Newb Question About 3.0 injection

FillMarr · Mar 20, 2018

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Explains why the wife loves it so much and doesnt want me to sell it!

adsm08 · Mar 20, 2018

rusty ol ranger said:
One thing i always found odd though, is it seems that since the 2.9/4.0 use the same motormounts and bellhousing, it would of made more sense then having to have totally different pieces for 2.3/2.5 3.0 and 4.0.

fastpakr said:
Honestly the simplest solution would probably have been to never offer the 3.0 in the first place. The 2.3 with a 5 speed as the base model for general use plus the 4.0 with either transmission for hauling heavier loads would have been a simpler lineup that covered all bases pretty well.

Agreed on both points. It would likely have been simpler to update the 2.9, especially since all the leg work to fix it's major issues had been done on the 4.0. It was largely just a matter of updating some of the procedures used in producing the block, using different lifters, and re-writing the 4.0's software to use the 2.9's air/fuel tables. It would have been a simple matter to change the 2.9 to EDIS and put the EGR back on, which likely would have been enough to make the emissions up to snuff.

As for needing three engines, that is a common trope of Ford trucks, you usually have one small engine with a low cylinder count, and then two larger ones. I agree the 3.0 should never have been considered for the Ranger. It is fine in a car, but in the Ranger it tended to roughly match the 4.0 for fuel economy and the 2.3 for power.

As for the people who decided to use it, well they were very highly educated. And if they had actually been smart they wouldn't have needed to be taught so much.

pjtoledo · Mar 20, 2018

adsm08 said:
Agreed on both points. It would likely have been simpler to update the 2.9, especially since all the leg work to fix it's major issues had been done on the 4.0. It was largely just a matter of updating some of the procedures used in producing the block, using different lifters, and re-writing the 4.0's software to use the 2.9's air/fuel tables. It would have been a simple matter to change the 2.9 to EDIS and put the EGR back on, which likely would have been enough to make the emissions up to snuff.

As for needing three engines, that is a common trope of Ford trucks, you usually have one small engine with a low cylinder count, and then two larger ones. I agree the 3.0 should never have been considered for the Ranger. It is fine in a car, but in the Ranger it tended to roughly match the 4.0 for fuel economy and the 2.3 for power.

As for the people who decided to use it, well they were very highly educated. And if they had actually been smart they wouldn't have needed to be taught so much.

I like that one :icon_thumby:

adsm08 · Mar 20, 2018

pjtoledo said:
I like that one

Thanks, I came up with that today while reading a response to something Kamala Harris posted on Twitter about "Free" college. I think I am going to start using it regularly.

cbxer55 · Mar 21, 2018

adsm08 said:
Thanks, I came up with that today while reading a response to something Kamala Harris posted on Twitter about "Free" college. I think I am going to start using it regularly.

Kamala Harris: The new replacement for the Sea Hag Clintstone. :annoyed:

adsm08 · Mar 21, 2018

cbxer55 said:
Kamala Harris: The new replacement for the Sea Hag Clintstone.

Right but if she stays as far out in left field as she has been she will probably only get about as far as Hilliary did.

Newb Question About 3.0 injection

FillMarr

Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

pjtoledo

Well-Known Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

cbxer55

Well-Known Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Staff online

Members online

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Latest posts

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

Latest Album Photos

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals