what you are doing. If some people don't like it I don't give a thin shit. Rangers are not meant to outpace nascars from the factory, duh. If you want a hotrod, swap a 302 in it. 3.0's are perfectly adequate for what they are in.

[Wicked_Sludge]

I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race.

and you'd loose with inferior power AND torque :icon_confused:

EPA ratings don't mean shit either. They don't compensate for aerodynamics, temperature, elevation or anything real world...

aerodynamics? really? these engines are ALL in rangers :D the aerodynamics are, well, identical. and temperature, elevation, barometric pressure, and other environmental variables are the exact kind of things the EPA tries to control in their tests to get accurate results.

[AllanD]

Horsepower sells vehicles, but when you drive them what you feel is torque.

And on torque the 3.0 beats any 4-banger that isn't equipped with a turbo.

And 4bangers that ARE equipped with turbo's will spend their time handing
out large cans of whoop-ass to the 4.0SOHS's and 5.0's... atleast on the street.

Yes stupid, the 3.0 makes a lot more torque than the 2.3DOHC.
AND at a more useful rpm.

the 3.5 motor to look at isn't just the 3.5duratech, but the planned GDI
version of the engine.

Easy starting, clean running and top eng power of gasoline with the economy
and torque of a diesel. 265hp, though GDI and Variable length runners can easily push that to 300plus without resorting to a turbo....

The 3.7 liter version of the engine is slated for the 2010 F-150

Grab your nads guys the 4.0SOHC is going to join it on the scrap heap
of history in only another year or so...

with a GDI 3.5DOHC engine on the way I don't feel all that bad about the future.

AD

[dangeranger01]

My little 3L has taken a beating, I rod the piss out of it every day. It sees 5500rpm shifts every time i drive it. It has 160k on it and i average 14-16mpg in town with 3.73 gears and 33s. I am switching to a OHV 4L just for more down low torque, and that little bit extra power though....

[pacodiablo]

I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race.

Based on what? Your butt dyno?


EPA ratings don't mean shit either. They don't compensate for aerodynamics, temperature, elevation or anything real world, because they're conducted on a fawkin dyno! Most 3.0's get the same economy as 85_Ranger4x4's V8 f-150. Hell, I would have been happy if mine had. If my truck had got what yours (supposedly) does, I wouldn't have cared how much of a nutless pile it was. I'm glad your happy with it, I'm glad it works for you. But you are in the minority of people that are happy with the way they perform. I still drive my old 02 at work (our new work truck) and it still averages 13.5-14.5mpg all while being scared to death of any sort of incline or light load. I jump in my F250 after work and don't miss it for a second.
Uhh, getting rid of variables such as temperature and elevation are the only way to get meaningful test results! Aerodynamics doesn't matter in this case.

And do you have any evidence that most 3.0s get the same fuel economy as a V8 F-150? I'm guessing not.

If your truck at work is getting 13.5-14.5 MPG, something is broken, or you just beat the shit out of it.

[rickcdewitt]

rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way :icon_cheers:not that i do but the 2.9l has the same amount more torque as the 3.0l has more hp at a lower rpm.and why would you say "vacuum nightmare"? its no feedback carb.

my old 2.9l pulled just as hard as my cousins 3.0 ranger

[pacodiablo]

since the 2.3 duratech and the SOHC stepped onto the scene...

Not everyone who wants a V6 wants a SOHC 4.0. They are very thirsty, and like I said, I have never seen one with 300K original miles. The SOHC 4.0s ARE more prone to issues like warped heads.

The hatred for the Vulcan seems to be mostly just based on emotions rather than any real fact.

I've owned a 2.5 and a 4.0 in addition to my 3.0, and I have driven 2.3s. The 3.0 is a good middle of the road engine. The 2.5 would get 28-29 MPG highway, but in town it was no different from the 3.0 and it was a slow poke. Not to mention the manual sucked in heavy traffic and I would never put up with an automatic trans four banger. The 4.0 was a decent motor, but with 3.27 gears it drank gas in city driving. My 3.0 gets good fuel economy, has plenty of power for normal driving, and is reliable. I have driven my truck all over the east coast and it has never failed me in any way. How exactly would I benefit from having another motor?

For many years most Rangers were 3.0s. They have been used in millions of vehicles and have racked up rediculous miles in fleet operation. If they were a bad motor, Ford would not have used them in so many vehicles over the past 22 years.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Not everyone who wants a V6 wants a SOHC 4.0. They are very thirsty, and like I said, I have never seen one with 300K original miles. The SOHC 4.0s ARE more prone to issues like warped heads.

The hatred for the Vulcan seems to be mostly just based on emotions than any real fact.

I've owned a 2.5 and a 4.0 in addition to my 3.0, and I have driven 2.3s. The 3.0 is a good middle of the road engine. The 2.5 would get 28-29 MPG highway, but in town it was no different from the 3.0 and it was a slow poke. Not to mention the manual sucked in heavy traffic and I would never put up with an automatic trans four banger. The 4.0 was a decent motor, but with 3.27 gears it drank gas in city driving. My 3.0 gets good fuel economy, has plenty of power for normal driving, and is reliable. I have driven my truck all over the east coast and it has never failed me in any way. How exactly would I benefit from having another motor?

For many years most Rangers were 3.0s. They have been used in millions of vehicles and have racked up rediculous miles in fleet operation. If they were a bad motor, Ford would not have made such wide use of them over the last 22 years.

With 3.27 gears what wouldn't drink gas? What do you have in your Ranger?

If people were buying them in numbers to justify it and it wasn't an emissions thing (and it very well could be), Ford would still be making them.

[BlackBII]

:dntknw:
I like my 2.9.
















:D

[Psychopete]

rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way :icon_cheers:

At least the 2.9L was a truck engine! And no, they're not a vacuum hose nightmare by any means. My Tempo is a Vacuum hose nightmare. But the rest of that is pretty true :D. The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L. ;missingteeth;

How can this engine be called the most reliable? Think CPS syncro... They've been making this crap for years, and somehow they screwed up the design (yes, I know it's from lack of lubrication). Also the issue with the oil pan gaskets working themselves out. They've been making oil pan gaskets for years! My brother had issues with his '94 w/ dist and only 100K. Personally, I think it's kind of a POS. :thefinger:

Just like the 2.9L, when they work, they work good, but it does have it's self-destructive flaws.

Pete

[2manyfords]

The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L.
Pete


Yup.. that is for sure.

My '88 2.9L Ext Cab Ranger 2wd can easily whip my dads '06 3.0L Ext Cab Ranger 2wd.

[Maverick]

and you'd loose with inferior power AND torque :icon_confused:



aerodynamics? really? these engines are ALL in rangers :D the aerodynamics are, well, identical. and temperature, elevation, barometric pressure, and other environmental variables are the exact kind of things the EPA tries to control in their tests to get accurate results.

No, I wouldn't. Torque doesn't mean everything. If it did my Superduty would be faster than 95% of everything on this site. Aerodynamics, elevation and everything else was just and example of why EPA ratings aren't that reliable. You can't control those things because they aren't controlled in real life. So they aren't accurate results. If you don't get that, Im sorry.

Based on what? Your butt dyno?



Uhh, getting rid of variables such as temperature and elevation are the only way to get meaningful test results! Aerodynamics doesn't matter in this case.

And do you have any evidence that most 3.0s get the same fuel economy as a V8 F-150? I'm guessing not.

If your truck at work is getting 13.5-14.5 MPG, something is broken, or you just beat the shit out of it.

You have any evidence that the majority don't get the same as a V8 F150? I'm guessing not.

Nothing is broken on that truck. It has 22,000 miles. My mom's 06 3.0 2wd auto gets nearly the same mileage. It has right at 11,000 miles. The best tank out of that truck is just a tad over 18 mpg. Best tank out of mine ever was 19.5, and it only did that once. The last tank through my old 02 was 90%highway/10% mixed. It got 17.73 on that tank (just filled and checked it). Not acceptable in my eyes for a compact pickup with a V6. Especially when my 7000lb truck can do better with nearly 1000 lbs in the bed.

I could go round and round with you guys for ever on this topic but I'm not going to. You guys like a motor that I don't. Big deal. With the slew of 3.0's we've had in our shop lately, (ranging from broken valve springs to blown head gaskets) I could call them a piece of shit. But I'm not going to, because I know they are not. I will call them slow and inefficient though, because they are.

[Wicked_Sludge]

what are you talking about? you dont compare vehicles with 5,000ft difference in elevation. ANY motor will perform better at a lower elevation. when you compare motors for power and economy, you compare them in similar conditions :icon_confused:

and your right, torque doesnt mean everything...but the 3.0 has more power AND torque than the duratec.

you, just, dont, get it, do ya scotty?

[pacodiablo]

At least the 2.9L was a truck engine!

The Cologne engines came out in the 1960s and were used in cars for years before the Ranger ever got one.

[85_Ranger4x4]

and your right, torque doesnt mean everything...but the 3.0 has more power AND torque than the duratec.

you, just, dont, get it, do ya scotty?

5 more hp, and 26 more lb of torque at 200 higher RPM... I wouldn't want to live on that difference.

The Cologne engines came out in the 1960s and were used in cars for years before the Ranger ever got one.

The 2.9 is quite a bit different than the 2.6/2.8 that went into cars here in the states. Just about everything they could change going from the 2.8 to 2.9... they did.

Actually they started out as a V-4 in Europe way back in the early 60's.

[pacodiablo]

You hve any evidence that the majority don't get the same as a V8 F150? I'm guessing not.Yeah, the EPA ratings. Considering they test in a controlled environment, and they consistently get over 20 MPG out of the 3.0s, it would seem that a properly working 3.0 that is not abused will get better fuel economy than an F-150.

FWIW, I have been able to beat the EPA numbers easily with all my vehicles.


Nothing is broken on that truck. It has 22,000 miles. My mom's 06 3.0 2wd auto gets nearly the same mileage. It has right at 11,000 miles. The best tank out of that truck is just a tad over 18 mpg. Best tank out of mine ever was 19.5, and it only did that once. The last tank through my old 02 was 90%highway/10% mixed. It got 17.73 on that tank (just filled and checked it). Not acceptable in my eyes for a compact pickup with a V6. Especially when my 7000lb truck can do better with nearly 1000 lbs in the bed.

