No 3.0 in new Rangers

[dangeranger01]

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....

[pacodiablo]

Originally Posted by Maverick

I'd put money on Duratech equipped truck Vs. a Vulcan in a drag race.

Based on what? Your butt dyno?

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.

[rickcdewitt]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge

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

[pacodiablo]

Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4

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.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Originally Posted by pacodiablo

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.

[BlackBII]

I like my 2.9.

[Psychopete]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge

rusty just thinks that the lower HP, worse fuel economy, weak top-end lube, vacuum hose nightmare 2.9 is better in every way

At least the 2.9L was a truck engine! And no, they're not a vacuum hose nightmare by any means. My Tempo is a Vacuum hose nightmare. But the rest of that is pretty true . The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L.

How can this engine be called the most reliable? Think CPS syncro... They've been making this crap for years, and somehow they screwed up the design (yes, I know it's from lack of lubrication). Also the issue with the oil pan gaskets working themselves out. They've been making oil pan gaskets for years! My brother had issues with his '94 w/ dist and only 100K. Personally, I think it's kind of a POS.

Just like the 2.9L, when they work, they work good, but it does have it's self-destructive flaws.

Pete

[2manyfords]

Originally Posted by Psychopete

The 2.9L will still walk a 3.0L.
Pete

Yup.. that is for sure.

My '88 2.9L Ext Cab Ranger 2wd can easily whip my dads '06 3.0L Ext Cab Ranger 2wd.

[Maverick]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge

and you'd loose with inferior power AND torque



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.

No, I wouldn't. Torque doesn't mean everything. If it did my Superduty would be faster than 95% of everything on this site. Aerodynamics, elevation and everything else was just and example of why EPA ratings aren't that reliable. You can't control those things because they aren't controlled in real life. So they aren't accurate results. If you don't get that, Im sorry.

Originally Posted by pacodiablo

Based on what? Your butt dyno?



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.

You have any evidence that the majority don't get the same as a V8 F150? I'm guessing not.

Nothing is broken on that truck. It has 22,000 miles. My mom's 06 3.0 2wd auto gets nearly the same mileage. It has right at 11,000 miles. The best tank out of that truck is just a tad over 18 mpg. Best tank out of mine ever was 19.5, and it only did that once. The last tank through my old 02 was 90%highway/10% mixed. It got 17.73 on that tank (just filled and checked it). Not acceptable in my eyes for a compact pickup with a V6. Especially when my 7000lb truck can do better with nearly 1000 lbs in the bed.

I could go round and round with you guys for ever on this topic but I'm not going to. You guys like a motor that I don't. Big deal. With the slew of 3.0's we've had in our shop lately, (ranging from broken valve springs to blown head gaskets) I could call them a piece of shit. But I'm not going to, because I know they are not. I will call them slow and inefficient though, because they are.

[Wicked_Sludge]

what are you talking about? you dont compare vehicles with 5,000ft difference in elevation. ANY motor will perform better at a lower elevation. when you compare motors for power and economy, you compare them in similar conditions

and your right, torque doesnt mean everything...but the 3.0 has more power AND torque than the duratec.

you, just, dont, get it, do ya scotty?

[pacodiablo]

Originally Posted by Psychopete

At least the 2.9L was a truck engine!

The Cologne engines came out in the 1960s and were used in cars for years before the Ranger ever got one.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge

and your right, torque doesnt mean everything...but the 3.0 has more power AND torque than the duratec.

you, just, dont, get it, do ya scotty?

5 more hp, and 26 more lb of torque at 200 higher RPM... I wouldn't want to live on that difference.

Originally Posted by pacodiablo

The Cologne engines came out in the 1960s and were used in cars for years before the Ranger ever got one.

The 2.9 is quite a bit different than the 2.6/2.8 that went into cars here in the states. Just about everything they could change going from the 2.8 to 2.9... they did.

Actually they started out as a V-4 in Europe way back in the early 60's.