Newb Question About 3.0 injection

[cbxer55]

I have not tried the steering shaft thing. I usually unscrew them from the top and then pull the filter out through the wheel well, or try to knock it off that funnel.

That funnel would have been a nice idea on the Taurus, that's the reason Ranger 3.0s don't have the same starter issues the Tauruses do even though it is the same starter.

I've always been able to get mine out from the top as well. Usually warm the engine up, then let it sit for awhile though, or I'll burn my arm on the exhaust manifold trying to get the damn thing off. Never used the wheel well though, my arms are long enough I can just reach down past everything and pull it out the top.

Not familiar with any funnel though. Mine doesn't appear to have one. So you're saying that oil from removing the filter causes starter issues? I don't even know where the started is on my Ranger, never had an issue with it.

 

[adsm08]

I've always been able to get mine out from the top as well. Usually warm the engine up, then let it sit for awhile though, or I'll burn my arm on the exhaust manifold trying to get the damn thing off. Never used the wheel well though, my arms are long enough I can just reach down past everything and pull it out the top.

Not familiar with any funnel though. Mine doesn't appear to have one. So you're saying that oil from removing the filter causes starter issues? I don't even know where the started is on my Ranger, never had an issue with it.

Most of my experience changing oil, any oil, was in a situation where letting the engine cool off wasn't an option because the customer doesn't care if you hurt yourself or not, but they sure as heck will complain to your boss if the job takes too long. I found a good way around it was to get the filter most of the way off and then you can kind of balance it on the frame and pull it out the wheel well.

Some of them had a little spout thing, like the F-150s had, to direct oil from the filter down and away to a spot where it was easier to catch.

IIRC the starter on the Ranger's 3.0 is on the passenger side anyway, which still prevents the oil saturation issue, but that is a primary factor in the frequent starter failures on the 3.0 Taurus. The filter basically drains on top of the starter and used oil and electric motor windings don't get along.

 

[Curious Hound]

I've done it from the top and from the wheel well. Both with and without burns. The bad part is, I have insulated Kevlar sleeves in my toolbox (left over from my previous job where i worked around steam and fast moving paper) and never remember to put them on.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Rearanger]

I have not tried the steering shaft thing.

I'll let you know as I'm going to investigate. There is only one bolt that connects the two shafts

I just removed the bolt and the lower shaft telescoped out of the way of the oil filter. I'll do the oil filter this way from now on, much easier.

FSM says to "discard the bolt", not sure if that's really necessary, but for a shop tech it probably will be. The bolt has thread lock on it, maybe that's why the "discard" notation. Re-torque is 35 ft/lbs. I just did a tight by feel. The bolt is just there to prevent the shafts from telescoping apart, I couldn't see where torque load made any difference to the shafts. Maybe over time the bolt can unthread, but since the oil is being changed on a regular basis it will be checked then. You could even add a lock washer to the bolt. If the truck is passed to a new owner I'd recommend replacing the bolt then to cover liability.

I'd recommend putting the steering wheel in lock mode as the shaft on the steering wheel side spins very easily once disconnected.

 

[adsm08]

Yes, locking the steering would be very important to preventing clock spring damage.

Also, you are correct, the shop manual says to discard any bolt that has thread locker pre-applied. I don't know why they think you can't just put more on it, but you can.

 

[cbxer55]

Yes, locking the steering would be very important to preventing clock spring damage.

Also, you are correct, the shop manual says to discard any bolt that has thread locker pre-applied. I don't know why they think you can't just put more on it, but you can.

Because they fail to realize that thread locker is available at any auto parts store. They think they are the only ones who have it.

 

[FillMarr]

Some funny stuff on this thread. Sorry Im late again to the party again. It HAS been the week leading up to St Patricks day though, clearing you all haven't been celebrating enough.

Anyway, I didn't know anything about cars/rangers when I bought my 3.0, but it was nonetheless a lucky decision (short of opting for a 4.0 L or the 2.9L haha), because it sparked my interest in wrenching. Great project truck. Does the 2.9 really feel more powerful than the 3.0?

Fast forward 8 years, it's still running great, minus some exhaust manifold leak clattering (rusty stud bolt?). I am playing with the idea of putting a $300 spindle/shackle lift on it now. Currently I have installed a mini AAL in the back. It looks great. See the new pic in my avatar. Though with my gear ratio (3.7 something), I don't think I can go past 31" tires, unfortunately. It looks pretty good as is, I just wish it sat a LITTLE bit higher. I really should hold out and just buy another old ranger, but I can't resist...

Side note: I burn my arm almost every time finageling out the oil filter from overhead. 4 out of 5 oil changes, the filter slips out of my hand and makes a mess. Also funny, I put in almost 5 qts and only remove 3.25 after...I feel it has something to do with the exhaust leak.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Does the 2.9 really feel more powerful than the 3.0?

Put it this way, if your built in ass dynometer is used to a 3.0, a 2.9 will split that sumbitch wide open.

But in reality, yes and no. A 2.9 will eat a 3.0 0-60, empty, loaded, uphill, downhill, under water, doesnt matter.. A 3.0 would have a slight advantage over the 2.9 in a 60-80 run, but not by much.

That being said, when i bought my first ranger (rusty #1) brand new in the spring of 87, i had no idea either. Id always had fords, then i bought a yellow 1978 Chevy LUV, and after it shot a rod thru the oilpan, i went truck shopping.

All i knew was i didnt want a GM.