Either we are dealing with vastly different driving conditions, or there is something else at play here. 13.5-14.5 MPG is NOT what a properly working 3.0 should be getting if it is driven in a reasonably sane manner. I run mine up to 4500 and even 5500 RPM fairly often, and I tend to drive in a "spirited" manner and I still don't think I could do that bad on a tank of gas if I tried!

I will call them slow and inefficient though, because they are.
The 2.9 isn't? The 4.0 isn't?

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ford says it is about normal...

2.3 = 21 city/26 highway

3.0 = 16 city/21 highway

4.0 = 15 city/20 highway

[Wicked_Sludge]

i get better than 18 towing a 1500lb boat in town.

the EPA rates the 3.0 at a max of 16/21, and the 4.0 at a max of 15/19. pretty compairable to the f-150's max of 14/19...worth the 2,000lb decrease in towing capacity and much smaller bed? guess thats up to you...

[pacodiablo]

Ford says it is about normal...

2.3 = 21 city/26 highway

3.0 = 16 city/21 highway

4.0 = 15 city/20 highway

16 MPG is not 13.5-14.5 MPG...still curious about those numbers.

[Bill]

Good riddance.

Probely is, i think the only reason the 3.0 was around anymore was for the ranger wasnt it?

The taurus uses the 3.5 duratech.

I wish theyd rebirth the 2.9L and a smaller 4.0SOHC.

later,
Dustin

The Cologne V6 is at the end of its lifespan too.

[Bill]

5 more hp, and 26 more lb of torque at 200 higher RPM... I wouldn't want to live on that difference.



The 2.9 is quite a bit different than the 2.6/2.8 that went into cars here in the states. Just about everything they could change going from the 2.8 to 2.9... they did.

Actually they started out as a V-4 in Europe way back in the early 60's.

Aside from replacing a timing gear with a chain and rotating the camshaft the opposite direction, there isn't much difference from the prior engines.

Well, I guess you could count fuel injection, but that was available on the 2.8 in Europe.

[Hahnsb2]

My little 3L has taken a beating, I rod the piss out of it every day. It sees 5500rpm shifts every time i drive it. It has 160k on it and i average 14-16mpg in town with 3.73 gears and 33s. I am switching to a OHV 4L just for more down low torque, and that little bit extra power though....
Same story with my old 2.9, beat it and beat it and beat it, 15MPG solid and never left me anywhere even when I hydrolocked it!
At least the 2.9L was a truck engine! And no, they're not a vacuum hose nightmare by any means. My Tempo is a Vacuum hose nightmare. But the rest of that is pretty true :D. The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L. ;missingteeth;

How can this engine be called the most reliable? Think CPS syncro... They've been making this crap for years, and somehow they screwed up the design (yes, I know it's from lack of lubrication). Also the issue with the oil pan gaskets working themselves out. They've been making oil pan gaskets for years! My brother had issues with his '94 w/ dist and only 100K. Personally, I think it's kind of a POS. :thefinger:

Just like the 2.9L, when they work, they work good, but it does have it's self-destructive flaws.

Pete
Agreed, I'd take a 2.9 over a 3.0 any day.

[reginald fairfield]

Why don't we all quit arguing and buy f-250's already... :shok:

[Jimmeh]

You guys are all missing one key factor.

Just because the engines are the same, doesn't mean everything is EXACTLY the same. It all depends on what kind of work the engine went through in some portions of it's life.

Just because the EPA ratings say that the engine gets that doesn't mean that the engine in your truck will get the same as the engine in another truck. They are both two separate entities being driven by different people who do different things.

I have never driven a vehicle with the Ford 3.0 in it. I've heard it has the power of a Honda with the mileage of a 1 ton gasser. But again, that could have been one engine out of all the others in the world.

To sum up my post, comparing the same model of engine to another engine of the same model is like comparing a red apple to a green apple. one is going to taste different, but they are both apples.

[truckmanson]

Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but my 3.0 easily gets 19mpg running it hard, and it has hauled a few heavy loads while doing it. It will not haul as much as a F-150 but it wasn't designed to. When Ford stopped advertising the rangers they all but cut the 3.0 out at that time, (at dealers by me the only rangers they have are a base model 2.3 xl, or a fully loaded 4.0 v-6). If you want power get a v-8, if you want mileage get a 4 banger. however if you want a balance then obviously get a 6, but not everyone wants to shell out extra bucks for a 4.0 when the 3.0 is a proven design and is suitable for the majority of ranger owners, until recent years 90% of rangers I have seen on dealer lots have been 3.0s. Saying the 3.0 was a waist for sacrificing power, or for it getting poor mileage (a rarity I might add, except this thread I have never heard of the 3.0 getting less than 18mpg city), is like saying a 4.9l I6 was just a lead weight, (I know of no one who as ever had a complaint with the 4.9, other than to say they wish it had more top end or a few extra miles per gallon.) I know it is rambling but don't put down a motor that has proven itself time after time and after years of service is finally getting laid to rest. I will miss the 3.0 and can only hope ford makes another motor like it.

[rickcdewitt]

my cousin traded his 3.0/auto/4x4 02 in for a new three valve f-150 and it gets better mileage,even with him peeling out all over

[ccrunner1]

how are yall getting that kind of mileage out of a 3.0. my 94 supercab 2wd might get about 22-23 highway and 16 city

[rusty ol ranger]

The 2.9 has 5 less HP then the 3.0, but 5 more FTlbs at 1000RPM lower.

Hook 3500 lbs behind a 2.9L and a identical 3.0L powered truck, and aim them up a steep hill, and the 3.0L is going to get its ass handed to it.

The 2.9 made more power per cubic inch then a 5.0L H.O or a 351 Lightning engine. They are strong runners for there size.

Also.......to really stir the pot.....my Colorado's 2.9L 4 cylinder makes 185HP and 190FTlbs which is considerably more then a 3.0L Vulcan, and gets 30MPG.

later,
Dustin

[Wicked_Sludge]

the 2.9 would be ahead in that scenario, no doubt...but not by much (i wouldnt say getting its "ass handed to it").

and if the 2.9 makes more power per cube than the 5.0 HO than so does the 3.0 :icon_thumby:

you wanna stir the pot? the 3.0 in an SHO taurus makes 220HP and 222ft-lbs...and its 20 year old technology! :tease:

[rusty ol ranger]

Was the SHO ever used in a ranger from the factory though?

The 3.0L is weak compared to the 2.9L.

From a dead stop a 2.9L will spank it, now 55-70 a 3.0 might get it, because the 3.0 was designed for a taurus, meaning good midrange for good passing/merging power. The 2.9 has grunt.

Its kind of like comparing a 300 to a 302. Yeah the 302 is faster (espically on a 55-70 run), but from a dead stop a 300 will be in front of it, and with a load the 302 will puke.

Horsepower is simply how fast an engine can do work, Torque is how much an engine can actuallly do.

later,
Dustin

[Jspafford]

rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way :icon_cheers:

Have you ever driven a 3.0? You couldn't have. The one in my wife's Regular Cab 1999 Model gets 14MPG...Yeah, my shitty 2.9L gets 23.97MPG last time I filled up. Not to mention I could whip the snot out of a 3.0L in a race.

So what they last forever, the are horrible on fuel and underpowered.

I would never buy another.

[hihoslvr]

well at the risk of drawing out a pointless argument, I got the 3.0, and I'm stuck with for now, but in almost 45,000 miles, no problems (knock on wood). I average 20mpg's, the worst was 16 after I put in 10% ethanol, but I was also driving west across Wyo, so I prolly had a head wind too (and I was very lightly loaded, the truck I mean).
I'm looking forward to the F-100 with the 3.5GDI...

[AllanD]

Aside from replacing a timing gear with a chain and rotating the camshaft the opposite direction, there isn't much difference from the prior engines.

Well, I guess you could count fuel injection, but that was available on the 2.8 in Europe.

Actually, the "2.8" sold in europe with EFI was infact by every definition
and dimension a 2.9.

wanna see a european 2.8 EFI V6? find a Merkur Scorpio.
It's a 2.8 with a different intake manifold. yes, it's REALLY a 2.9.

Other than a few common dimensions and a common bellhousing
pattern the only similarities between the 2.8 and the 2.9 are
the grossly obvious ones. it's a 60degree V6 made by ford of germany.

IT was so similarly designed so it could be produced on
the same machinery

AD

[Wicked_Sludge]

Was the SHO ever used in a ranger from the factory though?

no, neither was a GM 2.9 4-cylinder....whats your point :dntknw:

Have you ever driven a 3.0? You couldn't have.

your kidding, right? my 3.0 gets 24MPG regularly and has towed more than its own weight on occasion (heh, speaking of which, i towed my parents 2.9 gen1 home with it).

and also speaking of which...i raced my dad in that same gen 1 (regular cab, 4x4, 5sp, not sure what gearing but definitely better than mine - very comparable truck), and the 3.0 is more than capable of making up the distance on the big end (which is where i drive my truck). i dont count it as a win, however, because his truck only cost $400....it cant be expected to win much these days.

[kerry]

I guess I don't understand all the contraversy. It seems to me that the 3.0 was a good design that worked well for a lot of purposes. It has now suffered the indignity of becoming obsolete because other designs now offer more potential. It served its purpose better than most! RIP

[Wicked_Sludge]

thats all im saying. cant we just let the 3.0 slip away with the same dignity and respect that the 5.0, 300-I6, and other good motors got? :wub:

[Jspafford]

no, neither was a GM 2.9 4-cylinder....whats your point :dntknw:



your kidding, right? my 3.0 gets 24MPG regularly and has towed more than its own weight on occasion (heh, speaking of which, i towed my parents 2.9 gen1 home with it).




Your more than welcome to come drive her's. I wouldn't lie about fuel economy...believe me I wish it was a lie, cause then I wouldn't have to sell the POS. We can't afford a small truck getting such rediculas MPG. Hell my F-250 with the 5.4 did better than that.

Now, RIP 3.slow.

