If you could bring back....

rusty ol ranger · Mar 23, 2018

mtnrgr said:
Ford already brought back my favorite the 5.0, not fond of the coyote it's still the ole 5.0.

All of us long time TRS ole timers are aware your a true fan of the 2.9. Have been on here since 2000-2001 era. Every person in the years of Rangers have been given or taken a Ranger by a choice they may not have had. We drive it make it our own or it's a temporary truck until that person gets something else. Most people have been satisfied with the engine that is in their Ranger. We get comments all the time by others that engine is no good, etc. Then debates heat up just like pro's and con's in politics, and it sickens me.

The Ranger I have now is my 94 I purchased new in 94. It has the 3.0 5spd, and I have put this truck thru everything you can imagine and beyond. It has still gotten me to where I have needed to go. Original engine was rebuilt at 300,000 miles, only due to mileage I had it rebuilt. That went to 240,000, was getting a little tired. Purchased a good long block from my friend's yard. Had the whole thing rebuilt with some extras, and has 28,000 miles. In the 24 years of owning a 3.0 Ranger I have been extremely impressed with this v6. I have owned a 88 2.3 5spd Ranger bought that in 1989 when I was 16 working part time. I have owned 94 4.0 5spd Ranger for 2 years awhile back. All in all the 3.0 is a good engine. People say they have been to hell and back with thier truck. I have also, with the mileage I have been to the moon and back and still driven thousands of miles in it. My 3.0 Ranger has been across the U.S.A dozens of times on long distance road trips. I did a 100,000 miles in one year for example.

Despite what people say I will still choose the ole 3.0. I have been running the original Flowmaster 40 with 2.5" piping since 1999, and ole timers compliment the sound and how I have kept my truck looking over the years. I have been running 31's for 19 years after I had my skyjacker kit on it. With 4:10 gears and posi rear end, yeah my 3.0 Ranger moves and has been good to me.

Currently own a 96 3.0 5spd Ranger for my daily driver / work truck. I am looking at buying another Ranger, but with a 2.3 5spd that will have a turbo put into it.

Toast to another old timer :beer:

I dont hate the 3.0, or the 4.0, or hell even the 4poppers, most of the time i make snide remarks about "Taurus this" or "grocery getter" that its in good fun.

Ill give the vulcan credit, they are much more foregiving then the 2.9 when it comes to neglect, and yuu can heat them up and not turn a head into the grand canyon.

My only real issue with it is its lack of punch when you mat the skinny pedal. The 2.9 goes, the 3.0 kinda, loafs.

That being said, ive always been a fan of the "screw it, time for a swap" engines, 2.9, 300, 351M/400, etc.

96Indyram · Mar 23, 2018

Well I guess I am the odd man out so far in this thread.
I love the old 429 (385 series) engines. The base 429 was a beast...the Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet were monsters, then the 429 boss was just pure evil!

With today's technology of fuel injection, over head cams, and Hemi style combustion chambers ... Today's version of a 429 Boss would be Evil squared to the 2nd or 3rd power.
And would make a 707hp Dodge Hellcat or the Demon look weak.

I still have my old 429CJ ... one of these days I will put it In something special.

rusty ol ranger · Mar 23, 2018

Back for the 15 minutes i had facebook i got in a big argument with a diesel guy, about how diesels are king and gas trucks suck.

He shut up pretty quick when i did some math and showed that a 460, making the same power per cube, (only way i knew to bring it up to modern day) as a 3.5L ecoboost, would be something like 750hp and pushing 1000ftlbs of torque.

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 23, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
Back for the 15 minutes i had facebook i got in a big argument with a diesel guy, about how diesels are king and gas trucks suck.

He shut up pretty quick when i did some math and showed that a 460, making the same power per cube, (only way i knew to bring it up to modern day) as a 3.5L ecoboost, would be something like 750hp and pushing 1000ftlbs of torque.

So you were arguing for an Ecoboost?

I didn't think it was that cold out... :icon_confused:

adsm08 · Mar 23, 2018

mtnrgr said:
Ford already brought back my favorite the 5.0, not fond of the coyote it's still the ole 5.0.

Ford brought back the displacement. The Coyote shares nothing else with the small block engine you like.

rusty ol ranger · Mar 23, 2018

85_Ranger4x4 said:
So you were arguing for an Ecoboost?

I didn't think it was that cold out...

Hey man, a gas engine is a gas engine when youre in a battle with a dicer (diesel ricer)

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 23, 2018

adsm08 said:
Ford brought back the displacement. The Coyote shares nothing else with the small block engine you like.

And everything about it is an improvement aside from the physical size.

And it is even an actual 5.0.

fastpakr · Mar 23, 2018

Haha, not a 4.9 liter this time around?

rusty ol ranger · Mar 23, 2018

85_Ranger4x4 said:
And everything about it is an improvement aside from the physical size.

And it is even an actual 5.0.

If you do the math wasnt the 300 (4.9L) actually just a bit bigger on displacement then the 302? (5.0L)?

fastpakr · Mar 23, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
If you do the math wasnt the 300 (4.9L) actually just a bit bigger on displacement then the 302? (5.0L)?

No. The 300 is 300.08 cubic (4" bore, 3.98" stroke, 6 cylinders), the 302 is 301.59 cubic (4" bore, 3" stroke, 8 cylinders).

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 23, 2018

fastpakr said:
Haha, not a 4.9 liter this time around?

4.951L this time around so it can actually round up to 5.0.

rusty ol ranger · Mar 23, 2018

fastpakr said:
No. The 300 is 300.08 cubic (4" bore, 3.98" stroke, 6 cylinders), the 302 is 301.59 cubic (4" bore, 3" stroke, 8 cylinders).

Ah ok, my mistake. I was thinking both were 301.xx cubes and ford rounded down on the 300 and up for the 302, cause it wouldnt due to have a 6 bigger then an 8 lol

adsm08 · Mar 23, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
Ah ok, my mistake. I was thinking both were 301.xx cubes and ford rounded down on the 300 and up for the 302, cause it wouldnt due to have a 6 bigger then an 8 lol

No, it wouldn't do for them to have an I6 and a V8 be the "same size" so they improperly rounded the 302 up to 5.0.

61 inches is a liter. So the small block 5.0 is only 4.9.

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 23, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
Ah ok, my mistake. I was thinking both were 301.xx cubes and ford rounded down on the 300 and up for the 302, cause it wouldnt due to have a 6 bigger then an 8 lol

They did that with the metric number to make the 302 sound bigger and better than the 300.

pjtoledo · Mar 23, 2018

adsm08 said:
No, it wouldn't do for them to have an I6 and a V8 be the "same size" so they improperly rounded the 302 up to 5.0.

61 inches is a liter. So the small block 5.0 is only 4.9.

and for those of us that are anal with precision,,,,4.948893328L = 302 cu in

still can't legitimately round it up to 5.0 :dunno:

If you could bring back....

2.9 Mafia-Don

Member

2.9 Mafia-Don

Forum Staff Member

Senior Master Grease Monkey

2.9 Mafia-Don

Forum Staff Member

Forum Staff Member

2.9 Mafia-Don

Forum Staff Member

Forum Staff Member

2.9 Mafia-Don

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals