Pros/Cons of 3.0 Vulcan V6

[8thTon]

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.

 

[8thTon]

My 2004 is basically the same, except 2WD and an auto. I know you think PA is flat, but on I78 west of Easton there’s a 2mi, 3.8% grade that makes every vehicle work. My Ranger will pull that in 5th at 75 no problem. I’m sure the OP from Wind Gap will know that road.

 

[Ranger_XL]

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

Uncle Gump, how is the overall fitment? Do you alter or modify the bumper mounts?

 

[Uncle Gump]

Uncle Gump, how is the overall fitment? Do you alter or modify the bumper mounts?

I didn't have to modify a thing... bolted right up. They do great work. I have their rear bumper also.... nice heavy duty piece too. If you ask... they will make the rear bumper from 3/16 opposed to the 1/8 inch.

Go to their site... they have a few options now... Like tube wings and also full front skid plate.

 

[JohnnyO]

My first Ranger was a '99 Supercab 4x4, 3.0, 5 speed, 3.73 gears.
Pros: Bulletproof, was good on gas for a 4x4.
Cons: Dangerously slow on the highway. Lots of hills in western PA.
I special-ordered it. If I had to do it again I would have sprung the extra $800 for the 4.0.

 

[adsm08]

The 3.0 is a great middle of the line engine, combining qualities of the other engines it was used concurrently with.

It has all the power of the 2.3 and all the fuel economy of the 4.0. And no, I didn't get that backwards.

 

[8thTon]

My OHV 3.0 makes exactly 3/4 the power of the SOHC 4.0. For the 2 miles of timing chain they achieved 2 valves per cylinder all in a row, and gained nothing from the architecture change at all - it's a turd of a design. Even the pushrod 3.0 has slightly angled valves. While the 3.0 hp peak is a little higher, the power curve shape is about the same (i.e. gearing will fix that).

A 2 valve pushrod iron block V6 was never going to be fuel efficient, it was designed to be cheap. Can you imagine if you set out to design an OHC engine and came up with the 4.0, and couldn't even beat the hp/displacement of the Vulcan? Talk about fail.

 

[sgtsandman]

My opinion is that the Ranger, in any engine configuration, should never have been equipped with higher than 3.73:1 gears. 4.10:1 is even better, at least in hilly country.

As far as the engine discussion, 2.3 ecoboost is better.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

My opinion is that the Ranger, in any engine configuration, should never have been equipped with higher than 3.73:1 gears. 4.10:1 is even better, at least in hilly country.

As far as the engine discussion, 2.3 ecoboost is better.

Turbos generally make everything better....

 

[pjtoledo]

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.

the engine is almost the same, but the Taurus being FWD has less driveline loss. that makes a significant difference.
cams are different between the sedan and truck versions

 

[Zachsdad69]

Suggestions for what?

Gonna replace motor, would you recommend anything?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Depends on what you want out of the truck. For factory engines, there's varying levels of power and reliability. For a swap, sky's the limit.

 

[Zachsdad69]

Hope this engine will last him 100k . After that he can buy what he wishes as long he can pay for it. What you think about the new ranger and it's powerplant little turbo!

 

[Bgunner]

I agree with PetroleumJunkie412 that the engine choice will depend on what you do with it. For a daily driver a 3.0 or 4.0 will be fine with regular maintenance with plenty of every day power to haul the trucks designed weight limits but if you are looking for show or a weekend cruise vehicle other options, V8 swaps, will give the best performance for that type of driving. If you live in snow country stay with stock options for an everyday driver since a V8 and no weight in the rear will make it almost impossible to drive safely in the winter.

While many think the 3.0 is slow it has the power to be a good engine as long as it is geared so the horse power and torque are in a usable range for the work load. These motors are really as useful as a 4 cylinder under 2500 RPM's stock but above that is where they shine... not so useful for a truck that should have the torque in the low RPMs and the HP in the low to mid RPM range. The 4.0 solved that issue being built as a truck engine but has some very weird quirks to go with it.




EDIT: Turbo's: these are great for cars, diesels or race cars/trucks this is because of what is called turbo lag. This is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up and produce air pressure to be forced into the engine. The biggest issue is that there is only 4 cylinder power to break inertia from a dead stop without either having a standard trans ( needing to slip the clutch a lot to control the power or basically power breaking to get the turbo to spool in an automatic... I believe the standard trans is not an option at the moment for the new ranger (?).

While turbos have there place in every day driving the engine must have enough torque to get the weight moving to start with before the turbo cna help produce any extra torque or horse power.


Try driving a turbo'd vehicle with the turbo disabled and you will understand what I am taking about.

 

[Dirtman]

Why is there no romulan 3.0?