[Wicked_Sludge]

i meant kidding about suggesting that I had never driven a 3.0 :derisive:

[reginald fairfield]

The more horsepower you need on a day to day basis the worse driver you are. If you are good you can tow anything with a 3.0. Power makes up for the lack of skill. If you have a 3.0 with a manual and know how to shift it will do anything you want it to and get good mileage. :bye:

[Hahnsb2]

The more horsepower you need on a day to day basis the worse driver you are. If you are good you can tow anything with a 3.0. Power makes up for the lack of skill. If you have a 3.0 with a manual and know how to shift it will do anything you want it to and get good mileage. :bye:
What "skill" is involved when towing with a a smaller engine, other than using more throttle and letting it rev :icon_confused:

[aaron_ariens]

I love my 3.0

On my 01' ranger, I have 212,000ml.

[reginald fairfield]

What "skill" is involved when towing with a a smaller engine, other than using more throttle and letting it rev :icon_confused:

like I said. shifting. I have a lot of friends who don't know how, even though they have been driving standards for awhile. If they had to tow they would be ****ed.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Aside from replacing a timing gear with a chain and rotating the camshaft the opposite direction, there isn't much difference from the prior engines.

Well, I guess you could count fuel injection, but that was available on the 2.8 in Europe.

Yeah, a 2.9 is a set of timing gears, crankshaft, rods, pistons, valvetrain, valves, valve covers, intake/exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads away from being a 2.8. Aside from the block (which may or may not be the same), what's left to change?

The 6.8 V-10 has much more in common with a 4.6 than the 2.9 does a 2.8, so does that make it a car engine too?

The more horsepower you need on a day to day basis the worse driver you are. If you are good you can tow anything with a 3.0. Power makes up for the lack of skill. If you have a 3.0 with a manual and know how to shift it will do anything you want it to and get good mileage. :bye:

Experiance has taught me things work much better if you have the right tool for the job...

[DarkBlue03XLT]

boy this arguement gets old. the 2.3 lima was never rated for more than 112hp in n/a form, vs. the 3.0's 145ish. and i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.



my 3.0 will hit 24 MPG regularly on the highway, thats exactly 6MPG better than your f-150...and thats with a 4wd. some of the 2wd 3.0 guys have gotten up to 28 or so.

open mouth. insert foot. :icon_thumby:

I have a 3.0 and I love it but I'm sorry 28 mpg with a 3.0 is really pushing it, 4 cylinders get that but I would love to hear from somebody with a 3.0 and 28 mpg cuz i wanna know how they did it

[inferno94]

I have gotten as good as 23 miles per us gallon and average 18 mpg around town. ('07 3L mtx excab)

I am excited to see the new 3.5/3.7 potential in small trucks, the 3.7 is already in the Mazda cx9 and that's a zippy suv. I could see them making decent engines for trucks especially with the tune ability engineers have with the variable valve timing and variable intake lengths.

[rusty ol ranger]

The 3.0 die with the dignity the 300 I6 has? It doesnt deserve it.

The 300 was a legend, working for 30+ years in everything from F100-F700 trucks, E series vans,School busses, generators, irrigation pumps, forklifts, and im sure im forgetting a few. Most lasting well over 300,000 miles. Generally 1 300 will outlast 2 or 3 trucks.

The 3.0 isnt even in the same class as the 300.

I have good skill when towing a load, doesnt mean i can pull a 44FT enclosed race car hauler with a 2.3L Engine in a F350. (Unless i had 20:1 rear end gears and 30 transmission speeds, then maybe.)

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

[Jspafford]

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin


Darn, I hate to agree with you for once!

[Wicked_Sludge]

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

horsepower is defined as 33,000ft/lbs per minute. meaning the energy required to move 330lbs 100 feet in one minute, or 33lbs 1,000 feet in one minute, ect.

horsepower is a measure of WORK, whereas torque is a measure of twisting force. if we were all running 1 speed gear boxes, torque would be important, but we arent. torque gets you rolling...horsepower KEEPS you rolling.

and at any rate, your talking about 5 ft/lbs and 5 HP difference between the 2.9 and 3.0. thats the differnce between a fat guy driving or a skinny guy driving. or a full tank of gas vs an empty tank. in other words...its nothing to write home about for either motor.

[reginald fairfield]

You all can idolize the 2.9 all you want, it wasn't any better then the 3.0. Both motors are doggy, what do you expect they are small enough to be 4 cylinders but with the weight of a 6. They are all ok, they get the job done, which is what they are meant for. If you don't like them then don't buy em, get a 4.0. I know If i can get enough dough for a new ranger, I am going to buy one with a 4.0, then again I don't really have a choice now...

[rickcdewitt]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge
i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.only if you look at peak hp,the 4.0 has a large torque gain especially down low

[inferno94]

From what I remember from highschool physics, 1hp = 750 watts or in an auto engine hp = (rpm / 5252) * torque. I believe that's the calculation used on dynos to get a hp number.

[rusty ol ranger]

Its only 5ftlbs, but at 1000rpm lower, how much torque is the 3.0 making at 2600rpm?

later,
Dustin

[Wicked_Sludge]

only if you look at peak hp,the 4.0 has a large torque gain especially down low

ya, and the 3.0 has a whole lot more bottom end than the 2.3...whats your point?

Its only 5ftlbs, but at 1000rpm lower, how much torque is the 3.0 making at 2600rpm?

later,
Dustin

about 140ft/lbs. again, torque gets you rolling...horsepower keeps you rolling. the 3.0 would require fractionally more clutch slippage than a 2.9 to get the same load rolling. but after your moving, the 3.0 will have that 5HP advantage.

again, your splitting hairs. the real truth is that the difference is so small that the way each particular engine was broken in is going to have more of an effect on how it'll perform. im sure theres abused 3.0's out there making less peak power than a well-maintaned 2.9. and abused 2.9's that are making less torque than a well maintaned 3.0. even how full the fuel tank is will have a bigger effect than adding or subtracting 5 HP.

[rickcdewitt]

ya, and the 3.0 has a whole lot more bottom end than the 2.3...whats your point?
just saying the split from 3-0 to 4.0 is farther than you implied

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge
i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.

the hp rating isen't the important part is all.

[Wicked_Sludge]

the SOHC 2.3 made a maximim torque rating of 135, the 3.0 a max of 190, and the 4.0 OHV a max of 220. that makes the split between the 2.3 and the 3.0 55 ft/lbs, vs the split between the 3.0 and 4.0 of only 30ft/lbs. even if you go back a few years with the 3.0, the torque rating is still squarly in the middle of the 2.3 and 4.0 OHV.

[Bill]

Yeah, a 2.9 is a set of timing gears, crankshaft, rods, pistons, valvetrain, valves, valve covers, intake/exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads away from being a 2.8. Aside from the block (which may or may not be the same), what's left to change?

The 6.8 V-10 has much more in common with a 4.6 than the 2.9 does a 2.8, so does that make it a car engine too?


Really?

I would like to see you get as far as swapping anything between a 6.8L and a 4.6. I'm not asking you to make it work, just fit the crankshaft or heads from one to another.

You can do that with the 2.8 and 2.9. The heads from a 2.6L (older than a 2.8) will line up on a 2.9L, but will not work due to the way the camshaft is driven (gear vs chain). Some engine builders have used crankshaft from a 2.9 in a 2.8. The front of the crankshaft is machined a bit different to prevent someone from accidentally installing a timing gear in place of a sprocket, so you would have to machine it before using it in a 2.8, but it has been done.

Valve sizes, valve covers and manifolds are insignificant. The changes are due to accommodating different installation configurations. The same engine frequently used different exhaust manifolds in cars and trucks.

Most of the changes over the years were due to improvements and emissions requirements, otherwise we would still be adjusting the lash on our 4.0Ls every year. And some minor redesign is necessary to due these changes. For example, the block on the 4.0L is taller than it was on the original 1.8L V6 for obvious reasons.

[rickcdewitt]

the 3.0 a max of 190, and the 4.0 OHV a max of 220.when did the 3.slow get bumped to 190lb/ft?as far as i can tell its 165lb/ft to 95 and then 162lb/ft in 96-99.

don't tell me about torque not being important.i've driven import trucks for years and hauling a half a ton with a 1600cc isen't fun.even with 4.4 gears and little bity tires.i loved the 2.9 for what it is(a wind up motor like the 3.0) but i'm thoroughly enjoying the 4.0 in my ranger.its just enough to fully utilize the truck for heavy hauling and work.no more zinging off the rev limiter all the time.i get better mpg's than my cousins 4x4 3.0 when i load down my truck and take a long trip in a headwind or up some steep mountains.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Really?

I would like to see you get as far as swapping anything between a 6.8L and a 4.6. I'm not asking you to make it work, just fit the crankshaft or heads from one to another.

You can do that with the 2.8 and 2.9. The heads from a 2.6L (older than a 2.8) will line up on a 2.9L, but will not work due to the way the camshaft is driven (gear vs chain). Some engine builders have used crankshaft from a 2.9 in a 2.8. The front of the crankshaft is machined a bit different to prevent someone from accidentally installing a timing gear in place of a sprocket, so you would have to machine it before using it in a 2.8, but it has been done.

Valve sizes, valve covers and manifolds are insignificant. The changes are due to accommodating different installation configurations. The same engine frequently used different exhaust manifolds in cars and trucks.

Most of the changes over the years were due to improvements and emissions requirements, otherwise we would still be adjusting the lash on our 4.0Ls every year. And some minor redesign is necessary to due these changes. For example, the block on the 4.0L is taller than it was on the original 1.8L V6 for obvious reasons.

Mixing and matching 40 years worth of colone car engine parts isn't quite the same as pulling the entire engine out of a Taurus and having almost EVERYTHING interchange with a Ranger.

Almost ALL engines in trucks have roots going back to a car engine... if they themselves are not car engines. The 2.9 is more different than most vs its car equivilant.

BTW, the crankshaft and cylinder heads are the same design between the windsor 4.6 and 6.8, only one has more stroke with room for two more cylinders. The 5.4 is merely a stroked 4.6 with a slightly taller deck, and the 6.8 is a 10 cylinder 5.4...

[Wicked_Sludge]

when did the 3.slow get bumped to 190lb/ft?as far as i can tell its 165lb/ft to 95 and then 162lb/ft in 96-99.


the flex fuel versions were rated at 190ft-lbs due to smaller combustion chambers (higher compression), and larger injectors. later versions were rated at 180ft/lbs, earlier anywhere between 162-178.

don't tell me about torque not being important.


torque is important...but horsepower is equally so.

i get better mpg's than my cousins 4x4 3.0 when i load down my truck and take a long trip in a headwind or up some steep mountains.

i averaged almost 18 MPG towing 3,000lbs with a 200lb topper and 2-300lbs worth of crap in the bed accross the state of washington.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Guys, Give it up already!

