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
Dustin doesn't care about SOHC Colognes. The 2.9 was never SOHC. I was referring to the Cologne engines he likes.Colone's haven't been pushrod for quite awhile now. And they (as well as the 2.3) are very reliable engines.
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).
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...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.
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: