truckmanson
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Chesterfield, Michigan
- Vehicle Year
- 2005
- Make / Model
- Ford
- Engine Size
- 3.0l v-6
- Transmission
- Automatic
Blah blah blah
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.
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.