I Gotta Admit I Really Like The Vulcan

[8thTon]

well the 4.0 was a bored/stroked 2.9 , Ive never driven a manual 3.0 ranger, my ‘97 had a 3.45 rear end and no first (automatic) so it was indeed doggish. Had a 93 taurus with the 3.0 and it worked well with that chassis.

No doubt it would be a dog with 3.45s!

I liked the 3.0 after we got all the piston slapping 86's and broken head bolt 87's fixed. They worked great in Taurus's, Tempos, and Probes but were underwhelming in Rangers because the torque peak is too high. I tried a 3.0, 5 speed, short box 4x4 before ordering a 4.0 sohc( that was overcomplicated) in my new 2004 and couldn't stand it, even with 4.10 gears. I thought they did better with an automatic because of the torque convertor. Ford was/is too compartmentalized, in my opinion. We had an engineer from the Ranger plant at a parts and service managers meeting around 2000 and I asked why they had created the pulse vacuum nightmare instead of just using the trouble free system that had been under Explorers since 95. He didn't know anything about Explorers. Rather than look at what already was produced they started with a clean sheet of paper.

Was the 3.0 you tried a standard cab? It could be the torque converter that makes it work, although I tend to think once it's reving upwards of 3k that's probably not in the torque multiplication effect range. Maybe in a manual it takes too long to get the revs up? The combination in my truck works very well - then again the 2004 is the highest hp version, in a light std cab 2WD truck.

 

[19Walt93]

No doubt it would be a dog with 3.45s!


Was the 3.0 you tried a standard cab? It could be the torque converter that makes it work, although I tend to think once it's reving upwards of 3k that's probably not in the torque multiplication effect range. Maybe in a manual it takes too long to get the revs up? The combination in my truck works very well - then again the 2004 is the highest hp version, in a light std cab 2WD truck.

In 04 the only way to get a 3.0 in a 4x4 was to buy a regular cab. I wanted- and ended up buying- a supercab but have never liked the 4.0 sohc, it's a typical overcomplicated, over engineered, German, Rube Goldberg design. Then I bought another one in my 2011. Neither gave me any problems and I still don't like them.

 

[19Walt93]

Nothing really interchangeable between them? Seems kinda silly that Ford didn't just change the bore/stroke on the 4.0 if they wanted a smaller displacement engine.

Alan Mullaly tried to reduce some of that stupidity. When he signed on Ford sold Focus' all over the world, the US Focus was unique, the European Focus was unique, and the Asian/Australian Focus was unique. He at least got them all to use one platform and tailor it to their markets and regulations. Henry Ford figured out 120 years a go that he could build better cars cheaper if he standardized things, now that's revolutionary thinking.

 

[8thTon]

In 04 the only way to get a 3.0 in a 4x4 was to buy a regular cab. I wanted- and ended up buying- a supercab but have never liked the 4.0 sohc, it's a typical overcomplicated, over engineered, German, Rube Goldberg design. Then I bought another one in my 2011. Neither gave me any problems and I still don't like them.

I never got the idea of flipping the head on one side. Maybe they saved a few cents by not having a mirror image casting, but look at the drive complexity needed to do that! And then the only thing they got out of the whole OHC change was better port shape I guess, but in the end it's making 4/3 the power of the pushrod 3.0, so even that was a bust.

 

[franklin2]

You guys are trying to figure out Ford and their engineering? Forget trying to do that. Give me an explanation why they committed to the overhead cam "modular" design engine years ago, and then all of a sudden they are going back to pushrods on this engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Godzilla_engine

 

[MikeG]

I'm expecting the two-speed planetary transmission of the Model T to make a comeback any day now.....

Don't forget the Ruxtel (?) two speed rear axle as well

 

[8thTon]

Give me an explanation why they committed to the overhead cam "modular" design engine years ago, and then all of a sudden they are going back to pushrods on this engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Godzilla_engine

Well, because it made a lot of sense. I read an explanation from the engineers as to why they went that way but I don't have the link any more. Essentially it's a commercial truck engine and is expected to be loaded most of the time. It needs to make power and be efficient under those expectations of loading, unlike your typical pickup which is empty 99% of the time. Keep in mind that the combustion chamber has no idea what mechanism opens and closes the valves, pushrods are more than capable of any rpm a truck engine will run at, and 2 valves per cylinder are fine for some uses.

The 7.3 is by all accounts an excellent design. I drove one in a 26' box truck moving my daughter, and it ran very well, getting almost 11mpg.

 

[19Walt93]

You guys are trying to figure out Ford and their engineering? Forget trying to do that. Give me an explanation why they committed to the overhead cam "modular" design engine years ago, and then all of a sudden they are going back to pushrods on this engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Godzilla_engine

The Cologne engines are German engineering that happens to have been done for Ford. I've worked on BMW's, Mercedes, Opels, and more air cooled VWs than I want to remember. "Superior German engineering is an oxymoron and a myth. The Modular V8's were flawless until Jack Nasser insisted the head gasket supplier reduce the cost for 99. We had a Crown Vic seize up because the owner went 19,000 miles without ever changing or even checking the oil. They didn't leak or burn oil, we never had a problem with timing chains, some of the cam phasers made noise but mostly because of lack of maintenance. The new 7.3 is OHV because it makes the engine smaller and easier to fit.

