3 Litre/4 Litre Issues

[WizardMower]

Okay, So I might potentially get a clapped 1994 Mazda B3000 Singlecab "SE" (rare longbed) (I Know this isn't the correct forum but I thought some ranger people would know the question well)

I Keep seeing youtube videos about ranger reviews, All of them, Point their fingers at the 3 litres, And the 4 litres, Saying the 3's are worse or the 4's are.

What really is the worst? And what are their issues?

 

[600$04Ranger]

In my limited years exploring this site I've come to realize that there's no such thing as a Ranger that's perfect in all situations or would suite everyone here. Having said that, I would bet someone reading this would argue differently. My first ranger was a 2wd 1996 2.3l xl that I got on the cheap. Had a low opinion of it but needed a vehicle. Four years and 90,000 miles later I had a real appreciation for it's capabilities. Of course I had to fix a few minor issues and put quality/condition appropriate tires on it to safely go where I wanted to but it never failed me Ina major way or needed constant attention. If you know what you want from your truck and worried about getting one that falls short of your expectations then check out the list of common issues with each year and any recalls they had and let folks know what you're planning on using your truck for. Like most guys here you'll fix or upgrade whatever you can and keep coming up with new projects for as long as you own it.

 

[ericbphoto]

The 3.0l is a reliable engine. But it's not a great "truck" engine because it's peak power and torque are high in the rpm band - in the 3500rpm range. But it works. You just have to know how to drive it. It's main maintenance issue is the distributor or cam synchronizer (depends on age of the engine) upper bearing does not get forced lubrication. So You have to replace it around 100,000 miles or so to prevent failure. Easy job.

The 4.0l is slightly more powerful and at lower RPMs. But maybe slightly more maintenance issues. There are two variations. The OHV and the SOHC versions. ( I think I got that right.) The SOHC version has issues with timing chain tensioner and one of the chains is at the rear of the engine. So periodic replacement is a pain. Others can chime in with specific details there or correct me if I got mixed up.

 

[RonD]

1994 was last year for the EEC-IV computer, OBD1, 1995 Ranger got the EEC-V computer, OBD2

What that means is the 1994 B3000 will have a 3.0l engine with a distributor
And
It was the first year the B-series was a "re-badge" Ranger, so 1993 and earlier were not Ranger platforms

3.0l Vulcan engine was first used in 1986 Ford car, 1991 in a Ranger, last used in 2008 Ranger/B3000, 22 year run
So a good reliable engine or Ford would have dropped it

4.0l OHV was used from 1990 thru 2000, also a good engine, good power(160HP), didn't like to be over heated, but what engine does, lol
4.0l SOHC was used in Rangers 2001-2011, 207HP and reliable
1997-2003 4.0l SOHC engine had faulty tensioners which could cause timing chain issues, new design tensioners solved that issue, and they can be added easily to the older models

A 27 year old vehicle will have issues, but not as many because it's a Ranger, still quite a few of these on the road, even older than yours

Used Ranger buyers guide here: https://www.therangerstation.com/ford-rangers-buyers-guide/

 

[bobbywalter]

If it's a 4wheel drive ranger....I will drive it....until I have to upgrade worn out stuff....then drive it some more.


If it's a 2wd.....I will make it a 4wd or trade it for beer.

That is me. Because they all get by ok.


Like mentioned earlier...they are all different. If you need to do heavier work...pursue a 4.0 with a 5 speed.

If you just need a commuter...that hauls the odd table or bed... A 4 cylinder or 3.0 is fine....though preferably with a manual. The automatics are sketchy at this vintage...but 97 and up do pretty well....within design limits.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

A lot depends on what you’re doing with it and where in the country. It’s kinda hilly where I live, the 2.3 kinda struggles a little with a load around here, (or so I have been told), so the v-6 is more common. I was fairly happy with my first Ranger that had a 3.0 and 5-speed. It did everything I needed it to do at the time. A 4.0 would have been nice, but the 3.0 was adequate. Never ran a 3.0 with an auto though yet. 4.0 is a pretty solid workhorse in manual or auto. There are options to improve the older autos if so desired. I did a shift kit with a couple other mods to my 92 and it cured the slop and made it really nice to drive. Unfortunately it’s currently totaled due to some unfortunate circumstances. But it was fun while I had it.

