Junkyard Digs 1994 Ranger revival

[97RangerXLT]

For the 3.0 crowd, is it really that slow on the highway? My 4.0 automatic will do 90 easily, although it gets a bit scary in the wind at that speed..

AJ

 

[4.0blue98]

That was a good episode. Saw them using it as a parts hauler in a more recent one. I test drove a 3.0 when I bought my 4.0 and there was a big difference off the line to me, but I'd have thought it would wind up just fine.

 

[Lefty]

I rather enjoyed this video. Restorations always tell a story about hard work, learning curves, and unscheduled surprises.

These guys were rather negative about the 3.0, calling it "violently underpowered," and reported that they had the pedal to the floor just to get up to 65 MPH. Maybe I'm wrong but they probably need to do more work to the drive train.

My 3.0 reg cab, with an automatic and a 4.10, accelerates up to 60 in about 9.0-9.5 seconds. It cruises easily at 70-75 and does better than 80. (I'm sure how much better). I do have dual exhausts, an efan, and a few other small mods. Yes, I would like another 10-15 HP, but otherwise, it's just fine.

They complained about mileage too. Mine seems to run somewhere around 20.

 

[sgtsandman]

I rather enjoyed this video. Restorations always tell a story about hard work, learning curves, and unscheduled surprises.

These guys were rather negative about the 3.0, calling it "violently underpowered," and reported that they had the pedal to the floor just to get up to 65 MPH. Maybe I'm wrong but they probably need to do more work to the drive train.

My 3.0 reg cab, with an automatic and a 4.10, accelerates up to 60 in about 9.0-9.5 seconds. It cruises easily at 70-75 and does better than 80. (I'm sure how much better). I do have dual exhausts, an efan, and a few other small mods. Yes, I would like another 10-15 HP, but otherwise, it's just fine.

They complained about mileage too. Mine seems to run somewhere around 20.

No, violently underpowered is a Lima or the tiny diesel engines Ford put in these trucks.

The 3.0 isn't realy underpowered when they are in their powerband. The problem is, the way they geared most Rangers, the engine wasn't really in their powerband and most people aren't used to or like winding out the engine some to get it into it's powerband. Thus, why they have the reputation they do.

Powerwise, they are better than the 2.8 and 2.9, if I remember correctly. Then we get back into the fact that people think are over revving the engine to get that power.

 

[superj]

my 3.0 with five speed and 4.10 rear end is fun to drive. it accelerates just fine when i want to take off quick and will get to the top speed limiter just like my other vehicles (its like 93mph though ). i am totally fine with my 3.0 in the ranger, but mine is a stick. i don;t know how an auto would be with this engine because i don;t know if it keeps you in the higher rpms the engine seems to like better

 

[sgtsandman]

my 3.0 with five speed and 4.10 rear end is fun to drive. it accelerates just fine when i want to take off quick and will get to the top speed limiter just like my other vehicles (its like 93mph though ). i am totally fine with my 3.0 in the ranger, but mine is a stick. i don;t know how an auto would be with this engine because i don;t know if it keeps you in the higher rpms the engine seems to like better

My impression is that the automatice doesn't keep the engine in the higher RPMs.

 

[fastpakr]

My impression is that the automatice doesn't keep the engine in the higher RPMs.

Same. It always felt like the automatic was better tuned for the 2.9's characteristics. Nothing really wrong with the engine itself.

 

[Ranger850]

I never noticed a power issue with my 5 speed manual 3.0 with 3.73 gears, EVER. Once I learned that the 3.0 is a high rev engine, and drove it accordingly, I was even happier with how it performed.

 

[Ranger850]

is it really that slow on the highway?

NO. He clearly has some other issues. My Ranger had no issues doing 90mph if ever needed.

 

[Lefty]

NO. He clearly has some other issues. My Ranger had no issues doing 90mph if ever needed.

exactly

 

[97RangerXLT]

I agree, there is something else in the driveline that is hecking him. if I were to guess, the fuel filter may be plugged especially since he had to clean out the tar out of the fuel tank. there were also some weirdness with the rpms when he pushed in the clutch, so not sure what that was all about.

It is a 4x4, so I imagine it has 3:73 gears in it, but he did say he got oversized tires. probably 31's and that might be a bit much for the 3.0. My 97 has 31's and 3:73 gears from the factory and will run 90 no problem, but it has a 4.0 in it so that may be the difference.

AJ

 

[Lefty]

For the 3.0 crowd, is it really that slow on the highway? My 4.0 automatic will do 90 easily, although it gets a bit scary in the wind at that speed..

AJ

The 3.0 is definitely slower, but not really bad. A regular cab with a 410 rear end accelerates to 60 in less than 9.5 secs.

 

[ericbphoto]

I have trouble getting to 90mph with mine. But it will do it. My truck suffers from severe aerodynamic insufficiency. 6" lift, 35" tires, body modifications, light bar, etc. But it's a happy little truck if I don't push too hard.

 

[Lefty]

I have trouble getting to 90mph with mine. But it will do it. My truck suffers from severe aerodynamic insufficiency. 6" lift, 35" tires, body modifications, light bar, etc. But it's a happy little truck if I don't push too hard.

We are not allowed to drive in Daytona anyway.