3.0 vs 4.0

[85_Ranger4x4]

The thing about having to downshift is very true. While a truck should getter better mileage near it's torque peak, it's not making peak torque unless you have it at that particular rpm with the pedal to the floor and it isn't accelerating any more. Any lower torque setting (part throttle cruise) and I believe the lower rpms mean less fristion and the other factors mean less. This theory is born out by poring through the EPA's website and looking at the year before and the year after overdrive showed up. That's 1981-82 depending on the vehicle. Overdrive adds maybe 15%--so anytime you pop out, you are losing that benefit. If you have a wiffle engine that has run run wide open to pull a hill, then it isn't as important.

Having a stick would help alot too with downshifting, it seems with an auto 80% of the time it downshifts you are almost over the hill anyway, 100 or 200 fewer RPM's wouldn't hurt much. Sometimes I will set the cruise a little lower than normal and go up hills with the throttle, kind of odd that it seems more reluctant to downshift then.

 

[ChrisR1S]

I have a 5-spd 3.0 and wish it was a 4.0. I test drove a 5-spd 4.0 and it puts the 3.0 to shame...at least that was my experience. Felt like a COMPLETLEY diff truck.

 

[ZMan]

I have a 5-spd 3.0 and wish it was a 4.0. I test drove a 5-spd 4.0 and it puts the 3.0 to shame...at least that was my experience. Felt like a COMPLETLEY diff truck.

well they are, you were probably comparing with a 4.0 OHV too right? Just imagine the difference with the 4.0 SOHC. There IS a big difference in power, we're talking 10hp and 40lb-ft with the pushrod 4.0, but I still dont think the 3.0 is unbearable. It hauls what I need it to, and has even hauled way more than it should have and did it just fine.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

...I still dont think the 3.0 is unbearable. It hauls what I need it to, and has even hauled way more than it should have and did it just fine.

I say the same about my 2.3 lima with a stick and 3.73 gears. It'll easily do 70 mph while hauling whatever I can fit in the bed. It still has power to pass too, not much, but enough. I've even hauled way more than I should have on occasion. Even then it was running out of suspension and/or brakes, but not engine power. Acceleration is pretty bad though, even unloaded.

The 4.0 is a great engine though. My explorer tows as well as my dad's 4.2 V6 F-150. Accelerates pretty good too and get's 19-20 mpg.

I can't comment on the 3.0 as I've never driven one. I hope to complete my collection of RBV's with a 3.0 powered something or another soon though

 

[ChrisR1S]

yea it was. it was a 1995. no complaints about my 3.0 it does what i need, but my lead foot loves that extra power. If/when its time for another deff getting the 4.0

 

[Hawker]

Thanks for the imput guys. I guess I got inspired somewhat with the talk the 2008 may be the last good year for the Ranger and if I wanted one with a little more, I better think about it now. At the end of the day I have to say that my 02 3.0L has done a great job getting an easy 24mpg and still looks almost showroom new at 60K miles. No good case to spend a bunch of $$$ after reading your thoughts and thinking it over. I think I'll sit tight for a few more yrs.

 

[almostclueless]

I just read the 08 ranger fact sheet on this site and WOW, 58 more ft/lb on the 4.0compared to the 3.0!!!!!


Man I can't wait til it's time for me to buy one!!!!

 

[Bent Bolt]

I just read the 08 ranger fact sheet on this site and WOW, 58 more ft/lb on the 4.0compared to the 3.0!!!!!


Man I can't wait til it's time for me to buy one!!!!

4.0L has plenty of power but you pay for it at the pump. I get about 450 km per tank.

 

[rickcdewitt]

some people just aren't as tempted by the throttle pedal as much as others.i drive too fast and tromp the pedal too much,where my brother drives slow and almost never spins the tires.then again he does have a 4 banger jeep.haha

 

[Robin Hood]

I can point out some basic points.

My 3.0L ranger doesn't burnout.

My friends 4.0L can sit and roast the tires all day.

My 3.0L ranger can squeel the tires going backwards.

My friend can leave marks all the way back.

My 3.0L ranger will do donuts if I start at 30MPH

My friends 4.0 can do donuts from a stop.

The 4.0 has lots more power.

The 3.0 is good if your only using for a basic truck. The 4.0 is the definition of a small truck IMO.

 

[mreamer]

Since I've started going back to school, I drive on the highway a lot more. I've got an '01 regular cab, 4x4 with the 4L OHC, 4.10's and the five speed auto. Cruising at 70mph, the engine is cranking around 2600rpm. That kills my mileage. I've really been thinking about changing the gears (front and rear obvisouly) to get better mileage. I don't take the truck off road at all anymore, and the only time I use 4wd is in the winter. Anyone have any suggestions?

 

[beatcars]

I have the 3.0 in a 93 4x4. I can honestly say at 55-60mph you'd get better mileage staying in 4th gear rather than using 5th. Weird huh? If I use 5th as the revs sound like I should, I get 17mpg. However I went on a freeway trip for a whole tank of gas averaging 75-80mph in 5th gear and got 20 mpg. In my opinion teh 3.0 is a wuss, you gotts rev it up like a 4 banger to get power.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I can point out some basic points.

My 3.0L ranger doesn't burnout.

My friends 4.0L can sit and roast the tires all day.

My 3.0L ranger can squeel the tires going backwards.

My friend can leave marks all the way back.

My 3.0L ranger will do donuts if I start at 30MPH

My friends 4.0 can do donuts from a stop.

The 4.0 has lots more power.

The 3.0 is good if your only using for a basic truck. The 4.0 is the definition of a small truck IMO.

With an automatic? I just swapped a 5 speed in and I can do burnouts all day with it. Not that I really want to, since it's a waste of good tire and money.

 

[almostclueless]

The staunchest defenders of the 3.0 here are trying to feel better about the engine in the ranger they shelled out for; anyone with the slightest common sense and sanity can see the 3.0 sorely lacks low end power.

 

[86ford]

i have never driven a 3.0 rbv but i have owned a one 2.9 and soon to be a 2nd along with a 4.0 ranger. ALL of my vehicles are manual trans vehicles and frankly if you drive the 2.9 or the 4.0 hard they drive some what comparibly. the 4.0 has more power no qestion but if you have a heavy foot the 4.0 dosent like you very much! i have nearly cooked my 4.0 ranger many times because it hates high rpms and over heats. i am going back to the 2.9 even with all the electrical gremlins that plague those trucks they take one hell of a beating and dont mind the high rpms like the 4.0 does. once again, all i drive are manual trans vehicles and at high RPMS so if the 3.0 is a gutless motor at low rpms i can see why people dont get em in an auto. the 4.0 in imo is the only rbv motor that runs well at low rpms and that would make it the only truck that wouldent be gutless in an automatic.