 

[8thTon]

The Cologne engines are German engineering that happens to have been done for Ford. I've worked on BMW's, Mercedes, Opels, and more air cooled VWs than I want to remember. "Superior German engineering is an oxymoron and a myth. The Modular V8's were flawless until Jack Nasser insisted the head gasket supplier reduce the cost for 99. We had a Crown Vic seize up because the owner went 19,000 miles without ever changing or even checking the oil. They didn't leak or burn oil, we never had a problem with timing chains, some of the cam phasers made noise but mostly because of lack of maintenance. The new 7.3 is OHV because it makes the engine smaller and easier to fit.

As a design engineer for over 30 years (in a different field), I've worked with German engineers and used German components. The marketing men have convinced Americans that "German Engineering" is something especially good. Well, it's special anyway.....

 

[bilbo]

Well, because it made a lot of sense. I read an explanation from the engineers as to why they went that way but I don't have the link any more. Essentially it's a commercial truck engine and is expected to be loaded most of the time. It needs to make power and be efficient under those expectations of loading, unlike your typical pickup which is empty 99% of the time. Keep in mind that the combustion chamber has no idea what mechanism opens and closes the valves, pushrods are more than capable of any rpm a truck engine will run at, and 2 valves per cylinder are fine for some uses.

The 7.3 is by all accounts an excellent design. I drove one in a 26' box truck moving my daughter, and it ran very well, getting almost 11mpg.

I read an article that basically said this. I can't remember where I saw it, but it was basically that commercial trucks and light duty pickups' purposes have diverged so much they aren't even in the same realm any more. As said, most light trucks drive around empty and the demand is more fuel economy. They get that with more complicated smaller displacement engines at the expense of reliability, simplicity, and repair cost, especially when heavily loaded.

The commercial truck people want something that will run for a very long time with minimal maintenance, and be relatively simple and cheap to repair when something does actually go, and are expected to be heavily loaded most of the time. A big simple gas engine ends up the best fit.

 

[franklin2]

Well, because it made a lot of sense. I read an explanation from the engineers as to why they went that way but I don't have the link any more. Essentially it's a commercial truck engine and is expected to be loaded most of the time. It needs to make power and be efficient under those expectations of loading, unlike your typical pickup which is empty 99% of the time. Keep in mind that the combustion chamber has no idea what mechanism opens and closes the valves, pushrods are more than capable of any rpm a truck engine will run at, and 2 valves per cylinder are fine for some uses.

The 7.3 is by all accounts an excellent design. I drove one in a 26' box truck moving my daughter, and it ran very well, getting almost 11mpg.

I know, it does make a lot of sense. So GM stayed with the pushrod design while Ford did their little ohc "experiment" I guess is what you would call it.

 

[fastpakr]

I know, it does make a lot of sense. So GM stayed with the pushrod design while Ford did their little ohc "experiment" I guess is what you would call it.

Not exactly an 'experiment', in that it's worked very well for a lot of use cases. But over the years we've also seen some narrow spots where the simple and compact engine can shine.

 

[RonD]

ICE is a dead end issue, OHV or OHC

Like arguing which saddle and harness is better

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You guys are trying to figure out Ford and their engineering? Forget trying to do that. Give me an explanation why they committed to the overhead cam "modular" design engine years ago, and then all of a sudden they are going back to pushrods on this engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Godzilla_engine

Because a DOHC 7.3 would look something like this:

I know, it does make a lot of sense. So GM stayed with the pushrod design while Ford did their little ohc "experiment" I guess is what you would call it.

OHC isn't going anywhere in the Ford camp any time soon, at least all the truck Ecoboosts are still DOHC. Don't know/care about the little turds in cars, no pushrods but their might be a SOHC lurking about somewhere.

The hoops GM and Mopar have had to jump thru to keep their pushrod V8's relevant have taken away many of their perks. Mainly the multi displacement crap that kills camshafts or gets them addicted to burning oil.

The Ford 7.3 is a mule. It is supposed to do diesel things of the not that distant past without diesel drama. In my area it is struggling to find a niche though. Farmers either want a diesel for diesel or they want cheap, not much demand so far for an in between.

 

[8thTon]

ICE is a dead end issue, OHV or OHC

Like arguing which saddle and harness is better

Nope. We're going to go down this EV path a ways, only to find out that while you can make a really nice EV, you can't make an automotive transportation system that uses EV's. At least not one anything like what we have now. First, the refueling time issue is not a problem that technology can solve, it is inherent in the process of transferring energy into some chunk of matter so you can carry it around with you. The equation for electrical energy is V*A*Time. It's a lot of energy, and you cannot increase V or A without incurring a lot of losses, so you're stuck with a lot of time. Liquid fossil fuels are matter that the energy got stored in millions of years ago, so that doesn't have to happen now.

Second, our electricity comes primarily from fossil fuels, much of it coal. Nasty, brown lignite coal, one step above dirt, is all we have left.

Third, the electric grid is not capable of transferring all the energy that presently runs our automotive transportation system. Managers, propagandists and other idiots will show you calculations that show how much "waste" there is, how much unused capacity, but pushing an old system to an ever higher percentage of it's capacity for an ever greater amount of time leads to something called "catastrophic failure". My carer has been designing equipment for the "Smart Grid". The Smart Grid = we need much more capacity in generation, transmission and distribution, but we can't afford that so we'll overlay a high speed communication network so we can push the old pig harder.

Once the present oil glut is used up and the tight oil companies have gone under, or even if they're propped up more, fuel will get increasingly expensive. EV's are not going to save our bacon.