Looking for a few more HP on a 3.0 vulcan engine

[Lefty]

A lot of us have complained about the 3.0. Maybe I'm one of them. I drove a Buick 3.0 Fireball Six which was considerably faster.

I've gotten used to the Ranger now. My little reg cab is really not that bad. Yes I made a few small improvements: dual exhaust, K&N intake, E Fan. These do not make a lot of horsepower either, certainly nothing noticeable. It does 0-60 in about 9.1 secs, gets about 20 MPG. It keeps up with traffic. It's not a street rod. It's a truck. Yes, the 4.0 is faster, but doesn't get the mileage.

I spent a little bit of mad restomod money on handling and traction instead: new shocks, bigger sway bars, James Duff traction bars, bigger tires on slightly offset wheels, limited slip. Mine is an Edge. I lowered it about an inch, still leaving it about an inch higher than stock. Now, it really sticks to the road. The steering is tight. I don't spin the tires on wet or snowy roads. Now, if I had to swap engines, I would certainly not put more weight in the front. I'm far more concerned with all around performance.

There is something of a moral to my own story. It is not be the answer some are looking for. I found that it is more fun to work with what you have rather than making it into something it's not. Of course, if some day there is a new bolt-on engine mod at the parts store, I will be the first in line.

 

[stmitch]

Cams do make a difference's however the smaller than optimal intake runners and the small ports and valves that are on the Vulcan exchange potential horsepower for torque

They're very reminiscent of the older pushrod 5.0 that Ford designed around the same time. They don't share any parts, but the designs look very familiar if you take them apart.

The most powerful 5.0 in the 98-01 Explorers came with "the good" GT40 intake manifolds and made 215hp @4200rpm and 288 ft-lbs @3300 rpm. That's 43hp and 57ft-lbs per liter of displacement.

The 3.0 in it's most potent form made 154hp @ 5200rpm and 180ft-lbs @ 3900rpm. That's 51hp and 60ft-lbs per liter of displacement. So, it could legitimately be argued that the 3.0 was a better engine design than the venerable 5.0L that all of the Mustangs had back in the day. It just lacks the aftermarket support.

Both engines were designed in the 80s and refined through the 90s. They did what they could with what they had. They're not a modern design at all, for better or worse. Comparing them to modern engines only shows how good modern powertrains have gotten at making (and delivering) power efficiently.

 

[99streetranger]

They're very reminiscent of the older pushrod 5.0 that Ford designed around the same time. They don't share any parts, but the designs look very familiar if you take them apart.

The most powerful 5.0 in the 98-01 Explorers came with "the good" GT40 intake manifolds and made 215hp @4200rpm and 288 ft-lbs @3300 rpm. That's 43hp and 57ft-lbs per liter of displacement.

The 3.0 in it's most potent form made 154hp @ 5200rpm and 180ft-lbs @ 3900rpm. That's 51hp and 60ft-lbs per liter of displacement. So, it could legitimately be argued that the 3.0 was a better engine design than the venerable 5.0L that all of the Mustangs had back in the day. It just lacks the aftermarket support.

Both engines were designed in the 80s and refined through the 90s. They did what they could with what they had. They're not a modern design at all, for better or worse. Comparing them to modern engines only shows how good modern powertrains have gotten at making (and delivering) power efficiently.

Yes. The modern expectation of a naturally aspirated engine is at least 100 horsepower per liter.

One of the biggest things holding these older ford engines back is simply having 2 valves per cylinder. 4 valves is so much better in every way; you get better flow, better flame shape, much lower valve lift required, reduced detonation. I also much prefer the sound of a high duration (cammed) 4 valve engine to that of a 2 valve. 4 valve chop just sounds so much nastier, regardless of cylinder count.

 

[Lefty]

Yes, an old design, but even way back when there were plenty of other more competitive engines in the same weight class. GM had a light weight steel block Fireball 6L lots of power, good for trucks, and much better mileage. I had one in a Buick (which weighed about 500 lbs more than the Ranger. It got about 28MPG on the highway.

 

[stmitch]

Yes, an old design, but even way back when there were plenty of other more competitive engines in the same weight class. GM had a light weight steel block Fireball 6L lots of power, good for trucks, and much better mileage. I had one in a Buick (which weighed about 500 lbs more than the Ranger. It got about 28MPG on the highway.

Comparing fuel economy of two completely different vehicles seems kind of pointless to me. Way too many variables.

The Vulcan was pretty comparable to other v6 trucks of the era:

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare the MPG of cars and trucks side-by-side. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of new and used cars and trucks

fueleconomy.gov

The Ford 3.0L made 154hp @ 5200rpm and 180ft-lbs @ 3900rpm. That's 51hp and 60ft-lbs per liter

The GM 4.3L made 180hp @4400 rpm and 240 lb-ft @ 2800rpm. That's 41hp and 56 lb-ft per liter

The Toyota 3.4L made 190hp @ 4800rpm and 220 lb-ft @ 3600rpm. That's 56hp and 65 lb-ft per liter. The Toyota was first available in 95, and was DOHC with aluminum heads and 4 valves per cylinder. It's quite a bit more modern than the older pushrod V6s from the US OEMs. But an observant eye might also notice that the benefits of the DOHC don't really come until higher RPMs, so there's a trade off.

 

[stmitch]

Yes. The modern expectation of a naturally aspirated engine is at least 100 horsepower per liter.

100hp/L from a naturally aspirated engine is still pretty uncommon for most engines in regular vehicles. Especially trucks.
GM 5.3L (Silverado) makes 355hp/380 lb-ft (67hp/72lb-ft per L)
Ford 5.0L (F150) makes 400hp/410 lb-ft (80hp/82lb-ft per L)
Ram 5.7L makes 395hp/410 lb-ft (69hp/72lb-ft per L)

The DOHC Ford does the best on a per Liter basis, but it makes it's peak higher up the rpm band than the others which can impact how it actually fells when driven.

 

[99streetranger]

100hp/L from a naturally aspirated engine is still pretty uncommon for most engines in regular vehicles. Especially trucks.
GM 5.3L (Silverado) makes 355hp/380 lb-ft (67hp/72lb-ft per L)
Ford 5.0L (F150) makes 400hp/410 lb-ft (80hp/82lb-ft per L)
Ram 5.7L makes 395hp/410 lb-ft (69hp/72lb-ft per L)

The DOHC Ford does the best on a per Liter basis, but it makes it's peak higher up the rpm band than the others which can impact how it actually fells when driven.

In trucks you’re definitely right. If you look at cars however, you’ll see 2L 4 bangers with 200hp (Honda K20) and almost 300hp from a 3L 6 cylinder (Ford Duratec, lots of BMW engines) The base 5.0 mustang is also very close to 500 hp

 

[stmitch]

In trucks you’re definitely right. If you look at cars however, you’ll see 2L 4 bangers with 200hp (Honda K20) and almost 300hp from a 3L 6 cylinder (Ford Duratec, lots of BMW engines) The base 5.0 mustang is also very close to 500 hp

Yeah, they definitely exist I just don't think they're particularly common.
And really, it doesn't have a ton to do with the Vulcan. It's an old, simple, inexpensive engine. They're generally very reliable. They can be improved if a person wants, but it's important to recognize the limitations in place