- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 806
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Vehicle Year
- 2004
- Make / Model
- Ford
- Engine Type
- 3.0 V6
- Engine Size
- 3.0
- Transmission
- Automatic
- 2WD / 4WD
- 2WD
- My credo
- My world is filled with stuff that needs to be fixed
So I read your link and it basically said the 3.0 is a really nice engine stock, but hard to mod. I'll take that compared to one which may work fine once you re-design the thing to fix all the design and manufacturing mistakes!Ok. I'm going to break it down why the 3.No is a miserable engine on a good day.
From Ford:
3.0L V6 1986-07
Bore: 3.504
Stroke: 3.150
Bore spacing: 4.330
Main journal diameter: 2.519
Rod journal diameter: 2.126
Connecting rod length: 5.532
Deck height: 8.661
Compression height: 1.535
Bore:stroke ratio of 1.11:1
Rod ratio of 1.76
So the thing basically sits at "ideal" ratios out of the gate. And with a compression of 9.3-9.7:1, supercharging is a viable option once you switch to forged pistons.
However.
Ford set the engines up from the factory to run as an economy engine. Meaning that while SHO versions do exist, they've been pushed to their hard limits already.
Rogue performance (only 3.No performance info I could find) even discusses the limitations, in detail
Between crank angles, block and head architecture, sh*tty intake and head design, and a miserably small cylinder bore that doesn't allow for shared pistons (read: you cannot find an off the shelf forged option like I did with the 5.8 Trinity) you're going to be hard pressed to find sh*t that works (other than SHO stuff (and good luck with that....), but at that point the ranger and taurus blocks are a terrible option when compared to aerostars four bolt main blocks).
Futlrthermore, due to the heavyweight design of the engine, they are known to warp and distort when overheated. Sure, 2.9 and 4.0 would pop heads from casting sand left in them by poor quality control, but block warp was something rarely encountered.
Cam profiles and valvetrain are miserable as well. Yes, they can be cammed, but the benefits are few.
I did look into the 3.0 heavily two years ago or so.
I've been reading up on it still to help Eric in his build.
But in my specific case, the 3.no was the inferior choice to the 2.9 in every conceivable way.
Besides. I can't get on Facebook and buy DOHC heads for the 3.0 that were developed by Brian Hart and Cosworth like I can (and did) with the 2.9:
Oh, and Cosworth did have the opportunity to choose between the 2.9 and 3.0 when developing a v6 for Formula 2 use.
They picked the 2.9. Enough said.
Lol, what you've described is an engine where all the parts were properly designed to be exactly what it is - a simple and inexpensive power source. Even when it was designed it was an antique architecture, but done with modern design. These are pretty reliable engines in stock form, other than a few bouts of manufacturing defects that most engines go through. There was no need for forged crank, rods or pistons so they are not there, but that is not a bad design. The later intakes flow fine, and I think 154hp is fine for such a simple 3.0 V6. I have no complaints about how it performs in my Ranger, the thing moves surprisingly well. It all depends on what you're interested in - the 3.0 is a lousy place to start for mods because there are so few performance parts available. If I wanted more power I'd start with a different engine, like finding a gearbox to put a 3.0 Duratec in.