No 3.0 in new Rangers

[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

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 . The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L.

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.

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



aerodynamics? really? these engines are ALL in rangers 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

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 . The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L.

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.

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...

 

[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.