M5OD - Milky transmission fluid

[adsm08]

It isn't fear, I just think it a dumb design, and they do appear to have reliability problems due to it. It's not like chain driven overhead cams are a big mystery to anyone, including Ford. There is always a price to complexity.

The early ones had some issues. Even then as a percentage of total population they were low, and became quite rare after 2005.

 

[Dirtman]

It's not that the 3.0 was bad or really under powered, but when the 2.3 DOHC was put in the rangers in 2002 it essentially made the 3.0 pointless. The 2.3 made the same power with better fuel economy. The 3.0 replaced the 2.9 for a reason (albeit a dumb one), but after 2002 there was just no longer a logical reason to keep using it. It took ford 4 more years to figure that out.

 

[Danno1985]

But if 150ish horsepower is sufficient (it is for me), then it's a fine engine for the application.

So is the 2.3, though. They're basically redundant from a hp/torque standpoint, but one is much more efficient.

 

[8thTon]

So is the 2.3, though. They're basically redundant from a hp/torque standpoint, but one is much more efficient.

The 3.0 is rated 154 hp @ 5200 rpm and 180 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm for my 2004

The 2.3 is rated 143 hp @ 5200 rpm and 154 lb-ft @ 3750 rpm

So it's 11hp more at the same 5200rpm, but it clearly has more power at lower rpms (power is torque x rpm). So the 3.0 is producing 134hp at 3900, while the 2.3 is at 110hp at 3750. The 2.3 is a fine engine and I would have taken a nice truck with one had I found one at the time, but the 3.0 does have more power and a flatter power band.

 

[adsm08]

The 3.0 is rated 154 hp @ 5200 rpm and 180 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm for my 2004

The 2.3 is rated 143 hp @ 5200 rpm and 154 lb-ft @ 3750 rpm

So it's 11hp more at the same 5200rpm, but it clearly has more power at lower rpms (power is torque x rpm). So the 3.0 is producing 134hp at 3900, while the 2.3 is at 110hp at 3750. The 2.3 is a fine engine and I would have taken a nice truck with one had I found one at the time, but the 3.0 does have more power and a flatter power band.

I wonder how the GDI 2.3 compares.

 

[8thTon]

I wonder how the GDI 2.3 compares.

Dunno, but these engines with multi valves, variable valve timing, and GDI with low pressure turbos are so much more efficient than a dinosaur like the 3.0 could ever be. And they have wide flat powerbands too.

 

[adsm08]

Dunno, but these engines with multi valves, variable valve timing, and GDI with low pressure turbos are so much more efficient than a dinosaur like the 3.0 could ever be. And they have wide flat powerbands too.

Yeah. If the Mustang 2.3 EB matches or beats the 4.0 for power I wouldn't mind putting one in my Ranger. More space to work on it.