The 2.9, 3.0, and 4.0 OHV are all ancient, dead engines. Each engine has those who love it and those who hate it. Some claim extraordinary mileage from their favorite while others claim terrible mileage from the same engine. If you like the engine in your truck, that's great! But there's no point in arguing about because they're all dead!

I myself am looking forward to the 3.5, which will have better economy than the 2.9 and 3.0, more torque than the 4.0 (even down low), and almost double the high end ponies of the 3.0. It will make all previous rbv V-6's look like worthless pieces of iron.

[rusty ol ranger]

Yeah thats the same thing alot of people said about the 4.2L, 4.6L, and 5.4L when they came out to. :rolleyes:

The 4.6L is decent, and a good replacment for the 302, the 4.2L isnt half the engine the 300 was, and the 5.4L is a spark plug shooting piece of shit.

later,
Dustin

[Rulebreaker]

I put no faith in #'s, as they don't mean crap in the real world. I do however have allot of RBV engine experience. I've had a Ranger 2.8L, a Ranger 2.9L, a Ranger extended cab 3.0L, an Explorer 4.0L OHV, a BroncoII 2.9L, a Aerostar 3.0L, and 2 4.0L Aerostars. They all got around 14MPG except the 2.9's got much better. The Ranger got 19-23 MPG. The B2 got 16-20. I liked all the engines except the 3.0L. It couldn't get out of it's own way empty, then when I would hook onto my 2 place snowmobile trailer and lock in 4 wheel drive, well lets just say I sold it. I replaced it with the Explorer and the milage was the same but i could pull my trailer so i dont see why anyone would want a 3.0L when you could get a 4.0L. I currently have 2 running 4.0L with 250,000 miles so it's not like the 3.0L lasts longer. Just my 2 cents. RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

i dont see why anyone would want a 3.0L when you could get a 4.0L.

because my 3.0 gets better mileage than 90% of 4.0's

I currently have 2 running 4.0L with 250,000 miles so it's not like the 3.0L lasts longer. Just my 2 cents. RB

there was a guy on here that had over 300,000 miles on his sprayed 3.0.

you can "not have faith" in numbers all you want. but unfortunately, even you arent ammune to mathmatics. personal experience is subjective, whereas numbers are objective.

[Accord4tehloss!]

I think maybe alot of the people with completely gutless 3.0 have stretched throttle cables. The 3.0 seems (had one in a taurus) to get alot of its power near the end of the throttle. I know my old taurus was slow as hell until i tightened the cable so the plates opened up all the way. The 2.9 and 4.0 with there higher torque dont seem to be as affected by the throttle not opening up all the way. since they make power lower in the RPM range and at smaller throttle movements

[Wicked_Sludge]

you know, thats quite likely actually...i never thought about that. i havnt had to do the throttle cable "mod" (whys it called a mod and not a repair...?) because my throttle plate opens 90 degrees...but i can imagine it would have a serious impact on an engine that loves its revs (and thus, its CFM).

[Rulebreaker]

because my 3.0 gets better mileage than 90% of 4.0's



there was a guy on here that had over 300,000 miles on his sprayed 3.0.

you can "not have faith" in numbers all you want. but unfortunately, even you arent ammune to mathmatics. personal experience is subjective, whereas numbers are objective.

Did you pull the 90% out of a hat? If your talking 4x4's i highly doubt it. I believe Cheapthrills 4.0L had well into the 300,000 mile range when he pulled it out for a lower mileage one. As far as #'s go, if you look at the HP# of many of todays half ton trucks they look impressive. Then when you drive one your like where's the beef? Dodges Hemi is a prime example. Read any test drive report from like Peterson or 4 wheeler and they all agree with me that the power is overrated. I think that the 3.0L is reliable enough but I won't drive something gutless. The last straw for me was going down a flat freeway with a two place snowmobile trailer 1200#'s at most in 3rd gear at red line because if i put it in 4th I couldn't hold 65 mph. 5th gear wasn't an option. How long would an engine last doing that? Bought a 91 Explorer and pulled the same trailer in OD with the cruise set at 80MPH. Mileage was exactly the same. 14MPG didn't matter if i was on the freeway or in the city. RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

If your talking 4x4's i highly doubt it

if you had kept up with the thread, you'd know my truck does 22-24 unloaded on the highway and about 20 in town. 19-20 highway towing my boat. yes its 4wd...and yes it has shitty gearing to boot.

The last straw for me was going down a flat freeway with a two place snowmobile trailer 1200#'s at most in 3rd gear at red line because if i put it in 4th I couldn't hold 65 mph. 5th gear wasn't an option.

there was something seriously wrong with your 3.0. my truck jerks around my boat (about 1500lbs) like its not even there. overdrive up light hills, no lower than 4th gear on steeper ones...i even pass slower traffic on 2 lane highways with it.

How long would an engine last doing that?

coming though the canadian rockies at about 6500 GCVW, i DID spend a lot of time in 3rd and 4th gears, above 4,500-5,000 RPM (gotta make that HP work for you...torque just creates heat, which is death at low speeds up mountain passes). we averaged 10 driving hours a day, and still averaged around 55 MPH without excessive speeding. if 10 hours over spinning over 4 grand at near full throttle isnt a torture test...im not sure what is...

[Rulebreaker]

if you had kept up with the thread, you'd know my truck does 22-24 unloaded on the highway and about 20 in town. 19-20 highway towing my boat. yes its 4wd...and yes it has shitty gearing to boot.



there was something seriously wrong with your 3.0. my truck jerks around my boat (about 1500lbs) like its not even there. overdrive up light hills, no lower than 4th gear on steeper ones...i even pass slower traffic on 2 lane highways with it.



coming though the canadian rockies at about 6500 GCVW, i DID spend a lot of time in 3rd and 4th gears, above 4,500-5,000 RPM (gotta make that HP work for you...torque just creates heat, which is death at low speeds up mountain passes). we averaged 10 driving hours a day, and still averaged around 55 MPH without excessive speeding. if 10 hours over spinning over 4 grand at near full throttle isnt a torture test...im not sure what is...

My guess is the super cab and need of 4x4 engaged. RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

who needs 4wd on a flat highway?

and theres less than a 300lb difference in weight between a standard and super cab of the same trim schemes (conveniently, about the weight difference of my boat and his snow machine trailer).

[Rulebreaker]

who needs 4wd on a flat highway?

and theres less than a 300lb difference in weight between a standard and super cab of the same trim schemes (conveniently, about the weight difference of my boat and his snow machine trailer).

Come to MI and I'll show you. Old man winter is faster than the county road commission.RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

i learned how to drive while i was still living in alaska...im afraid you dont have much to show me :derisive:

[redman 753]

my 06 3.0 never fails to perform on the farm .my ranger hauls 1500 lbs of tools every day. on harvest season i pull 5 tons of peanuts or 9000 lbs of soybeans. with all this i average 17 mpg.

[redman 753]

no matter what you have,if you know how to drive it, you can make it do what you want it to do.:icon_cheers:

[Rulebreaker]

i learned how to drive while i was still living in alaska...im afraid you dont have much to show me :derisive:

So let me get this straight. If you were pulling a trailer down a snow covered road at 65 MPH you would NOT lock the hubs in? Why own a 4x4? RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

because once your rolling on level ground, 4wd isnt necissary...thats just added wear on the front drivetrane and extra gas your burning off.

i own a 4x4 for when i actually need the traction of all 4 wheels turning...not for going down the freeway.

[Rulebreaker]

no matter what you have,if you know how to drive it, you can make it do what you want it to do.:icon_cheers:

My thought has always been it's easier to do the job with the right tool. If I'm hauling 20,000#'s and i have a choice between a Ranger and a F350 I'll take the F350. Sure you could haul it with the Ranger but it would take you forever.

Sure I could haul the trailer with the Ranger but if i can't keep pace with my friends it's very irritating. RB

[Rulebreaker]

because once your rolling on level ground, 4wd isnt necissary...thats just added wear on the front drivetrane and extra gas your burning off.

i own a 4x4 for when i actually need the traction of all 4 wheels turning...not for doing down the freeway.

How you going to get it rolling if the hubs are unlocked? Besides if your driving in snow pulling a trailer safe is better than sorry. RB

[redman 753]

well it is the only tool i have . it gets the job done. besides i not keeping up with friends when i am working.

[Wicked_Sludge]

i never said anything about the hubs being unlocked. turning the front drivetrane takes a fractional amount of horsepower. POWERING it takes a lot.

when im on snow and ice, im in and out of 4wd constantly as needed.

this is getting old. the fact remains that something was wrong with your 3.0 if it couldnt tow 1,300lbs down the freeway in 4th. i can tow my enclosed utility trailer down the freeway at 65 in 4th and it has a hell of a lot more frontal surface area than a snow machine trailer.

[Rulebreaker]

i never said anything about the hubs being unlocked. turning the front drivetrane takes a fractional amount of horsepower. POWERING it takes a lot.

when im on snow and ice, im in and out of 4wd constantly as needed.

this is getting old. the fact remains that something was wrong with your 3.0 if it couldnt tow 1,300lbs down the freeway in 4th. i can tow my enclosed utility trailer down the freeway at 65 in 4th and it has a hell of a lot more frontal surface area than a snow machine trailer.

We drive alike. Hubs locked, In and out with the T case when needed. I agree my 3.0L was a POS. Best looking truck I ever had, just hated it. RB

[jds3403]

hey dirty sludge
your engine is powered by flubber isn't it. :idiot:
(remember the movie "Flubber" with Robin Williams?)
i would like to sum up ford ranger truck motors.

4 banger in truck? :icon_confused::no2:some thing is essentially wrong when truck and 4 banger are used in same sentence. We can just refer to the 4 powered trucks as jacked up cars with beds that are permanently filled with air.

The 3L, HA HA !!! :icon_rofl::icon_rofl::icon_rofl: That was a good joke Ford, now where is the real engine at? Oh shit, they weren't joking, now i've got a truck payment.:bawling: Got full coverage? burn it and collect the insurance.

