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

[stegomon]

the 3.0s are ok...but for me i would love to havea 2.9 in my truck..

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

For those who asked, my 2.9 had 100,000 miles on it when the previous owner had it rebuilt (due to cracked heads). Now it has 115,000 miles and it's dead. It didn't spin any bearings. Most likely the cam bearings just wore a little too much out of spec, and since they are the main resistance in the oil system (meaning they provide the flow resistance to create oil pressure) it has no oil pressure. No oil pressure = a useless engine. 2.3s, 3.0s, and 4.0s don't have the retarded oil system design that the 2.9 does. That's why you never hear of slightly worn cam bearings taking down the entire 2.3, 3.0 or 4.0. Like it or not, that's a problem specific to 2.9s.

As for the torque debate, I will agree the 2.9 makes better low end torque. However, that's simply a gearing issue. With the right gears, either engine is fine for moving a ranger and whatever it's rated to tow. And once you experience the low end torque of a 4.0L, you realize the difference in low end torque between the 2.9 and 3.0 is marginal.

My recommendation for all of you 2.9 owners is:

1) Keep a very watchful eye on the cooling system. Replace the coolant and thermostat every year or 20,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The 2.9L heads (and 4.0L too) cannot withstand overheating. They will crack.

2) Use good quality oil and change it religiously. A little bit of wear in the cam bearings will cause the engine to lose oil pressure.

 

[stegomon]

the 3.0 is ok on power...i just have not had the greatest luck with mine....better luck with the 2.9.....but hey lets all just say that the 4.0s are better

 

[ronclark]

I like the 2.9L, not to hard to work eather.
I have a really healthy one with 4.10 5spd 4x4.

For work I drive 2003 2x4 3.0L 5spd 4.10 same size tires as my 87 and I can tell you what my 2.9 will pull my boat way better than that 3.0. its way to slow at reving, and in 4th its all I can do to keep 60, my 87 I can hit 75.
at for reliability, out of the three work trucks with 3.0L each are close to 100,000 the list is for stuff besides maintenance stuff

Slave Cylinder
Clutch
Heater Core
Coil pack

 

[heptofite]

I've got a 2.9 in my 86 B2, and comparing it to the 3.0 i had in my 01 ranger, it's just world's apart, i can put the hammer down in my B2 and lay down rubber like there's no tomorrow, and my 3.0 just couldn't pull it off.

the 2.9 is rough, loud, and awesome.
sure the 3.0 is quieter, but what's fun about that?

 

[ronclark]

I've got a 2.9 in my 86 B2, and comparing it to the 3.0 i had in my 01 ranger, it's just world's apart, i can put the hammer down in my B2 and lay down rubber like there's no tomorrow, and my 3.0 just couldn't pull it off.

the 2.9 is rough, loud, and awesome.
sure the 3.0 is quieter, but what's fun about that?

+1

 

[heptofite]

but really though, the 2.9 puts out what, 160? in 1986? that's pretty damn impressive considering the 2.3 puts out about 88.

 

[koda6966]

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.

But your still hatin on the 1993/94 extended cab 3.0 trucks? My truck is mad at you now.

 

[koda6966]

I've got a 2.9 in my 86 B2, and comparing it to the 3.0 i had in my 01 ranger, it's just world's apart, i can put the hammer down in my B2 and lay down rubber like there's no tomorrow, and my 3.0 just couldn't pull it off.

the 2.9 is rough, loud, and awesome.
sure the 3.0 is quieter, but what's fun about that?

What's the gearing in both trucks? I can peel rubber just fine with my 3.0 with bad gears.

 

[heptofite]

What's the gearing in both trucks? I can peel rubber just fine with my 3.0 with bad gears.

honestly i don't know, i ran from the 01 truck fast as i could, payment was about three times what it was worth.

 

[wrecking-crew]

i vote 2.9.
you gotta own the engine to appriciate it

 

[Jspafford]

For those who asked, my 2.9 had 100,000 miles on it when the previous owner had it rebuilt (due to cracked heads). Now it has 115,000 miles and it's dead. It didn't spin any bearings. Most likely the cam bearings just wore a little too much out of spec, and since they are the main resistance in the oil system (meaning they provide the flow resistance to create oil pressure) it has no oil pressure. No oil pressure = a useless engine. 2.3s, 3.0s, and 4.0s don't have the retarded oil system design that the 2.9 does. That's why you never hear of slightly worn cam bearings taking down the entire 2.3, 3.0 or 4.0. Like it or not, that's a problem specific to 2.9s.

As for the torque debate, I will agree the 2.9 makes better low end torque. However, that's simply a gearing issue. With the right gears, either engine is fine for moving a ranger and whatever it's rated to tow. And once you experience the low end torque of a 4.0L, you realize the difference in low end torque between the 2.9 and 3.0 is marginal.

I have 169K on mine and it still gets me to work and back daily. Almost 40 miles a day, rain, snow, sleet, summer, etc. With hubs locked in 2WD I also still manage to get 19MPG..

Wife's old (Sold it cause it wanted me to own Exxon) Ranger 1999, 3.0L Auto with 4.10's got 17 on the highway for the whole tank, or 12-13 in town. Stupid, once it hit 3rd it lost all motivation to move!

My recommendation for all of you 2.9 owners is:

1) Keep a very watchful eye on the cooling system. Replace the coolant and thermostat every year or 20,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The 2.9L heads (and 4.0L too) cannot withstand overheating. They will crack.

Install a $30 mechanical temp guage. I did, they work well!

2) Use good quality oil and change it religiously. A little bit of wear in the cam bearings will cause the engine to lose oil pressure.

I'll keep you updated on when mine fails... If it ever does!

 

[Shran]

I will join this 8 month old debate by saying this: I was not aware that there WAS debate about which is better.

 

[heptofite]

I will join this 8 month old debate by saying this: I was not aware that there WAS debate about which is better.

it's fairly obvious, right?

 

[ronclark]

really if you look there is really not a lot of percent difference between the Hp and Torque

2.9L
Horsepower 140hp @ 4600rpm Torque 170hp @ 2600rpm
3.0L
Horsepower 145hp @ 4800 RPM (1991 - 1995) 147hp @ 5000 RPM (1996 - 1997) 145hp @ 5000 RPM (1999) 150hp @ 4750 RPM (2000 - 2001) 146hp @ 5050 RPM (2002) 154hp @ 5200 RPM (2003 - 2004) 148hp @ 4900 RPM (2005-2007) Torque 165 @ 3600 RPM (1991 - 1995) 162 @ 3250 RPM (1996 - 1997) 178 @ 3750 RPM (1999) 190 @ 3650 RPM (2000 - 2001) 180 @ 3500 RPM (2002) 180 @ 3900 RPM (2003 - 2004) 180 @ 3950 RPM (2005 - 2007)