• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

No 3.0 in new Rangers


pacodiablo

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
392
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Age
36
Location
Birmingham, AL
Vehicle Year
2002
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0 4.0
Transmission
Automatic
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.
 
Last edited:


Wicked_Sludge

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,937
Reaction score
42
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Westport, WA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3-point-GO
Transmission
Manual
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

FoMoCo MoFo
TRS Banner 2010-2011
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
40
Location
Eureka, California
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,937
Reaction score
42
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Westport, WA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3-point-GO
Transmission
Manual
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

FoMoCo MoFo
TRS Banner 2010-2011
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
40
Location
Eureka, California
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.
 
Last edited:

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
32,192
Reaction score
17,488
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
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

New Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
474
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Mexico
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0 liter FF
Transmission
Manual
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,937
Reaction score
42
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Westport, WA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3-point-GO
Transmission
Manual
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

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 1, 2001
Messages
7,897
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Age
62
Location
East-Central Pennsylvania
Vehicle Year
1987... sorta
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
'93 4.0
Transmission
Manual
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

New Member
Solid Axle Swap
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
502
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Longview, WA
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0L
Transmission
Manual
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

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
392
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Age
36
Location
Birmingham, AL
Vehicle Year
2002
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0 4.0
Transmission
Automatic
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

New Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Messages
2,075
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
nor-cal
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
ford
Engine Size
4-0 swap
Transmission
Manual
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

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
392
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Age
36
Location
Birmingham, AL
Vehicle Year
2002
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0 4.0
Transmission
Automatic
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.
 
Last edited:

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
32,192
Reaction score
17,488
Points
113
Location
SW Iowa
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.0
Transmission
Manual
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

Ranger Custom
Article Contributor
OTOTM Winner
TRS Banner 2010-2011
Truck of Month
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
7,895
Reaction score
982
Points
113
Location
UT
Vehicle Year
1989
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
5
Tire Size
33
:dntknw:
I like my 2.9.
















:D
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Truck of The Month


Kirby N.
March Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Top