4L OHV- alright this motor has got some nuts.:icon_surprised: runs out a steam at 4500 thats cool though. wait what in the hell is that noise? why does it sound like marbles in the oil pan? son of a bitch ford did it again. Passin off crappy stuff to the consumer:buttkick: Hey ford's got a fix!!!

4L SOHC- Alright this motor has got some nuts.:icon_surprised: Runs great all the way up to 6K thats cool. Wait what in the hell is that noise? why does it sound like the timing chains are coming loose? son of a bitch ford did it again.Passin off crappy stuff to the consumer.:buttkick: Hey ford's got a fix!!
3.5..........History is waiting to be written.

[Psychopete]

hey dirty sludge
your engine is powered by flubber isn't it. :idiot:
(remember the movie "Flubber" with Robin Williams?)

:icon_rofl: :D

3.5..........History is waiting to be written.

I guess Ford is the only manufacturer that's had problems?

Missed the 2.8L and 2.9L. 2.8Ls had the "hot spot" heads/exhaust port arrangement, solid lifters, and heaps of feedback carb problems. 2.9Ls are known for poor valve train oiling and cracking heads.

Pete

[jds3403]

Yeah, i was staying away from the ole' 2.8 and 2.9's. That is a whole other can of worms.:icon_cheers:
I was just trying to keep 1990 to present as he was talkin 3.0's in rangers.
so i figured i keep the same timeline.
By the way F no ford isn't the only one with problems however since i drive one of their products:3gears: i feel as though this personal experience gives me more of a right to say crap than sayin it about other companies. I'm trying to stay in my lane. :headbang:

[pacodiablo]

hey dirty sludge
your engine is powered by flubber isn't it. :idiot:
(remember the movie "Flubber" with Robin Williams?)
i would like to sum up ford ranger truck motors.

4 banger in truck? :icon_confused::no2:some thing is essentially wrong when truck and 4 banger are used in same sentence. We can just refer to the 4 powered trucks as jacked up cars with beds that are permanently filled with air.

The 3L, HA HA !!! :icon_rofl::icon_rofl::icon_rofl: That was a good joke Ford, now where is the real engine at? Oh shit, they weren't joking, now i've got a truck payment.:bawling: Got full coverage? burn it and collect the insurance.

4L OHV- alright this motor has got some nuts.:icon_surprised: runs out a steam at 4500 thats cool though. wait what in the hell is that noise? why does it sound like marbles in the oil pan? son of a bitch ford did it again. Passin off crappy stuff to the consumer:buttkick: Hey ford's got a fix!!!

4L SOHC- Alright this motor has got some nuts.:icon_surprised: Runs great all the way up to 6K thats cool. Wait what in the hell is that noise? why does it sound like the timing chains are coming loose? son of a bitch ford did it again.Passin off crappy stuff to the consumer.:buttkick: Hey ford's got a fix!!
3.5..........History is waiting to be written.
Oh my, what a misinformed post.

My four cylinder Ranger had a higher payload capacity than a good number of V8 full size trucks at around 1400 lbs. I actually carried that much with it too and it did just fine. It was tough as nails and is currently being used to maintain rental properties across Charlotte. Jacked up car? Don't think so.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to get at with the 3.0. Mine has no problem moving my truck, loaded or not, and it gets good fuel economy. I don't have payments, and I'm not sure why I would burn the best vehicle I have owned. BTW - mine runs great up to 6K without unusual noises.

I wouldn't say that my 4.0 OHV had "nuts", but it was a decent enough motor. It ran great at 158,000 miles and didn't burn a drop of oil between changes. It was thirsty and loud, but not at all crappy.

[jds3403]

What v8 full size trucks are you talking about? pullin shit out ur ass?
misinformed? :flipoff:I just summed up the history of these motors in about a paragraph sorry if it wasn't detailed for you.
Im glad that you use your truck for whatever you said you used it for I personally didn't finish reading your post as i got bored with your rant.:D

And by the way this previous post was meant to be sarcastic and humorous So lighten up and buy a 4.0
Have a good one there pablo

[pacodiablo]

You didn't sum up the history of anything. Your post really didn't contain anything informative.

And I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. Many optioned out full size trucks have low payload capacities around 1000 lbs. Crew cabs, big engines, 4WD, etc, weigh a lot...that cuts into payload. My I4 Ranger didn't weigh a lot, so it had a payload capacity at the higher end of what you can get with a Ranger and into fullsize territory. That doesn't make me a douche, it just makes you misinformed.

I have owned a 4.0. I've had a 3.0 and 2.5 too. Have you?

[85_Ranger4x4]

What v8 full size trucks are you talking about? pullin shit out ur ass?
misinformed? :flipoff:I just summed up the history of these motors in about a paragraph sorry if it wasn't detailed for you.
Im glad that you use your truck for whatever you said you used it for I personally didn't finish reading your post as i got bored with your rant.:D

2009 4.6L Supercrew 4x4 has a max payload of 1390, the shorter bed-longer cab trucks don't have the payload of the longer bed trucks because they have increased cab weight eating up the payload capacity.

I have had 1k in the back of my Ranger and it handled it fine... and that is with the weak 2.8. I do think a fullsize would handle the same load better though, just because they are wider and more stable.

And I am happy with my 2.8 when the stinkin carb works right. If I had plans of rebuilding this engine instead of going to a V-8 I would replace the stock one with a aftermarket one and life would be good... except I would still have a A4LD.

[jds3403]

You didn't sum up the history of anything. Your post really didn't contain anything informative.

Oh I didn't? Well excuse me for not writing a novel,
Did the 4.0 ohv not have oiling issues in the upper valve train? Did the 4.0 SOHC not have problems with the timing chain? so WTF are you talking about? Im sorry that i didn't explain when the 95tm castings reigned versus the 98tm's.


I have owned a 4.0. I've had a 3.0 and 2.5 too. Have you?

I owned a 98' b2500 5spd. Drove it for a while it was a very good truck I towed my 17 foot bow runner with it and it worked ok. It was good on gas and i didn't have any problems with it until i needed something bigger Sold it
I went and test drove a 2000 ext. cab auto 40k miles with the 3.0.... HA HA HA Two extra cylinders yet it accelerated like a ford aspire!!!! My wife was with me and said "HELL NO". That truck was completely gutless!!!!
I would seriously of been afraid to go down a sandy trail let alone get on the boat ramp. and i know that me trying to keep pace with traffic with that gutless rig would have resulted in heavy petal action and hence forth horrible mileage.
I found another truck which is my daily driver 2000 ranger 4.0 great truck except for the oiling issue. i replaced the cam, lifters and rockers due to the noise and it has been good ever since. This truck is much more powerful than the 3.0 that i drove. i am running 32 11.5's and am returning 19 mpg. not bad might not = a 3.0 but i have the reassurance that my vehicle can move its own fat ass.

[Wicked_Sludge]

test driving a vehicle doesnt account for shit.

ive had my 3.0 for half a decade and have used it for everything from daily driver, to stump puller, to piano hauler, to toy hauler...and everything in between. i know how to drive it and what its capable of. i return a consistant 24MPG highway (with 31's and poor gearing) and have towed more than the trucks empty weight down the highway with it. its made the trip from alaska to the lower 48 - twice. total mileage is about 130,000 miles but the truck runs like it was built yesterday.

like pacodiablo said, you are gravely misinformed.

if you have such a problem with every engine born in the ranger, why do you own one? better sell it and go get an s-10, stat...you know, because thats such a better truck (insert sarcastic snicker here).

[pacodiablo]

Oh I didn't? Well excuse me for not writing a novel,
Did the 4.0 ohv not have oiling issues in the upper valve train? Did the 4.0 SOHC not have problems with the timing chain? so WTF are you talking about? Im sorry that i didn't explain when the 95tm castings reigned versus the 98tm's.
Yes and yes, but despite their issues I wouldn't call them crap. I have seen OHV 4.0 Explorers with 300K on the odo.


I owned a 98' b2500 5spd. Drove it for a while it was a very good truck I towed my 17 foot bow runner with it and it worked ok. It was good on gas and i didn't have any problems with it until i needed something bigger Sold it
I went and test drove a 2000 ext. cab auto 40k miles with the 3.0.... HA HA HA Two extra cylinders yet it accelerated like a ford aspire!!!! My wife was with me and said "HELL NO". That truck was completely gutless!!!!
I would seriously of been afraid to go down a sandy trail let alone get on the boat ramp. and i know that me trying to keep pace with traffic with that gutless rig would have resulted in heavy petal action and hence forth horrible mileage.

I can't say I have had the same issue with my 3.0, though it does have 2WD, decent gears (3.73) and a good transmission (5-speed 5R44E). I deal with Charlotte daily, and the truck has been through almost every large city on the East Coast. But we've gone over that...


I found another truck which is my daily driver 2000 ranger 4.0 great truck except for the oiling issue. i replaced the cam, lifters and rockers due to the noise and it has been good ever since. This truck is much more powerful than the 3.0 that i drove. i am running 32 11.5's and am returning 19 mpg. not bad might not = a 3.0 but i have the reassurance that my vehicle can move its own fat ass.

You bought what works for you, fair enough. I did the same thing.

[jds3403]

test driving a vehicle doesnt account for shit.

How the hell does it not account for shit? Thats what usually determines if you like the MF in the first place I am glad ur ass buys what ever you first come into contact with and if that works for you then wow.... I bet you own all of Billy May's shit don't ya.

ive had my 3.0 for half a decade and have used it for everything from daily driver, to stump puller, to piano hauler, to toy hauler...and everything in between. i know how to drive it and what its capable of. i return a consistant 24MPG highway (with 31's and poor gearing) and have towed more than the trucks empty weight down the highway with it. its made the trip from alaska to the lower 48 - twice. total mileage is about 130,000 miles but the truck runs like it was built yesterday

like pacodiablo said, you are gravely misinformed.

No IMO the 3.0 is terribly under powered don't tell me my opinion is wrong and say yours is right thats pretty ****in arrogant. Thats like sayinig my farts stink and yours don't WTF?

if you have such a problem with every engine born in the ranger, why do you own one? better sell it and go get an s-10, stat...you know, because thats such a better truck (insert sarcastic snicker here).

Obviously ur misinformed cause i didn't mention the 2.8's or the 2.9's in my original rant so how do i have a problem with every engine?

