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

[Sevensecondsuv]

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.

 

[Hewgull]

Don't be hatin'

 

[Gotta_gofast]

...drive a 3.0L with a 5-speed! Big difference from that auto.

 

[99RangerKrazy]

Don't be hatin'

+1, the 2.9's need some lovin' too.

 

[Kdawg532]

yes drive a 3.0 with a 5spd and 4.10s

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

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 its just an outdated design.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.

 

[Will]

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 its just an outdated design.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ALL of the Ranger engines are outdated.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]

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]

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.

 

[Kdawg532]

That's the setup I have in my 94 & I love it.

it does make a huge difference

 

[rusty ol ranger]

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]

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]

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

 

[BeaterMan]

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!

A damn good engine if i must say so.

 

[4x4junkie]

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