 

[WizardMower]

A lot depends on what you’re doing with it and where in the country. It’s kinda hilly where I live, the 2.3 kinda struggles a little with a load around here, (or so I have been told), so the v-6 is more common. I was fairly happy with my first Ranger that had a 3.0 and 5-speed. It did everything I needed it to do at the time. A 4.0 would have been nice, but the 3.0 was adequate. Never ran a 3.0 with an auto though yet. 4.0 is a pretty solid workhorse in manual or auto. There are options to improve the older autos if so desired. I did a shift kit with a couple other mods to my 92 and it cured the slop and made it really nice to drive. Unfortunately it’s currently totaled due to some unfortunate circumstances. But it was fun while I had it.

My initial plan was to tow a rider in the back, I wouldn’t plan towing anything heavier than a rider mower. Maybe in the winter some weight in the back but I doubt Towing anything over a ton. It has an automatic, and I don’t know, but possibly has a two wheel drive model. I wouldn’t consider buying it but because of the chip crisis and inflation of trucks, I know they’d sell it to me for practically nothing as I always helped them. My ma plans to ask them if they can sell it to me when they get another truck.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

1994 was last year for the EEC-IV computer, OBD1, 1995 Ranger got the EEC-V computer, OBD2

Interesting that the Ranger got OBDII in 1995. Taurus got it (officially) in 1996. SOME 1995 Tauruses got OBDII, but the majority didn't.

It was the first year the B-series was a "re-badge" Ranger, so 1993 and earlier were not Ranger platforms

I thought the B-series changed over in 1993?

I guess not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_(Americas)#Mazda_B-Series/Mazda_Truck_(1994–2010)

3.0l Vulcan engine was first used in 1986 Ford car, 1991 in a Ranger, last used in 2008 Ranger/B3000, 22 year run
So a good reliable engine or Ford would have dropped it

Yes. The Vulcan was first used in (and developed for) the Ford Taurus, which debuted in 1986. It was also used in:

• 1986–1997 Ford Aerostar
• 1986–2005 Mercury Sable
• 1990–1992 Ford Probe
• 1991–2008 Ford Ranger
• 1992–1994 Ford Tempo
• 1992–1994 Mercury Topaz
• 1994–2007 Mazda B3000
• 1995–2000 Ford Windstar

Here's more info on the engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Vulcan_engine.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

My initial plan was to tow a rider in the back, I wouldn’t plan towing anything heavier than a rider mower. Maybe in the winter some weight in the back but I doubt Towing anything over a ton. It has an automatic, and I don’t know, but possibly has a two wheel drive model. I wouldn’t consider buying it but because of the chip crisis and inflation of trucks, I know they’d sell it to me for practically nothing as I always helped them. My ma plans to ask them if they can sell it to me when they get another truck.

Ok, so here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly…

A 3.0 would pull a lawn tractor just fine. It should even handle a small trailer. You’re not going to win races with it, especially with an auto, but it should be adequate. I hauled a lawn tractor a couple times with my first one (3.0l, 5-speed), had over a ton in the bed a few times, and hauled a Bronco II on a tow dolly and on a tow bar, plus a YJ Jeep on a tow bar behind it. Getting moving without smoking the clutch was the trick sometimes, but once it was rolling, it was fine. A 2wd with good tires (tires become really important in the winter on a 2wd), and some driver skill and you can do just fine. With V-bar chains on mud tires that truck would plow through snow up to the hood.

Now, the not so good is the distance between the wheel wells And the length of the bed. I think you said it was a longbed, so length isn’t so bad. But a tractor with a 42” deck will not fit between the wheel wells. Deck has to come off. The tractor fits lengthwise fairly close to the full bed distance, so wedging a deck in can be an irritation. A long bed may make this easier. You will want to secure the tractor in place. Especially on a plastic bed liner, it can shift and you don’t want that moving around. Another potential issue would be springs. I have seen a lot of Rangers with broken or flattened leaf springs. A simple upgrade would be Explorer springs or to rebuild the packs.

A small trailer makes things much simpler and allows room for things. What has rode the most in beds has been my old Craftsman II tractor with a 42” deck. Once I had my Craftsman GT with 54” deck in one of my Rangers. That was not so nice. AG tires filled with 5-6 gals of RV antifreeze and 55# wheel weights. My F-150 sits so high on 1-ton suspension that I don’t even like using that to haul. Built a custom 6.5’x11’ trailer awhile back that gets used when tractors need hauled. It’s overkill for these tractors, but it was built to be very versatile. I was actually considering building it as a deck over to get the deck even wider but that was causing complications as to the deck height for loading tractors and equipment without going to tiny wheels.

A side note, a shift kit with a few valve body mods and adding to the transmission cooler will help a lot.