I am a sarcastic **** that likes to poke fun at shit got a problem? Example, if i saw that u had a giant wart on your face i (because it is u) would point it out and laugh and do the whole austin powers thing MAN YOUVE GOT A MOLE MOLEE MOLEE MOLE!!!
it so happens that IMO i think the ranger has the least problems of them all. Its like the elections, you pick the lesser of the evils understand?

[jds3403]

Look whatever floats your boat is cool
in the same respect that whatever tickles my pickle is cool too. The 3.0 has it's own place and niche if you found it and are happy that is rare. i am power hungry to begin with and would love a turbo'ed 5.0 set up. So i hate my 4.0 for it's 175-ish hp performance.
Again i like to make fun of all knids of things humor is better that anger
I'll demonstrate FU versus HA HA
I personally like the HA HA better than the FU
COOL? :icon_thumby:

Have an imaginary beer on me and drink all you want, I'll pick up the imaginary tab.

[Kdawg532]

i own a 3.0 and with what i have in it it was dyno'd at 175 hp, and it will pull a burn out from here to california, it will also acclerate from 0-60 in 7.9 seconds thats pretty good (for a vulcan) to me, i have also carried a payload in the bed of 1800 pounds and it still had plenty of power to spare, i have driven SOHC 4.0's they are nothin to brag about but they are pretty nice, i also loved my 2.5 200+K on it when i wrecked

[Wicked_Sludge]

i own a 3.0 and with what i have in it it was dyno'd at 175 hp

175 on a chassis dyno? i find that a little far fetched for just a cat-back and chip. thatd put you over 200HP at the crank...not likely :D

[Hahnsb2]

175 on a chassis dyno? i find that a little far fetched for just a cat-back and chip. thatd put you over 200HP at the crank...not likely :D
:word:

[Kdawg532]

"no at crank that was a tuners "dyno" guestamate i'd say maybe 130 at the wheel at most, BTW how in the world can those things "Calculate" horses??

[Kdawg532]

you guys just cant see the 3.0 for what it is i just read all 8 pages and damn it tired me out enough to go to bed, and i agree with everything sludge said cause i have owned a number of 3.0s and all of them have been great engines

[red85]

There is a reason we call the 3.0 Vulcan "the Roach". It will go through armageddon like situations and survive to have coffee with Keith Richards.

[Timo99]

Yeah it sucks they finally gave up on the Vulcan. They'll be greatly missed. :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

[rusty ol ranger]

Still doesnt change the fact that a 2.9 will whip a 3.0's ass :)

later,
Dustin

[86_cookiemonster]

You know whats strange is that the 3.0 vulcan was all by itself, no other engines ever sprang up from it. Like how the 2.8 2.9 and 4.0 are an engine family. I mean the 3.0 has room to be stroked and bored, but ford never did anything with it. I just find that a little weird. I gues its because it came out at the end of the pushrod era.

I hope ford brings the 3.5 duratec to the ranger, that would be amazing. I am sure the vulcan would aprove of it as its replacment.

I propos a toast to the engine with that refused to die, the good ol' 3.0 vulcan.

[reginald fairfield]

Still doesnt change the fact that a 2.9 will whip a 3.0's ass :)

later,
Dustin

Too bad you will go through 3 sets of heads in the process of 'whipping' my 3.0's ass. :D

[Wicked_Sludge]

Still doesnt change the fact that a 2.9 will whip a 3.0's ass :)

later,
Dustin

Too bad you will go through 3 sets of heads in the process of 'whipping' my 3.0's ass. :D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2320/2385414304_d679353c64.jpg?v=0

[Hahnsb2]

Too bad you will go through 3 sets of heads in the process of 'whipping' my 3.0's ass. :D
Still rather have a 2.9 :thefinger: Beat the ever loving piss out of mine and didn't change the oil for almost 2 years and it never let me down.

[reginald fairfield]

Mine has actually been through similar. It was a fleet truck, and when I bought it it was, lets see, 6 years old(1999). I checked the oil and it was the blackest shit ever, and it was halfway down the dipstick. At that point it was probably only burning a quart every six months, so I bet it hadn't been changed in at least a year, maybe longer. Still runs like a top, even at 5,000 rpm.

[Rulebreaker]

I bought my 89 B2 with a hydro locked 2.9L. It had been sitting with the water still in it for at least a year. I replaced the 2 bent rods and 1 broken piston and honed what i could without pulling out the other pistons and put the rusty heads on it and ran it. Went to Turtle ridge ORP and spent 5 hours winching my way through one of there mud runs. The fan didn't spin for an hour and a half because of the mud and the temp gauge was on H. I spent a whole week on Drummond Island in low range and averaged 16 MPG. Thats a good engine in my book! RB

[rusty ol ranger]

Contrary to popular belief not ALL 2.9's crack heads.

later,
Dustin

[Kdawg532]

you know what the hardest part is about driving a 2.9???????








































telling your dad that your gay

[rickcdewitt]

you know what the hardest part is about driving a 2wd offroad 3.0???????











telling your dad that your gayfixed it for you:icon_twisted:

[86_cookiemonster]

Gonna tick a lot of you guys off, but i got 1 simple thing to say about your little 2.9 3.0 debate.

There Ain't NO REPLACMENT FOR DISPLACMENT.

[BlackBII]

Gonna tick a lot of you guys off, but i got 1 simple thing to say about your little 2.9 3.0 debate.

There Ain't NO REPLACMENT FOR DISPLACMENT.

Yeah, cause the .1 Liters makes a HUGE difference! lol


You know the worst part about driving a truck with a 3.0?>

























Having to deal with the Factory installed bumper sticker, "Kenny Chesney's butt drives me nutts!"

;missingteeth;

(Stolen from another thread)

[rusty ol ranger]

Once again...playing with a desktop dyno.....

92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 2.9L 3.45 gears....
VS
92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 3.0L 3.45 gears....

2.9....
0-60 10.1
0-100 17.6
1/4mi trap 17.2@77MPH

3.0
0-60 10.2
0-100 17.7
1/4mi trap 17.3@77MPH

Nearly Identical, but if you were to raise the gear ratio, or put more weight on the vehicle...

Lets try it with say, a 3500LB trailer, rasing the weight of the vehicle from 3800, to 7300lbs

2.9- 0-60 19.6
0-100 22.2
1/4 mi trap 21.7@63MPH

3.0 0-60 21.3
0-100 25.8
1/4mi 24.7@ 60mph

The 3.0 just isnt that great of a truck engine :)

later,
Dustin

[Wicked_Sludge]

your right dusty...if you make a habit of drag racing with a 3500lb trailer behind your truck :icon_confused:

EDIT: and i have to wonder about the accuracy of your ET estimator when it says 0-100 will occure one second after the 1/4 speed of 60ish.

[BlackBII]

if you make a habit of drag racing with a 3500lb trailer behind your truck :icon_confused:

I do all the time....

:tease:

[Rulebreaker]

I'd like to see a 2.9L put on a dyno and then dyno'd way past red line. My 87 had no tack and I would run it till it "sounded" like it was time to shift. I remember I would shift from 3rd to 4th at 90 MPH. I then drove a friend of mine's Ranger and it had a tack and his would hit red line in 3rd at around 65 or so. So if the trucks were geared the same and I don't know what the ratio's were I was pushing some serious RPM's. I do know that it really ran good up top. Enough so that when i was 17 I raced a friend of mine with a RS Camaro with a 305 V8 and beat him. My 87 Ranger was one of the best running Ford's I've ever owned. Never leaked or burned a drip of oil and was run hard and put away wet. Man i miss that truck! RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

fuel cutoff is at 5200 RPM, so you werent much past that...and cologn engines dont pull very hard past 4500 or so anyway.

305's dont provide much bragging rights. i used to work with a guy that owned a 305 monte carlo SS that couldnt keep pace with my ranger at speed.

[triumphrider-1]

Once again...playing with a desktop dyno.....

92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 2.9L 3.45 gears....
VS
92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 3.0L 3.45 gears....

2.9....
0-60 10.1
0-100 17.6
1/4mi trap 17.2@77MPH

3.0
0-60 10.2
0-100 17.7
1/4mi trap 17.3@77MPH

Nearly Identical, but if you were to raise the gear ratio, or put more weight on the vehicle...

Lets try it with say, a 3500LB trailer, rasing the weight of the vehicle from 3800, to 7300lbs

2.9- 0-60 19.6
0-100 22.2
1/4 mi trap 21.7@63MPH

3.0 0-60 21.3
0-100 25.8
1/4mi 24.7@ 60mph

The 3.0 just isnt that great of a truck engine :)

later,
Dustin


Holy s#$%t! If my 3.0L was that slow getting to 60 I never would have bought it. Might won't to go back and make sure your numbers were correct for all of them (my 2.9L was definatley not that slow either).

My truck has been about the same as Wickeds' (mines an auto), gets about 23.5MPG on the highway and about 19-20MPG driving in the city.


I do not use 4x4 while on the highway, adjust speed according to conditions.

[Maverick]

fuel cutoff is at 5200 RPM, so you werent much past that...and cologn engines dont pull very hard past 4500 or so anyway.



Now you're officially talking out of your ass. There is no fuel cut off on a 2.9 (if there is, it's way the hell up there). I ran my old (bone stock) 2.9 truck up to 6500 RPM multiple times while off road.

[Wicked_Sludge]

perhaps the older, gen 1 trucks dont have a rev limiter then. i know gen 2's had them since ive been in a '90 2.9 when it hit the rev limiter.

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.

[Rulebreaker]

perhaps the older, gen 1 trucks dont have a rev limiter then. i know gen 2's had them since ive been in a '90 2.9 when it hit the rev limiter.

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.

Neither one of my 2.9L's had any sort of rev limiter and both made excellent power over red line. My 89 had a tack and I buried it all the time. That's why I'd like to see some dyno #'s instead of more worthless opinions. I don't shift till the valves are walking. That's my policy! RB

[Hahnsb2]

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.
While I agree that there is no balls beyond 5k, I had my 2.9 to 5500 RPMs all the time, 6K a few times and 6200-6300 a couple times with never a sign of cutting out. I know I've had my 4.0 to 5500 a couple times with no cutting out. My buddy who used to have a second gen 2.9 had his to 5500 a few times as well :dunno:

[Wicked_Sludge]

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh218/RangerMach1/Ranger/dyno1.jpg

heres a stock OHV 4.0 dyno sheet (a 2.9 would have very similar power curves, a little higher revving due to the smaller bore). notice peak power is just over 4 grand, but begins to taper off just before they cut it. the 2.9's peak power is at 4600, and will also begin to taper afterwards. revving to 6 grand is well out of the powerband and your actually making LESS power then you are below 5 grand.

