It's Official: I'm joining the 3.0 side in the 2.9 / 3.0 debate!


Sevensecondsuv

New member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Northern IL
Vehicle Year
Many
Make / Model
All Fords!
Engine Size
Many
Transmission
Manual
I got a chance to work on a 93 supercab 2wd 3.0 A4LD this week. This is the first 3.0 ranger I've had experience with. Comparing it to my 90 regular cab 2.9 auto (currently broken), both with 3.45 rear ends, I must say the 3.0 feels more powerful and definately accelerates faster. That makes up my mind about the 2.9/3.0 debate. I guess I can now join the 3.0 lover / 2.9 hater club!

This makes me want to find a nice 95-97 2wd, ext. cab, 3.0 ranger for a daily driver. My explorer is nice, but it's unbelievable how much nicer the 2wd extended cab ranger rides than the 4wd short wheelbase explorer. I think I'm gonna need my kidney's replaced if I DD the exploder too many more winters. Plus the few more MPG's would be nice.
 


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 173A8B749AB83C Expires: January 1, 2020

Hewgull

New member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
24
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sun Prairie, WI
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Pontiac
Engine Size
2.2 liters of clankity bang
Transmission
Manual
Don't be hatin':D
 

Gotta_gofast

New member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
1,455
Reaction score
30
Points
0
Location
Wisconsin
Vehicle Year
2006
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
6.0L Powerstroke
Transmission
Automatic
...drive a 3.0L with a 5-speed! Big difference from that auto.
 

Kdawg532

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Keymar,Maryland
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0 V6 God's gift to man
Transmission
Manual
yes drive a 3.0 with a 5spd and 4.10s:headbang::3gears:
 

Wicked_Sludge

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
6,937
Reaction score
32
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Westport, WA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3-point-GO
Transmission
Manual
i dont hate the 2.9....its a good motor and had a good run. its just an outdated design. the 3.0 is for that matter too...which is why ford dropped in in the '09 model year trucks.

i enjoy an engine that revs...which is why i prefer the 3.0. i only wish the redline wasnt so low. that and the early 90's 3.0's are about as simple as it gets as far as engine managment is concerned.
 
Last edited:

Will

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
132
Points
63
Location
Gnaw Bone, Indiana
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Toyota
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
i dont hate the 2.9....its a good motor and had a good run. its just an outdated design. the 3.0 is for that matter too...which is why ford dropped in in the '09 model year trucks.

i enjoy an engine that revs...which is why i prefer the 3.0. i only wish the 45redline wasnt so low. that and the early 90's 3.0's are about as simple as it gets as far as engine managment is concerned.
ALL of the Ranger engines are outdated. There's no difference between a 2.9 and 3.0 in technology. It's just stupid to build 2 of the same size engine. Ford has always been retarded about that.

A modern engine that can vary the valve timing and lift and vary the intake manifold geometry can operate a size above and below its former use. A modern 3.5 in a Ranger would be great.
 

Mechanickid

New member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Martinsburg W.V
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
2.9
Transmission
Manual
Personally I'm the 2.9's biggest fan. I remember as a kid when my dad would start his ranger the smell of 2.9 exhaust and the unmistakable sound a 2.9 produces. I think that the cologne V6 is very reliable as long as you give them care. My Favorite colgn v6 however is the 4.0 which is everything the 2.9 wishes it was.
 

Sevensecondsuv

New member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Northern IL
Vehicle Year
Many
Make / Model
All Fords!
Engine Size
Many
Transmission
Manual
Sorry guys, ever since my 2.9 lost oil pressure 15,000 miles after being rebuilt (rebuilder didn't replace the cam bearings) I've had a pretty low opinion of them. Designing the oil system so that the cam bearings (or any other single bearing) can wear a little and cause a total loss of oil pressure is simply retarded. That's really my only issue with the 2.9.
 

rusty ol ranger

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
679
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
2.9L
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
Get a heathly 2.9 against an equally heathly 3.0, with some 4.11's and a 5sp, and you'll be lovin the 2.9 again.

The 3.0 is to much of a revver for me. I like the fact that on the 2.9 you can lay the skinny pedal down and leave with the tires smokin'. The 3.0 just kinda chirps and pulls away.

later,
Dustin
 

holyford86

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
33
Location
Chazy, NY
Vehicle Year
many
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
I'm going to stick with the 2.9 side of the debate. Yeah, its a bit lower on the power than the 3.0 but I've seen one 3.0 catastophically fail, and one other that isn't very long for this world. I just pulled my 2.9 at 280k because it was tired, it ran good other than that. Have seen another 2.9 powered truck pounded beyond belief and it still runs awesome.
 

Hewgull

New member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
24
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Sun Prairie, WI
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Pontiac
Engine Size
2.2 liters of clankity bang
Transmission
Manual
Sorry guys, ever since my 2.9 lost oil pressure 15,000 miles after being rebuilt (rebuilder didn't replace the cam bearings) I've had a pretty low opinion of them. Designing the oil system so that the cam bearings (or any other single bearing) can wear a little and cause a total loss of oil pressure is simply retarded. That's really my only issue with the 2.9.
How many miles were on it when it was rebuilt? If he didn't replace the cam bearings and there were a ton of miles on it then its not retarded if the cam bearings were worn quite a bit when they failed. I'm not dogging on you, but I can see how they would fail if they weren't replaced
 
Last edited:

BeaterMan

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
488
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
colorado
Vehicle Year
1985,1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
2.8, 4.6, 5.0
Transmission
Manual
i joke with my buddies that my 3.0l would make a great boat motor. it can hold 4-4500 rpm going up i70 in the colorado mountains with 2 dirt bikes in the bed all day long! :headbang:

A damn good engine if i must say so.
 

4x4junkie

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
10,236
Reaction score
169
Points
63
Location
So. Calif (SFV)
Vehicle Year
1990
Make / Model
Bronco II
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
2.9L V6
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Tire Size
35x12.50R15
How many miles were on it when it was rebuilt? If he didn't replace the cam bearings and there were a ton of miles on it then its not retarded if the cam bearings were worn quite a bit when they failed. I'm not dogging on you, but I can see how they would fail if they weren't replaced
+1

This sounds like a rebuilder problem, not the engine :rolleyes:
 


Top