James86
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Location
- 55381, Minnesota
- Vehicle Year
-
1999,
2012,
- Make / Model
-
Ford,
Ford,
- Engine Size
- 3.0 Flex Fuel, 2.5L, 3.3 Flex Fuel
- Transmission
- Automatic
- My credo
- WHY DO I KEEP BUYING DODGES?!?!?
Wasn't sure where to put this ( I own a 3.0 FFV, so wasn't sure specifically where this ost should be), but since I've seen more than a few people ask about ethanol and such, and see arguing about HP rating between the engines, I decided to dig out my manual and see what Ford's official ratings were. I have a 1999 manual and my truck was made in July 1999.
So I flipped to the ratings and voila:
Which leads to a few answers to questions I've seen raised and I myself have wondered:
-Ethanol produces 9+ HP and 12+ lb-ft than regular 87 in a FFV
-The difference between a FFV on ethanol and a 4.0OHV on 87 is less substantial than running E85 vs. 87 regular in a 3.0
-The 4 cylinder produces its peak torque lower than the 3.0
Thought I'd throw it out there. All the motors have their pros and cons, but seeing the numbers and having driven nearly any possibility of motor in a ranger save for a turbo or a 2.8, I can't say I'm surprised by the figures versus my impressions when I drove them.
So I flipped to the ratings and voila:
Which leads to a few answers to questions I've seen raised and I myself have wondered:
-Ethanol produces 9+ HP and 12+ lb-ft than regular 87 in a FFV
-The difference between a FFV on ethanol and a 4.0OHV on 87 is less substantial than running E85 vs. 87 regular in a 3.0
-The 4 cylinder produces its peak torque lower than the 3.0
Thought I'd throw it out there. All the motors have their pros and cons, but seeing the numbers and having driven nearly any possibility of motor in a ranger save for a turbo or a 2.8, I can't say I'm surprised by the figures versus my impressions when I drove them.