[2manyfords]

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh218/RangerMach1/Ranger/dyno1.jpg

a little higher revving due to the smaller bore).

The longer stroke is the reason it's lower revving, not the bore.

[Rulebreaker]

Looking at this chart it just seems backwards to me. The good torque #'s should be down low and the HP #'s up high. It looks like max HP is at 2400. Or have I been driving a diesel too long. RB

[Wicked_Sludge]

your backwards, your thinking the HP line is the torque line and visa versa. the torque line is the one thats higher at lower rpm.

[rickcdewitt]

that must be at the tires?25 lb/ft at 1800 rpm's?sorry nope
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff314/rickcdewitt/40lhpgraph.jpg

[Wicked_Sludge]

given the peak ratings, id say thats flywheel. the sheet i posted (with only 131hp) is at the wheels.

[rickcdewitt]

thats pretty impressive to be laying down almost the same torque rating at the tires as the flywheel.a healthy 4.0 might make more than the factory suggests.

[mtm006]

the end of the 3.0 marks the end of an era

[ckblum]

For those of us who can't afford to just choose a vehicle with a newer engine the 3.0L is great. I can't afford a vehicle new enough to have the Duratec 2.3 but I still need good power and decent mileage for my 3 hour commute to school. The old 2.3L was gutless but great on gas, the 3.0L had good torque and hp and was still pretty decent on fuel, however getting a 4.0L was pretty much pointless just to gain more power but sacrifice economy. For me and many other people the 3.0L was the perfect mid-range engine.

Don't bash it because it has served it's purpose just fine, of course it will be beaten by newer, better engines. That's a good thing isn't it? I'm glad we are making advancements in technology that allows the newer 4 bangers to compete with a 3.0L, I'm sure at the time the 3.0L was made they never thought a 2.3 could make as much power as it and still get great mileage.

Who knows maybe one day all vehicles will be perfect little 4 bangers with phenomenal torque, great horse power and awesome gas mileage. Then you can all argue how every other engine was obsolete and sucked and pretty much a waste of time and resources.

[Motorcraft]

I would have to say after owning a ranger with a 3.0 auto on 33's and driving the hell out of it, the engine never gave me any issues and would do anything i asked of it, now my 4.0SOHC with 35's is more powerful but i get around the same fuel mileage with both trucks so eh. the 3.0 started every day and as far as i know is still driving my old truck around. this 4.0L i have in my truck hahahaha if it gets past 120k before dieing i will be happy

[Bryan22]

Seems like some people get good 3.0 and some get dogs for a motor. I always hear people talking about how gutless they are, until they'd sit passenger in my good ol 92 3.go! too bad I sold that thing I loved that truck, and I got middle of the road MPG 17-18 in town 20-22 on the highway. I guess you either love them or hate them. I personally loved mine, alothough my next ranger will have a 2.3 duratech =].

[hades]

Really? It's not in the list? Well maybe they got rid of it. Or perhaps, they're gonna update it or do some upgrades.

__________________
For Floor Mats (http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/floor_mats~pop.html), click

[Wicked_Sludge]

ford killed all of their few remaining pushrod engines this year (3.0, 4.2, whatever else there was). we wont be seeing a return of them, the design is just too outdated.

the duratec line will slowly replace everything soon. even the 4.0 SOHC's days are numbered...since the 3.5 duratec makes more power with less fuel.

[pacodiablo]

Seems like some people get good 3.0 and some get dogs for a motor. I always hear people talking about how gutless they are, until they'd sit passenger in my good ol 92 3.go! too bad I sold that thing I loved that truck, and I got middle of the road MPG 17-18 in town 20-22 on the highway. I guess you either love them or hate them. I personally loved mine, alothough my next ranger will have a 2.3 duratech =].

Apparently. A lot of the 3.0 haters have never owned one. As for those who have, I can only attribute it to them getting "bad apples." I love my 3.0. It scoots along pretty well, and it sounds so nice at 5000 RPM. There isn't anything I'd rather have but an EFI 5.0 in my truck.

[loneranger04]

i have 2004 ranger edge with the 3.0L and it has never let me down no matter what i ask of it.

[Bryan22]

yea, no matter how much anyone hates the 3.0 it's bullet proof. i put a quart of oil in mine every time i filled up the fuel tank for over 70,000 miles and it never whimpered. I don't remember who said it but I love this "If you can manage to destroy a 3.0 that has oil and coolant in it, you shouldn't be able to operate anything more complex than a refirgerator".

[bmxryder]

well ive never ridden in a 3.0L but when i bought my ranger and i heard there was a 3.0 and a 4.0 v6 i didnt see the point in buying a motor with less power and a small bit better mileage. is it really worth it? if i spend $75 more on gas a year for the power then i DEFINANTLY feel its worth it.

[hihoslvr]

i have 2004 ranger edge with the 3.0L and it has never let me down no matter what i ask of it.

x2 (knock on wood)

and to bmxryder: ever heard the phrase "Run whatcha brung"? If I had a 4.0, I probably wouldn't complain about it neithr. But I got what I got, and it's paid for too.

[bmxryder]

and to bmxryder: ever heard the phrase "Run whatcha brung"? If I had a 4.0, I probably wouldn't complain about it neithr. But I got what I got, and it's paid for too.


yeah i agree with run whatcha brung, but why did you end up with a 3.0? did you just blindly buy a truck without researching what you acually wanted?

[hihoslvr]

hehe, yeah sort off. I had an old Toyota PU with a 3.0 V6. Wanted to get an F150 w/V6, couldn't find any I liked that I could afford (this was back in '04 mind you, when they were still goin' for 15K+), then I found this little gem, and the rest is history!

[Wicked_Sludge]

if i spend $75 more on gas a year for the power then i DEFINANTLY feel its worth it.

i drive 11,000 miles a year just for my commute (doesnt include other runnings around). my 3.0 gets 23-24MPG highway. we'll give the 4.0 a GENEROUS figure of 20MPG. if i average a cost of $3/gal for the year, that saves me about $300 a year on fuel. if we give the 4.0 a more realistic fuel economy figure like 18MPG, i save over $450 a year.

of coarse i actually drive more than that since i also tow my boat into town during the summer and drive out on the beach quite a bit...so actual savings are even higher.

[red85]

I have been in and driven countless 3.0's. Sure they aren't barburners perfomance wise, but they are dead nuts reliable. My wife's 08 Ranger with the 3.0 has been excellent. I ordered it with a 5 speed and a 4.10 limited slip so it will pull the 85 to the track pretty easily too.

[reginald fairfield]

It is weird what someone said, some 3.0's do seem really slow. I love the one in my pickup, it will get up and go, and it has 3.73 and open diff, extended cab so a little heavier. The ranger's we have at work also have the 3.0. but they are single cab with open 4.10 ratio, yet they go way slower. It takes them forever to get up to 3 grand for some reason, I know that I could beat them in my personal pickup. You would think they would haul ass with a single cab and low gears.... Still nice little pickups anyways though, even though they are xl's...

[mtnrgr]

Some like the 3.0 and alot more hate them. I personally love mine that little monstor has shown me numerous times what it can do over the years. From towing triple the capacity and hauling while the bed is rubbing on the back tires and it still has plenty of go. With a 5spd and 4:10 gears my little ole 3.0 has impressed me alot since I bought it new in 94. It had 3:45 gears when it was stock, those gears sucked. I love the ones I have now. I can merge onto the highway & move about town & hills with no issues. I have driven some slow 3.0's in other vehicles, I have realized the auto trannys in the rangers suck. Now the 3.0 in the taurus with the auto that's a better combo. Especially my friend's granny's old 99 that thing moved extremely well. It look like shit since the granny hit so much stuff with, but the car ran strong & I enjoyed driving it before it was junked.

Either you love or hate the 3.0, I personally enjoy owning mine since my rebuild. It's made my ranger alot more fun to drive.

[Shawnski]

The 3.0 die with the dignity the 300 I6 has? It doesnt deserve it.

The 300 was a legend, working for 30+ years in everything from F100-F700 trucks, E series vans,School busses, generators, irrigation pumps, forklifts, and im sure im forgetting a few. Most lasting well over 300,000 miles. Generally 1 300 will outlast 2 or 3 trucks.

The 3.0 isnt even in the same class as the 300.

I have good skill when towing a load, doesnt mean i can pull a 44FT enclosed race car hauler with a 2.3L Engine in a F350. (Unless i had 20:1 rear end gears and 30 transmission speeds, then maybe.)

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin


Talk about being an ass! From the high alter of the 2.9 you come down on a fellow Ranger enthusiast for liking his 3.0? While I profess to know little of the German built 2.9's other than they clatter like sewing machines - I do like what my little 3.0 has to offer.

This past summer I was hell-bent on finding a Ranger (2wd) for household utility purposes and as an occasional tow-vehicle for my 3000 lbs Farimont road racecar and in case my sons sketchy '89 BMW 325i goes down (actually a very good reliable car).

Anyway had a 2.3 duratech been available during my 1 month search with a 5-speed reg. cab I might have jumped - however the more I compared the more I knew the 3.0 was the right engine for the most basic of Rangers. Besides I had one in a '90 Probe LX and thought it was a smooth performer.

I ended up buying a former Orkin truck - white '05 XL 3.0 5-spd reg. cab short box. I did a deep cleaning, changed all the fluids with synthetic and it currently has 87k mi. I recently diposed of the "oil drum" muffler and replaced this with my own cat- back 2.5" 11" Magnaflow dumped ahead of the passenger side rear wheel.

So far I really love this little truck! Its simple, rugged with timeless good looks - sure its not sophisticated but the engine and trans are ideal for this old school pick-up. To me the torque advantage over the 4cyl is what made me seek a 3.0 and with the Magnaflow it has an unstressed nature and mellow burble - yet will rev past 5k with ease - try that with a factory 300ci six! I average between 18-22 mpg which is way better than my 15 mpg 2004 F150- and its a way smaller pick-up.

The thing that strikes me the best about this engine is it almost silent when running in term of mechanical noise - surley the roller lifters have something to do with this. Bottom line is it reminds me of six cylinder sports car of 40 years ago - simple, torquey and lots of fun to drive without having to go 100+ mph to feel something.

[TinyBear]

I too will miss the good old 3.0L.

Heck i purposely bought a left over 2008 Ranger over getting a 2009 just because i wanted a 3.0L.

I have now owned THREE 3.0L rangers (including my new one) and Co-owned a 4.0L SOHC in a explorer. Also had a OHV 4.0L in the family in a Aerostar.

My first Ranger was a 1999 reg cab 2wd 3.0L auto. Sold it with 120,000kms or 75,000miles on and it obviously was problem free with the exception of a O2 sensor. This is still easily one of my favorite truck i have ever had the pleasure of owning. It averaged 24mpg on my at the time highway commute and rarely ever got south of the 20mpg mark.

My second ranger i bought used was 1996 Ex cab 4x4 with the 3.0L and an auto. Sold it with 280,000 or 174,000miles on the clock. It too was nearly trouble free but it had a new exhuast and a IAC took a dump too oh and the steering box got replaced too. Other than that and the reg brakes tires and ALOT of front u-joints buy beating the truck off road it too was all original INCLUDING THE AUTO TRANS:icon_surprised:. I even used this one to tow over 4000lbs when i moved to my new place. When i sold it the trans was on its way out and the interior had seen better days but that good old 3.0L was still going strong and although not fast by any means of the word was still enuff to out run my brothers Suzuki Grand Vitara 4x4 with the 2.5L DOHC v6 or 89 Jeep Cherokee with a 4.0L inline six. This truck was a PIG on fuel though averaging 18mpg with a worst of 14mpg and a best of 21mpg.

As for the explorer well it was bought NEW for my dads company (witch whom i worked for for many years). It was always maintained by me or ford and always done on time much the same as both my rangers (I was a apprenticing mechanic at the time). at 140,000kms or 87,000miles it developed the COMMON cam chain tenshiner isshue. At 180,000kms or 112,000kms it had a oil starvation problem to the heads. and by 200,000kms or 124,000miles it needed a new engine and the trans was nearly done too. We decided to scrap it as it just was not needed anymore nor worth it. It also averaged 16-18mpg highway since day one and never seen north of 20mpg.

As for the old Aerostar we had. It too was bought new. It was a 1990 model and had the 4.0L ohv V6 and an auto. This thing never failed us and always got the job done from family vacations to company work vehical to tow vehical. Was a great little van and was mostly trouble free. The engine was never a problem except for an alt and two starters and some oil leaks. As for the Van well it had a lot of RUST ishues but other than that was fine. It too drank fuel at a pretty solid 16mpg but was sold with 150,000kms or 93,500miles.

And now i am on Ranger three and 3.0L number 3. This ones a NEW 2008 Ranger Spot ex cab 2wd auto with the 4:10 rear end. Its much more zippy than i remeber my old ones to be but has yet to get better than 19mpg (still breaking it in). I expect to see around 19-20mpg on my mostly country road commute and MANY MANY MANY trouble free miles. as it stands it only has 2300kms or 1400miles so i got many years to look forward too.

[terroristthret15]

dah, go with the 4.0 for a v6...

[jax4bangin]

herd horror stories (and witnessed some) bout the 4.0 warping heads around 150k to
200k so i wudnt plan on rackin on the miles

[rusty ol ranger]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin

[TinyBear]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin


That is a pretty weak argument. Your saying that just cause the engine got its roots in cars (much like many other "TRUCK" engines AKA 5.0L 5.8L etc) and it makes power differantly than another engine it does not deserve any respect???

Listen i love the 300/4.9L I6 ford engines and still have fond memories of grandpas old 70's ford F100 with a 300 and a 3 in the tree trans. BUT i EQUALLY love my little 3.0L's. Sure i gotta rev her a bit to get her to move but they have never failed me and have always got what ever job done i needed.

Hell I have towed more damn loads behind my old 3.0L rangers than i ever did with my Old F250 with a REAL truck engine a International 7.3 IDI Turbo.

[reginald fairfield]

Well said.

[RangerRock]

My brother 4X4 2001 F-150 XL get better millage with teh 4.2L, than my dad's friends 06 ford Ranger 4X4 XLT the the f 150 wiht tonneua cover on the bed get roughly 18-20 Mpg the Ranger was getting about 15-19 wiht a toneau, both truck have auto tranny.

Now my 92 wiht teh 3.0l, 2wd 5 speedwiht tonneau gets about 26 mpgwhere my dads @008 ranger wiht the 2.3L duratech 5 speed , also wiht toneau gets, 28-30+.

And if im not mistaken the newer 3.0 were makeing 150 Hp thanks to the improved composite intake.

Gonne miss the ol reliable 3.0 vulcan :bawling:
gonna run mine into the ground :icon_welder: then rebuild it and do it over again


Here an idea give us ranger owners the Duratech 3.0L we have all wanted since intorduction in the tarus, more more beter economy, what more could we want from a 3.0 replacment?

[Wicked_Sludge]

the 3.0 vulcan and 3.0 duratec in the taurus have basicaly the same fuel economy rating...but the extra 50HP wouldnt be a bad thing.

[Shawnski]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin

Dustin, last I checked you could not get the 2.9 or 3.0. Your point is moot, I hardly think someone would replace their mid-range 3.0 with an equally mid range 2.9. The fact that a six cylinder is not available in the short base cab is a loss in anyones book.

[pacodiablo]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

I don't care if you like the 2.9. I like the 3.0. That doesn't mean I'm going to dog the 2.9 just because it isn't a 3.0 though.

[Wicked_Sludge]

well said.

the 2.9 had a good run before it was replaced by the 3.0. and the 3.0 had a good run until it got replaced with engine X (time will tell :drool:). both were good motors and both deserve to die with dignity.

but i still prefer my 3.0 :icon_thumby:

[souldoubt88]

:drool::drool::drool:get me an ecoboost v6 in a ranger:drool:

[Wicked_Sludge]

the whole point of the "ecoboost" (why ford thinks this is new technology i dont know) is to use the smallest engine possible and make up the power with boost. so an ecoboost v-6 in your ranger would be pretty pointless. id rather have something like a 1.3L that makes 70 HP n/a boosted to 20 PSI. thatd give you OHV 4.0 pushrod power with better than 2.3 mileage.

[souldoubt88]

A direct-injected, twin-turbocharged version of the all-aluminum Duratec 35 has been developed, producing 430 hp (321 kW) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque. The TwinForce 3.5 L V6 is intended to deliver the performance (on demand) of a typical large displacement 6.0 L-class V8, with the normal driving (highway) fuel efficiency of a 3.0 L to 4.0 L class V6.At the 2008 NAIAS, Ford introduced a similar gasoline turbocharged direct injected engine family called EcoBoost, scheduled for production starting in 2009.The EcoBoost family is expected to be available as four-cylinder I4 and six-cylinder V6 versions. The 2010 Lincoln MKS is scheduled to kick off EcoBoost production, with a 3.5 L V6 version estimated at 340 hp, in mid-2009, followed closely by the Ford Flex. The Ford Explorer America and Lincoln MKT concept crossover utility vehicles, which debuted in the 2008 NAIAS, show a similar displacement GTDI EcoBoost engine with up to an estimated 415 hp. The company eventually plans to equip a half-million cars and trucks annually with turbocharged EcoBoost engines by 2013.
Gasoline direct injection more precisely manages fuel flow into the cylinders, for more efficient combustion and emissions control, when compared to port injection. Twin-turbocharging forces more air into the engine on demand, allowing additional fuel to be injected and burned, producing more power: 118 hp (88 kW) per liter in the case of the TwinForce. Technologies for the twin turbocharging system were developed in cooperation with Volvo Cars, and the gasoline direct injection system is a joint development between Ford and Bosch based on Bosch DFI systems already in production.

doesnt sound pointless to me.....

[Wicked_Sludge]

the point of my post went sailing over your head :D

the whole point behind the ecoboost is to allow the use of a smaller, more fuel efficient engine in place of a larger one without sacrificing power. e.g. a 6 cylinder will be used in place of an 8 cylinder, and a 4 banger in place of a v-6.

putting a v-6 "ecoboosted" engine in your ranger would provide the same mileage as its getting now...although with much higher power output. if ford was to equip the ranger with ecoboost, it would likely be a 4 cylinder which would provide v-6 power levels with 4 banger fuel economy.

they called it "ecoboost" because it boosts the economy without sacrificing power. if they were after more power with unchanged economy, they would have called it "powerboost" :icon_thumby:

[souldoubt88]

putting a v-6 "ecoboosted" engine in your ranger would provide the same mileage as its getting now...although with much higher power output. :icon_thumby:

exactly. either way ive heard ford plans on puttin em f150's. and since we were talkin about engines being killed off (the 4.0L is probably next) i thought i would mention what a good(IMO) replacement choice would be. ideally they would offer both the 4 and 6.
(as they do now)

[Rulebreaker]

I like the idea of the ecoboost boost engine it's all the other crap that goes with it that pisses me off. Some of the mileage gains wont be from engine tech but from the electric assisted steering and getting rid of the frame on the explorer. Anyone with an older truck in a norther climate (Salted roads) knows the electric crap goes first. Anyone with an electric shift t case or an electric speedo or ABS in the rust belt knows they just wont last as long as the old mechanical stuff. As for no frame, i can get one of those at the Jeep dealer if i want one. I wish they would just KISS a truck. Cheaper to buy and maintain. Europeans know and understand this but we dont. Give me a truck with a strong but efficient engine a manual tranny a manual shift T case a cable speedometer, 4 wheel disc brakes with NO ABS. 2 coil sprung solid axles. A fully boxed lightweight frame. 2 vinyl bench seats with a vinyl floor, for about $15,000-$20,000. NO air bags. No traction control. Otherwise I'll drive my 94 F350 PSD for the rest of my life. The only bell or whistle I want is a heated steering wheel and they dont make it. Go figure. RB

[2004ranger]

If they put the 3.5L in the F-150 im gonna be looking for the 3.5L in the junk yards to put in my ranger.

[souldoubt88]

:word:

[Gotta_gofast]

So many mixed feelings... Sucks the 3.0L is being retired but also excited to see what takes its place! hmmm