I drove 3 rangers. One was a bare bones 2.0L/5sp. Quickly rejected that turd.

Walked across the lot and drove a 2.3L/Auto, a bit better but still to clumsey for me.

At this time i did not know the Ranger came with a V6

I told the salesman i liked the truck itself, but if he had anything with more giddyup.

Then, tucked in the back corner of the lot, just backed off the car carrier, sat a unassuming, dark shadow grey 2 tone 2wd ranger. The salesman said "Take that for a spin". So i did, and the first time i got after that little 2.9 i knew i was in love.

Drove it home that afternoon, left the lot with .5 mi on the odo, test drive added 4 miles, and 300 and some odd thousand later, that love never faded.

 

[adsm08]

I doubt the 2.9 actually has that much more power, on paper, than a 3.0. The issue at hand is where the power is made. The 2.9 is in it's glory around 2000-2500 RPM, but doesn't truly peak until 4500, IIRC. The 3.0 doesn't even really get started making its power until 3000 RPM. Since HP and torque are bell curves, not linear increases, after your peak you actually start loosing power (A fact that is secondary to all this). The lower in the PRM band you start making your power the more useful it is. It makes it easier to start of loads without revving the piss out of your engine.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

2.9
140hp@4600rpm
170ftlbs@2600rpm

3.0
145hp@4800rpm
165ftlbs@3600rpm.

Adsm nailed it. The 2.9 comes on low, and comes on strong. The 3.0 comes on, eventually, but by the time the 3.0 hits its power the 2.9 is long gone. Not to mention the 2.9 still is pretty respectiable up till redline.

 

[FillMarr]

Yikes, I’m surprised they ditched the 2.9. For +5 horsepower, I really can’t understand how that decision was ever made.

I don’t really know what my gas milage is like. But I get around 200miles on a tank before I fill up (right when or before the gage warning comes on). That said, that’s a 200 mile read on oversized tires. I like to estimate that I get about 15 mpg in my hilly, stop and go city. And that I get about 18-19 (275-300 Miles) on road trips with stops here and there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Yikes, I’m surprised they ditched the 2.9. For +5 horsepower, I really can’t understand how that decision was ever made.

I don’t really know what my gas milage is like. But I get around 200miles on a tank before I fill up (right when or before the gage warning comes on). That said, that’s a 200 mile read on oversized tires. I like to estimate that I get about 15 mpg in my hilly, stop and go city. And that I get about 18-19 (275-300 Miles) on road trips with stops here and there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 3.0 is smoother, quieter, and just generally more civilized then the 2.9.

This was the biggest reason for the change.

 

[adsm08]

Yikes, I’m surprised they ditched the 2.9. For +5 horsepower, I really can’t understand how that decision was ever made.

I don’t really know what my gas milage is like. But I get around 200miles on a tank before I fill up (right when or before the gage warning comes on). That said, that’s a 200 mile read on oversized tires. I like to estimate that I get about 15 mpg in my hilly, stop and go city. And that I get about 18-19 (275-300 Miles) on road trips with stops here and there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were other reasons than power, and the NVH reasons that Rusty listed. Frankly a lot of them were dumb though.

The big thing is that EPA revised emissions standards for 1993 and the 2.9 was not going to make the cut as it was built. My problem with cutting it and adding the 3.0 in it's place is that the 2.9 could have been fixed to meet emissions.

It also had some endemic issues that always caused failure once they started. The lifter design was a big one. The lifters only had one hole to pump oil through, rather than two. That means they were pretty much impossible to get the air out of completely, and it made them susceptible to cam bearing wear, as the oil pressure made at the cam bearings is what keeps the 2.9's lifters pumped up.

The 4.0, which is the same engine has always run cleaner, and had many of these problems fixed in design, so it isn't like Ford didn't know about the problems and already have the fixes, they just never applied them to the 2.9. Again, this was more of a marketing and accounting decision than an engineering one. The 2.9 would have needed major revisions to remain viable as a mass-produced engine, and someone somewhere decided it would be cheaper to take the 3.0 and turn it sideways.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

There were other reasons than power, and the NVH reasons that Rusty listed. Frankly a lot of them were dumb though.

The big thing is that EPA revised emissions standards for 1993 and the 2.9 was not going to make the cut as it was built. My problem with cutting it and adding the 3.0 in it's place is that the 2.9 could have been fixed to meet emissions.

It also had some endemic issues that always caused failure once they started. The lifter design was a big one. The lifters only had one hole to pump oil through, rather than two. That means they were pretty much impossible to get the air out of completely, and it made them susceptible to cam bearing wear, as the oil pressure made at the cam bearings is what keeps the 2.9's lifters pumped up.

The 4.0, which is the same engine has always run cleaner, and had many of these problems fixed in design, so it isn't like Ford didn't know about the problems and already have the fixes, they just never applied them to the 2.9. Again, this was more of a marketing and accounting decision than an engineering one. The 2.9 would have needed major revisions to remain viable as a mass-produced engine, and someone somewhere decided it would be cheaper to take the 3.0 and turn it sideways.

One thing i always found odd though, is it seems that since the 2.9/4.0 use the same motormounts and bellhousing, it would of made more sense then having to have totally different pieces for 2.3/2.5 3.0 and 4.0.

 

[fastpakr]

Honestly the simplest solution would probably have been to never offer the 3.0 in the first place. The 2.3 with a 5 speed as the base model for general use plus the 4.0 with either transmission for hauling heavier loads would have been a simpler lineup that covered all bases pretty well.