Pros/Cons of 3.0 Vulcan V6

[ericbphoto]

My 2.9 could suck a 4.0 through its intercooler.

Well, you did give him good advice.

 

[8thTon]

My 2.9 could suck a 4.0 through its intercooler.

Wow, that's a lot of sucking, but then I've heard they suck a lot!

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I've had three of the four V6 engines that the Ranger came with.

My '85 had the 2.8, with a 5 speed manual behind it. It had power when I needed it, and it could climb steep hills in third gear at 60mph.

My 1990 had the 2.9 with a 4 speed automatic. It felt absolutely gutless. It took forever to get up to highway speed from a standing stop, and the one time I tried to take it up a steep hill, it struggled all the way up.

My 1991 had the 3.0 (the engine you're asking about) with a 5 speed manual. It had power to spare, and could also climb hills at 60mph in third gear.

For the record, a 1990 Ford Ranger Supercab and a 1990 Ford Taurus wagon are approximately the same weight. I bring that up because I had one, and climbed the same hill with it as I had climbed with the '91 Ranger. The Taurus had no problem climbing that hill at 60mph, with an automatic.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

3.0 is... Well. It's a taurus engine. What you see is what you get.

And I had a Taurus (wagon) with that engine and an automatic. The 3.0 is every bit as capable in a Ranger Supercab as it is in a Taurus. They weigh about the same.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

Proper Gearing for a 3.0 is a must. I have 3.45's in my 3.0 ranger and while highway I get great gas mileage running between 2500 and 2700 rpm @ 65mph this also is under the power range of this motor. I live in a valley surrounded by mountains and constantly am shifting between gears to be able to pull them. A real pain so 4.10's are a good starting point in areas like ours.

PUH! You're SUPPOSED to shift down to climb hills. Most steep hills I was down in third gear (and I hit third to pass, too!), going up (and down). If I lived in really hilly country, and didn't want to be shifting all the time, I'd buy an automatic, and let it do all the shifting for me. But since I don't mind having to shift (and maybe constantly shift), my transmission of choice is a manual, if I can get one.

 

[Ranger_XL]

What do you guys think of this?

Elite Ford Ranger Modular Front Winch Bumper with Bull Bar 1993-1997 | eBay

3 Piece Modular bumper design. End pieces 1/8" thick bolt to the main center section 3/16". This bumper fits model years Ford Ranger from 1993-1997. Includes (2) 1" thick shackle tabs and Bolt on Bull Bar with gussets.

www.ebay.com

 

[racsan]

I had a 93 taurus sedan with the 3.0 and in that chassis it was a great fit, plenty of power, 28 mpg highway. Never tried pulling a trailer with it but it was a good car. only issue I ever had is that the drive gear for the. distributor wore the teeth down to the point that 2 were gone completely and engine quit running. put a new gear on and it was back in business.

 

[Bgunner]

PUH! You're SUPPOSED to shift down to climb hills. Most steep hills I was down in third gear (and I hit third to pass, too!), going up (and down). If I lived in really hilly country, and didn't want to be shifting all the time, I'd buy an automatic, and let it do all the shifting for me. But since I don't mind having to shift (and maybe constantly shift), my transmission of choice is a manual, if I can get one.

I've been driving a standard since 16 yrs old, over 26 years now, so I am aware of the need to shift to stay in the power range of the motor. This is a normal thing but being geared properly will reduce the need to constantly shift between 3rd and 4th gear while climbing steeper hills and curves.

3.45 gears are the highway gears ford used in the 3rd gen to gain gas mileage and ment more for flat landers than mountainous areas. Because of them being a tall gear towing and pulling power is severely reduced. Now add in a motor that doesnt really start to develop power till 2500 to 2700 rpms (I can literally feel me be pushed back in the seat as the engine hits these rpms versus lower rpms almost like a switch being flipped when the motor gets to its power range) gets you a screaming engine with very little nut to pull or tow. This is where the 4.10's become useful to have the power at the normal road speeds. I've been looking for an axle with the F7 or R7, 7.5- 4.10- LS / 8.8- 4.10- LS, code for mine to get the rpms up at normal road speeds to put the power in to a more usable range and not get a speeding ticket or running 3800+ rpms up the mountains.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Pro: it's 0.1 liter larger than a 2.9
Con: it's 1.0 liter smaller than a 4.0

A 2.9 will spank a 3.0

 

[19Walt93]

