Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
I just got a 2009 Ranger brochure. They don't list the 3.0 V6 in it. Is this the first year without the 3.0?
-
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
- Thread starter Ferris Bueller
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 13,987
- City
- Michigan
- Vehicle Year
- 1987
- Engine
- 2.9 V6
- Transmission
- Manual
- My credo
- A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
Good riddance.
Probely is, i think the only reason the 3.0 was around anymore was for the ranger wasnt it?
The taurus uses the 3.5 duratech.
I wish theyd rebirth the 2.9L and a smaller 4.0SOHC.
later,
Dustin
Probely is, i think the only reason the 3.0 was around anymore was for the ranger wasnt it?
The taurus uses the 3.5 duratech.
I wish theyd rebirth the 2.9L and a smaller 4.0SOHC.
later,
Dustin
Wicked_Sludge
Well-Known Member
im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.
i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.
id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...
i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.
id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...
85_Ranger4x4
Wallows in rivers
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.
i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.
id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...
The 5.0 has only been dead for 7, I think the 4.2 in the F-150's that died this year was pushrod.
Wicked_Sludge
Well-Known Member
ahh i forgot about the 4.2. i guess for that matter, the 3.8 wasnt replaced until 2005. and then theres the 3.9 used in the minivans up until last year.
and i didnt count the deisels since thats apples and oranges.
the last 5.0 ford made was in '96 for the f-150's.
so it wasnt quite the only pushrod motor
but definitly the only one that mattered 
and i didnt count the deisels since thats apples and oranges.
the last 5.0 ford made was in '96 for the f-150's.
so it wasnt quite the only pushrod motor
but definitly the only one that mattered 
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 66
- Vehicle Year
- 1986
- Transmission
- Manual
they put the 5.0 in the explorers until at least 2000
2001 was last year of solid rear axle explorers and the 5.0. 2002's got IRS and the 4.6
Since the 4.0 SOHC is also slated to be replaced by the 3.5 in everything but the ranger next year, I wonder if the ranger is going to get the 3.5 as well for the V6 option?
Better gas mileage and more power. Sounds good to me.
Wicked_Sludge
Well-Known Member
ahh your right...i forgot about the exploders.
looks like '01 was the last year for it then.
looks like '01 was the last year for it then.
4x4RangerGuy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 809
- Age
- 40
- City
- Newton Highlands, MA
- Vehicle Year
- 2003
- Transmission
- Manual
im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.
i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.
id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...
Kdawg532
Well-Known Member
im actually surprised it took the vulcan this long to die.
i love the little 3.0, but it was a painfully outdated pushrod design (fords only pushrod engine for nearly 10 years now). it should have been replaced by a SOHC or DOHC with aluminum heads and/or block long ago.
id like to have a moment of silence for our old friend, who has gone to that great junkyard in the sky...
farewell my little buddy you will be missed
pacodiablo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 392
- Age
- 37
- City
- Birmingham, AL
- Vehicle Year
- 2002
1994
- Transmission
- Automatic
Why? It is one of the most reliable engines offered in any vehicle, not just the Ranger. I get 20-21 MPG in mostly (80% +/-) city driving too...I don't care what you think of the Vulcan, that's good for a V6 automatic Super Cab pickup.
I don't know why you hate the Vulcan so much. It's a pushrod, all iron, 60* V6, just like the Cologne motors.
Wicked_Sludge
Well-Known Member
rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way 
85_Ranger4x4
Wallows in rivers
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
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.
Colone's haven't been pushrod for quite awhile now. And they (as well as the 2.3) are very reliable engines.
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.
Wicked_Sludge
Well-Known Member
boy this arguement gets old. the 2.3 lima was never rated for more than 112hp in n/a form, vs. the 3.0's 145ish. and i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.
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 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.
85_Ranger4x4
Wallows in rivers
TRS Event Staff
TRS Forum Moderator
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
OTOTM Winner
TRS 20th Anniversary
VAGABOND
TRS Event Participant
The DOHC 2.3 and the SOHC 4.0 have been its competition since the early 2000's. Might as well compare it to the old 2.0 and 2.8 as well if we are digging up extict engines to try to make the 3.0 look good.
2008 model year #'s
DOHC 2.3
143 hp @ 5,250 rpm
154 lb.-ft. @ 3,750 rpm
OHC 3.0
148 hp @ 4,900 rpm
180 lb.-ft. @ 3,950 rpm
SOHC 4.0
207 hp @ 5,250 rpm
238 lb.-ft. @ 3,000 rpm
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.
I bought my F-150 mainly for towing, suppose the 3.0 can keep up with me? It is kinda nice having a truck that is rated to tow 7k (underrated due to 3.31 gears) and still gets decent milage. The most I see a 2008 3.0 Ranger being rated is 2600 (my empty trailer + 600lbs). If I am going to drop that far in towing capacity, I had better gain more than 6mpg.
The 4.0 is rated at 5600 at best, that is quite a step up.
I know you can pull more than that, but so can I... until legalities arise.
Last edited:
Sponsored Ad
Sponsored Ad
TRS Events
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.
Recently Featured
Ranger Adventure Video
TRS Merchandise
Follow TRS On Instagram
