2.3 5spd vs 3.0 automatic

[mtnrgr]

Wasn't sure where to post this.

I will hopefully be in the market to finally look for another ranger before next summer. What would be the real difference between the two?

Really for reliability and to last. Will be looking for a standard cab short bed 2wd for a daily driver. It need to have power steering and air conditioning.

I do know 2.3 rangers are slow, yet extremely good. Been along time since I have drove one. The 3.0 with an auto are equally slow, as the engine can't get to its proper rpms due the early shift points.

This truck will be used for dr appts, errands, occasionally drive in the mountains and other things. I'm looking for what I need, wanted to get some ideas from others who have owned and driven these.

I'm so used to my 3.0 5spd with 410 gears. All I would do to this truck is exhaust change with the spare flowmaster 44 I have. Will use oem parts for oil, filters etc.

Have seen alot of 93-97 rangers with both of those drive train options. These are the years I wanna stay with.

To help me remember what are the pros and cons of each and what would you choose? I will make sure the truck is in good condition in and out. The price is right, I will possibly do a purchase

 

[RonD]

1996 and 1997 are OBD2 so in my opinion best years if 1993-1997 is the range
1995 was an oddball year for wiring and OBD2, first year for it

1993/4 3.0l has a distributor
2.3l SOHC used a timing belt in all years, and an ICM in 1993/4

3.0l was only slow with an automatic, with a manual your can keep RPMs high when you want the extra power

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Id go with the 5 speed. Better MPG with the 4 popper and manuals generally beat autos for reliabilty.

Plus a 3.0 with an auto probably wouldnt have a whole lot more ass then a 2.3/5sp.

 

[racsan]

Either way , 4.10’s are the way to go. Some 2.3 & 3.0 came with 3.45’s and on paper would be good on gas but are absolute slugs. My 94 2.3/4.10/manual with 225/70/15 tires gets 21 at best in the summer.

 

[rubydist]

I think they are equally slugs, but the 2.3 will do a lot better on gas.

 

[sgtsandman]

I second the 4.10 in the rear axle. You get a bit of a hit in gas mileage but the get up and go will be better.

A manual will be better than an automatic as far as performance but if you do a lot of stop and go driving, the automatic is nice to have.

I would absolutely avoid a truck with 3.45 or 3.55 gearing. The “fuel savings” is nonexistent and converts the truck into a slug.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I second the 4.10 in the rear axle. You get a bit of a hit in gas mileage but the get up and go will be better.

A manual will be better than an automatic as far as performance but if you do a lot of stop and go driving, the automatic is nice to have.

I would absolutely avoid a truck with 3.45 or 3.55 gearing. The “fuel savings” is nonexistent and converts the truck into a slug.

My 2.9 does fine with 3.45's

 

[mtnrgr]

Appreciate all the knowledge. I will keep in mind about the 2.3 5spd. I would prefer a 93-94 as it is a simple truck to work on. Last time I drove a 2.3 5spd ranger was 15 years ago, it was a 97, it was slow but doable. My 94 had 345 gears when it was stock. When I had it lifted in 99 it was changed to 410 gears and posi traction best combo for a 3.0 5spd with 31's.

The 93-94 2.3 have a 2 runner intake, and the 95-97 2.3 have a 4 runner intake. Any real difference between those two intakes?

I like the 95-97 interior, yet don't like airbags.

 

[00t444e]

The 2.3 and 3.0 are both slow, main difference is the 3.0 uses more fuel to go slow and an auto makes it even worse in both departments. 2.3 5 speed would be my choice for sure.

 

[00t444e]

3.0l was only slow with an automatic, with a manual your can keep RPMs high when you want the extra power

Nope, the 3.0 is slow with a 5 speed and even slower with an automatic.

 

[racsan]

Ive had (3) 2.3 /5speeds. 2 with 3.73’s and one with a 3.45 that I drive now, swapped the whole axle out for a 4.10 , Ive only ever had (1) 3.0 in a ranger, a reg cab 2wd with a 3.45- and a automatic with no 1st. Talk about a slug, 3.0 with 3.45’s -and having to start off in 2nd! The engine ran good, did have working a/c & cruise control.

 

[mtnrgr]

Nope, the 3.0 is slow with a 5 speed and even slower with an automatic.

Wrong, 3.0 5spd is more than good. I'm aware of the 3.0 with an auto is not as it should be due to early shift points. If you have ever driven a 3.0 5spd, then you didn't know how to drive it?

When my 94 was stock even with the 345 gears it was good..I have worked my 94 ranger since it was new. I know for almost 30 years that the 3.0 5spd is a good drive train for the ranger.

 

[00t444e]

Wrong, 3.0 5spd is more than good. I'm aware of the 3.0 with an auto is not as it should be due to early shift points. If you have ever driven a 3.0 5spd, then you didn't know how to drive it?

Your not fooling me, 01 3.0 5 speed and even with 4.10 gears it was a complete turd. The 4.0 5 speed is far more powerful and uses about the same amount of fuel. If you want to save on fuel get a 4 cyl, if you want quick and some power get a 4.0. If you want to use as much fuel as a 4.0 and be as slow as a 4 cyl get a 3.0.

 

[mtnrgr]

Typical , as how a 4.0 person would say..

Your not abke to construct proper criticism here, go be constructive elsewhere. This not a trash talk here about the 3.0 or another 3.0 vs 4.0 debate. If I wanted a 4.0 I would buy one. I seriously despise that engine. This is I asking about the ones I asked about.

 

[scotts90ranger]

That's a lot of 4L hate, I had a '91 Explorer, loved that thing, sure if overheated they suck and the intake gaskets and so forth leaking coolant is annoying, I got 20-21mpg in that 5 speed Explorer 4 door... miss it...

Anything can be made to work, the A4LD behind a 3L would probably suck since the stock shift points aren't right... some manual downshifting would probably make it work though...

It's not all about gears, have to factor in tire size into the equation... my '97 Ranger 2.3L 5 speed extended cab has 4.10 gears which is fine but I don't like to cruise over 3000rpm so I changed tire sizes around until it fit my needs, ended up with ~28" tall tires, tried 29" and didn't like how often I had to shift out of 5th to hold 55mph on inclines... I've done 31" tires and 4.10's with a 2.3L but it took even more downshifting but the rpm in 4th was better at that point... I've also done a 2.3L ranger with 3.08 gears and 25" tires and that was fine too, that axle and 28" tires sucked, 5th was completely useless...

I prefer the '89-94 dash over the '95+ dash, much more compact but it's not a strong feeling... I've gotten used to it over the last 7ish years...