My first new truck was an 04 Ranger. I worked at a Ford dealer for 42 years and I've never liked the 4.0 sohc because it's such an over complicated design, it looks like someone gave Rube Goldberg 10' of timing chain and told him he had to use it all. I drove a new regular cab, short box 4x4 with a 3.0,a 5 speed and 4.10 gears during lunch one day, thinking the 4.10's would make it tolerable. I headed up the ramp onto the interstate and crested the hill doing about 60 when I shifted into 5th. I immediately shifted back to 4th,headed back to the shop and ordered my Ranger with the SOHC. The 86 3.0 Taurus' had huge numbers of piston slap problems and we changed a lot of engines until they upgraded the pistons. Then the 87's started rolling in with broken off shore head bolts. Once that was fixed the worst problem we had was with the syncronizers which was inexpensive and quick to replace. The 3.0 is a good engine- for a passenger car or a 2wd that doesn't haul heavy loads or drive in hilly terrain. The guy who posted that his 2.9 Ranger wouldn't climb a hill probably had 3.45 gears, from my experience a 2.9 has a lot more low end torque than a 3.0 but they're both good engines. If the 3.0 has enough power to satisfy you, buy it and keep up with the maintenance.

 

[Zachsdad69]

Got a question with this forum, truck lifted to max with keys. Tires on it are 31-10.5-15 , 3.0 L automatic. Any suggestions?

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

The one 2.9 that was at first horribly gutless was in a BII with an auto and 3.73. Ran a lot better after a proper full tune-up but my 3.0 Ranger extended cab with a manual and 3.73 gears would spank it both for speed and hauling but both were acceptable.

My first 2.9 isn’t worth comparing to anything, it swallowed a valve not long after I put it on the road.

My second 2.9 was in my choptop and it had a particular affinity to destroying heads. Ran great when it ran, but I went through 5 or 6 heads before I gave up and yanked it. Even a 180* t-stat and 4.0 rad didn’t save it. I put a 2.9 in that came from a wrecked first gen BII that took a pine tree to the grill so hard it pushed the engine off the mounts. With 4.10 gears and a manual trans on 33’s it was a beast. Best running one I ever had. When I went to 35’s it would pull hard until 4th gear then literally fall flat on its face. You couldn’t use 4th unless you were downhill or on the flat. An OHV 4.0 fixed that problem.

My current Ranger has the OHV 4.0 with an auto and 4.10s and it’s a dog. I think my 3.0 performed just as good if not better. My dad has the identical truck but a year older and about 50k more miles and it pulls harder. No matter though, it’s slated for a 5.0 hopefully this year.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

My first new truck was an 04 Ranger. I worked at a Ford dealer for 42 years and I've never liked the 4.0 sohc because it's such an over complicated design, it looks like someone gave Rube Goldberg 10' of timing chain and told him he had to use it all. I drove a new regular cab, short box 4x4 with a 3.0,a 5 speed and 4.10 gears during lunch one day, thinking the 4.10's would make it tolerable. I headed up the ramp onto the interstate and crested the hill doing about 60 when I shifted into 5th. I immediately shifted back to 4th,headed back to the shop and ordered my Ranger with the SOHC. The 86 3.0 Taurus' had huge numbers of piston slap problems and we changed a lot of engines until they upgraded the pistons. Then the 87's started rolling in with broken off shore head bolts. Once that was fixed the worst problem we had was with the syncronizers which was inexpensive and quick to replace. The 3.0 is a good engine- for a passenger car or a 2wd that doesn't haul heavy loads or drive in hilly terrain. The guy who posted that his 2.9 Ranger wouldn't climb a hill probably had 3.45 gears, from my experience a 2.9 has a lot more low end torque than a 3.0 but they're both good engines. If the 3.0 has enough power to satisfy you, buy it and keep up with the maintenance.

My 2.9 has a 3.45 and its got plenty of torque...

 

[Uncle Gump]

What do you guys think of this?

Elite Ford Ranger Modular Front Winch Bumper with Bull Bar 1993-1997 | eBay

3 Piece Modular bumper design. End pieces 1/8" thick bolt to the main center section 3/16". This bumper fits model years Ford Ranger from 1993-1997. Includes (2) 1" thick shackle tabs and Bolt on Bull Bar with gussets.

www.ebay.com

That's the AOR bumper... I have one and it's a damn nice bumper.

 

[sheep herder]

Got a question with this forum, truck lifted to max with keys. Tires on it are 31-10.5-15 , 3.0 L automatic. Any suggestions?

Suggestions for what?