No 3.0 in new Rangers

[Hahnsb2]

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.

What "skill" is involved when towing with a a smaller engine, other than using more throttle and letting it rev

 

[aaron_ariens]

I love my 3.0

On my 01' ranger, I have 212,000ml.

 

[reginald fairfield]

What "skill" is involved when towing with a a smaller engine, other than using more throttle and letting it rev

like I said. shifting. I have a lot of friends who don't know how, even though they have been driving standards for awhile. If they had to tow they would be fucked.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

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.

Yeah, a 2.9 is a set of timing gears, crankshaft, rods, pistons, valvetrain, valves, valve covers, intake/exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads away from being a 2.8. Aside from the block (which may or may not be the same), what's left to change?

The 6.8 V-10 has much more in common with a 4.6 than the 2.9 does a 2.8, so does that make it a car engine too?

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.

Experiance has taught me things work much better if you have the right tool for the job...

 

[DarkBlue03XLT]

boy this arguement gets old. the 2.3 lima was never rated for more than 112hp in n/a form, vs. the 3.0's 145ish. and i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.



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.

I have a 3.0 and I love it but I'm sorry 28 mpg with a 3.0 is really pushing it, 4 cylinders get that but I would love to hear from somebody with a 3.0 and 28 mpg cuz i wanna know how they did it

 

[inferno94]

I have gotten as good as 23 miles per us gallon and average 18 mpg around town. ('07 3L mtx excab)

I am excited to see the new 3.5/3.7 potential in small trucks, the 3.7 is already in the Mazda cx9 and that's a zippy suv. I could see them making decent engines for trucks especially with the tune ability engineers have with the variable valve timing and variable intake lengths.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 3.0 die with the dignity the 300 I6 has? It doesnt deserve it.

The 300 was a legend, working for 30+ years in everything from F100-F700 trucks, E series vans,School busses, generators, irrigation pumps, forklifts, and im sure im forgetting a few. Most lasting well over 300,000 miles. Generally 1 300 will outlast 2 or 3 trucks.

The 3.0 isnt even in the same class as the 300.

I have good skill when towing a load, doesnt mean i can pull a 44FT enclosed race car hauler with a 2.3L Engine in a F350. (Unless i had 20:1 rear end gears and 30 transmission speeds, then maybe.)

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

 

[Jspafford]

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

Darn, I hate to agree with you for once!

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

horsepower is defined as 33,000ft/lbs per minute. meaning the energy required to move 330lbs 100 feet in one minute, or 33lbs 1,000 feet in one minute, ect.

horsepower is a measure of WORK, whereas torque is a measure of twisting force. if we were all running 1 speed gear boxes, torque would be important, but we arent. torque gets you rolling...horsepower KEEPS you rolling.

and at any rate, your talking about 5 ft/lbs and 5 HP difference between the 2.9 and 3.0. thats the differnce between a fat guy driving or a skinny guy driving. or a full tank of gas vs an empty tank. in other words...its nothing to write home about for either motor.

 

[reginald fairfield]

You all can idolize the 2.9 all you want, it wasn't any better then the 3.0. Both motors are doggy, what do you expect they are small enough to be 4 cylinders but with the weight of a 6. They are all ok, they get the job done, which is what they are meant for. If you don't like them then don't buy em, get a 4.0. I know If i can get enough dough for a new ranger, I am going to buy one with a 4.0, then again I don't really have a choice now...

 

[rickcdewitt]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge
i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.

only if you look at peak hp,the 4.0 has a large torque gain especially down low

 

[inferno94]

From what I remember from highschool physics, 1hp = 750 watts or in an auto engine hp = (rpm / 5252) * torque. I believe that's the calculation used on dynos to get a hp number.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Its only 5ftlbs, but at 1000rpm lower, how much torque is the 3.0 making at 2600rpm?

later,
Dustin

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

only if you look at peak hp,the 4.0 has a large torque gain especially down low

ya, and the 3.0 has a whole lot more bottom end than the 2.3...whats your point?

Its only 5ftlbs, but at 1000rpm lower, how much torque is the 3.0 making at 2600rpm?

later,
Dustin

about 140ft/lbs. again, torque gets you rolling...horsepower keeps you rolling. the 3.0 would require fractionally more clutch slippage than a 2.9 to get the same load rolling. but after your moving, the 3.0 will have that 5HP advantage.

again, your splitting hairs. the real truth is that the difference is so small that the way each particular engine was broken in is going to have more of an effect on how it'll perform. im sure theres abused 3.0's out there making less peak power than a well-maintaned 2.9. and abused 2.9's that are making less torque than a well maintaned 3.0. even how full the fuel tank is will have a bigger effect than adding or subtracting 5 HP.

 

[rickcdewitt]

ya, and the 3.0 has a whole lot more bottom end than the 2.3...whats your point?

just saying the split from 3-0 to 4.0 is farther than you implied

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge
i hate to burst your cologne baloon, but the OHV 4.0 is only rated at 160 HP making the spread between the 2.3 and 3.0 almost 2 times wider than the one between 3.0 and 4.0.

the hp rating isen't the important part is all.