Home Discussion Forum Tech Articles Other Articles Featured Rides Readers Rides Classifieds Shirts & Decals Parts Store

Ford Ranger Discussion Forum

Off-Road Truck Of The Month

'AgPete139'
September 2014 OTOTM

Mini Truck Of The Month

'alexp11'
September 2014 MTOTM
 

Go Back   The Ranger Station Forums > Truck Discussions > Ford Truck & Racing News

Ford Truck & Racing News Includes feeds from Ford

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-02-2008, 11:43 PM   #21
85_Ranger4x4
December 2013 OTOTM

 
85_Ranger4x4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Between Omaha & Des Moines
Posts: 12,457
Vehicle Year: 1985
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
I use this vehicle for: A weapon of massive consumption.
Rep Power: 58
85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge View Post
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge View Post
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 as i said before, the 3.0 is an outdated design and CANT keep up with newer SOHC and DOHC motors.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.
__________________
1985 Ford Ranger Custom, 4x4, PA 3" BL, 5.0 HO wannabe, C5 Transmixer, 31 spline T/L 8.8 w/ disc brakes.

Build Thread

We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about. Charles Kingsley (1819-75)
85_Ranger4x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Forum Notices (Not shown to 'Premium Members')

 Reminder:

 We're looking for participants to help move our banner from Alaska to Florida: Click HERE.

 Click HERE to see the banner map.

 Want to become a Premium Member & not see these notices? Click HERE.

Want your truck considered for Truck Of The Month? Click HERE.

Don't forget to vote!

Old 10-03-2008, 12:03 AM   #22
reginald fairfield
Member
 
reginald fairfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 474
Vehicle Year: 1999
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
I use this vehicle for: DD, Towing, Long trips
Rep Power: 0
reginald fairfield is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge View Post
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.
__________________
Sir Reginald Fairfield III
1999 4x4 3.0 L, Rancho Shocks, Cranked Torsion Bars, Toolbox,Cobra CB, Custom pushbar made of 3/8 inch steel, Permanently locked hubs(ford and their damn vacuum )
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotmudd View Post
if you trade for the bird, he's gonna bend you over the hood and and #uck you in the ass, then he's gonna pull out and shove it in your mouth, BEFORE he wipes your shit off his dick. all of this figuratively[sp]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAKG View Post
Threatening to shoot my "yuppiemobile" is very much over the line.
reginald fairfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 02:30 AM   #23
Wicked_Sludge
Member
 
Wicked_Sludge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westport, WA
Posts: 6,942
Vehicle Year: 1993
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger, Flareside
I use this vehicle for: Attracting the ladies
Rep Power: 30
Wicked_Sludge is a jewel in the roughWicked_Sludge is a jewel in the roughWicked_Sludge is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via MSN to Wicked_Sludge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race.
and you'd loose with inferior power AND torque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
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 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.
__________________
As seen on the internets!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hahnsb2 View Post
Dyno sheet or GTFO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Dave (B25) View Post
The call was for scantily-clad women. A Certificate of Boob Authenticity was NOT specified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Imahara
I'm not sure if we have the right stuff; I'm just hoping we don't have the wrong stuff.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Last edited by Wicked_Sludge : Today at 09:16 PM.
Wicked_Sludge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:10 AM   #24
AllanD
RBV Technical Advisor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: East-Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,259
Vehicle Year: 1987... sorta
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger Supercab
I use this vehicle for: Roadtrip Warrior
Rep Power: 49
AllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to beholdAllanD is a splendid one to behold
Default

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
__________________
These two short sentences sum up the US government's views and ideology:
1) The government tells us NOT TO JUDGE ALL MUSLIMS because of a FEW lunatics.
2) The government ENCOURAGES US TO JUDGE ALL GUN OWNERS because of a FEW lunatics.
AllanD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:11 AM   #25
dangeranger01
Member
 
dangeranger01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longview, WA
Posts: 503
Vehicle Year: 1997
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
I use this vehicle for: DD/weekend warrior
Rep Power: 16
dangeranger01 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to dangeranger01
Default

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....
__________________
Ranger, SAS, 5.13s, 14" Air Shocks
http://www.myspace.com/dangeranger01
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2547002
Quote:
Originally Posted by milje View Post
That thing has more joints in it than woodstock!
dangeranger01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:30 AM   #26
pacodiablo
Member
 
pacodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 382
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
Rep Power: 15
pacodiablo is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race.
Based on what? Your butt dyno?

Quote:
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.
__________________
Alan

2002 Ranger XLT Super Cab 2WD 3.0
pacodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:32 AM   #27
rickcdewitt
Member
 
rickcdewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: nor-cal
Posts: 2,075
Vehicle Year: 1991
Vehicle Make: ford
Vehicle Model: ranger-needs more lift
I use this vehicle for: work and play
Rep Power: 19
rickcdewitt is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge View Post
rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way
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
__________________
4.10's, 33's, duff stage 3 w/4" coils, cb,cowl snorkle, homemade high clearance d-ring bumpers,bobbed bed,8.8
My bobtail beater
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastpakr
Try to stick to posting about trucks, unless you can figure out a way to control yourself.
rickcdewitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:47 AM   #28
pacodiablo
Member
 
pacodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 382
Vehicle Year: 2002
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
Rep Power: 15
pacodiablo is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4 View Post
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.
__________________
Alan

2002 Ranger XLT Super Cab 2WD 3.0

Last edited by pacodiablo; 10-03-2008 at 08:51 AM.
pacodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 08:54 AM   #29
85_Ranger4x4
December 2013 OTOTM

 
85_Ranger4x4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Between Omaha & Des Moines
Posts: 12,457
Vehicle Year: 1985
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
I use this vehicle for: A weapon of massive consumption.
Rep Power: 58
85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future85_Ranger4x4 has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacodiablo View Post
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.
__________________
1985 Ford Ranger Custom, 4x4, PA 3" BL, 5.0 HO wannabe, C5 Transmixer, 31 spline T/L 8.8 w/ disc brakes.

Build Thread

We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about. Charles Kingsley (1819-75)
85_Ranger4x4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 09:09 AM   #30
BlackBII
Cheaf of Grammor Poleace

 
BlackBII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orem UT
Posts: 6,442
Vehicle Year: 1989
Vehicle Make: Ford
Vehicle Model: Ranger
I use this vehicle for: Getting irritated
Rep Power: 38
BlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud ofBlackBII has much to be proud of
Default


I like my 2.9.
















__________________
I hate all RBV's, especially the ones I own.
BlackBII is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 AM.




1999-2014 / 959 Media LLC / All Rights Reserved