No 3.0 in new Rangers

[truckmanson]

Blah blah blah

Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but my 3.0 easily gets 19mpg running it hard, and it has hauled a few heavy loads while doing it. It will not haul as much as a F-150 but it wasn't designed to. When Ford stopped advertising the rangers they all but cut the 3.0 out at that time, (at dealers by me the only rangers they have are a base model 2.3 xl, or a fully loaded 4.0 v-6). If you want power get a v-8, if you want mileage get a 4 banger. however if you want a balance then obviously get a 6, but not everyone wants to shell out extra bucks for a 4.0 when the 3.0 is a proven design and is suitable for the majority of ranger owners, until recent years 90% of rangers I have seen on dealer lots have been 3.0s. Saying the 3.0 was a waist for sacrificing power, or for it getting poor mileage (a rarity I might add, except this thread I have never heard of the 3.0 getting less than 18mpg city), is like saying a 4.9l I6 was just a lead weight, (I know of no one who as ever had a complaint with the 4.9, other than to say they wish it had more top end or a few extra miles per gallon.) I know it is rambling but don't put down a motor that has proven itself time after time and after years of service is finally getting laid to rest. I will miss the 3.0 and can only hope ford makes another motor like it.

 

[rickcdewitt]

my cousin traded his 3.0/auto/4x4 02 in for a new three valve f-150 and it gets better mileage,even with him peeling out all over

 

[ccrunner1]

how are yall getting that kind of mileage out of a 3.0. my 94 supercab 2wd might get about 22-23 highway and 16 city

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 2.9 has 5 less HP then the 3.0, but 5 more FTlbs at 1000RPM lower.

Hook 3500 lbs behind a 2.9L and a identical 3.0L powered truck, and aim them up a steep hill, and the 3.0L is going to get its ass handed to it.

The 2.9 made more power per cubic inch then a 5.0L H.O or a 351 Lightning engine. They are strong runners for there size.

Also.......to really stir the pot.....my Colorado's 2.9L 4 cylinder makes 185HP and 190FTlbs which is considerably more then a 3.0L Vulcan, and gets 30MPG.

later,
Dustin

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the 2.9 would be ahead in that scenario, no doubt...but not by much (i wouldnt say getting its "ass handed to it").

and if the 2.9 makes more power per cube than the 5.0 HO than so does the 3.0

you wanna stir the pot? the 3.0 in an SHO taurus makes 220HP and 222ft-lbs...and its 20 year old technology!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Was the SHO ever used in a ranger from the factory though?

The 3.0L is weak compared to the 2.9L.

From a dead stop a 2.9L will spank it, now 55-70 a 3.0 might get it, because the 3.0 was designed for a taurus, meaning good midrange for good passing/merging power. The 2.9 has grunt.

Its kind of like comparing a 300 to a 302. Yeah the 302 is faster (espically on a 55-70 run), but from a dead stop a 300 will be in front of it, and with a load the 302 will puke.

Horsepower is simply how fast an engine can do work, Torque is how much an engine can actuallly do.

later,
Dustin

 

[Jspafford]

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

Have you ever driven a 3.0? You couldn't have. The one in my wife's Regular Cab 1999 Model gets 14MPG...Yeah, my shitty 2.9L gets 23.97MPG last time I filled up. Not to mention I could whip the snot out of a 3.0L in a race.

So what they last forever, the are horrible on fuel and underpowered.

I would never buy another.

 

[hihoslvr]

well at the risk of drawing out a pointless argument, I got the 3.0, and I'm stuck with for now, but in almost 45,000 miles, no problems (knock on wood). I average 20mpg's, the worst was 16 after I put in 10% ethanol, but I was also driving west across Wyo, so I prolly had a head wind too (and I was very lightly loaded, the truck I mean).
I'm looking forward to the F-100 with the 3.5GDI...

 

[AllanD]

Aside from replacing a timing gear with a chain and rotating the camshaft the opposite direction, there isn't much difference from the prior engines.

Well, I guess you could count fuel injection, but that was available on the 2.8 in Europe.

Actually, the "2.8" sold in europe with EFI was infact by every definition
and dimension a 2.9.

wanna see a european 2.8 EFI V6? find a Merkur Scorpio.
It's a 2.8 with a different intake manifold. yes, it's REALLY a 2.9.

Other than a few common dimensions and a common bellhousing
pattern the only similarities between the 2.8 and the 2.9 are
the grossly obvious ones. it's a 60degree V6 made by ford of germany.

IT was so similarly designed so it could be produced on
the same machinery

AD

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Was the SHO ever used in a ranger from the factory though?

no, neither was a GM 2.9 4-cylinder....whats your point

Have you ever driven a 3.0? You couldn't have.

your kidding, right? my 3.0 gets 24MPG regularly and has towed more than its own weight on occasion (heh, speaking of which, i towed my parents 2.9 gen1 home with it).

and also speaking of which...i raced my dad in that same gen 1 (regular cab, 4x4, 5sp, not sure what gearing but definitely better than mine - very comparable truck), and the 3.0 is more than capable of making up the distance on the big end (which is where i drive my truck). i dont count it as a win, however, because his truck only cost $400....it cant be expected to win much these days.

 

[kerry]

I guess I don't understand all the contraversy. It seems to me that the 3.0 was a good design that worked well for a lot of purposes. It has now suffered the indignity of becoming obsolete because other designs now offer more potential. It served its purpose better than most! RIP

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

thats all im saying. cant we just let the 3.0 slip away with the same dignity and respect that the 5.0, 300-I6, and other good motors got?

 

[Jspafford]

no, neither was a GM 2.9 4-cylinder....whats your point



your kidding, right? my 3.0 gets 24MPG regularly and has towed more than its own weight on occasion (heh, speaking of which, i towed my parents 2.9 gen1 home with it).

Your more than welcome to come drive her's. I wouldn't lie about fuel economy...believe me I wish it was a lie, cause then I wouldn't have to sell the POS. We can't afford a small truck getting such rediculas MPG. Hell my F-250 with the 5.4 did better than that.

Now, RIP 3.slow.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i meant kidding about suggesting that I had never driven a 3.0

 

[reginald fairfield]

The more horsepower you need on a day to day basis the worse driver you are. If you are good you can tow anything with a 3.0. Power makes up for the lack of skill. If you have a 3.0 with a manual and know how to shift it will do anything you want it to and get good mileage.