Setting the timing

[98v70dad]

This is a pretty rookie question I guess but I don't know the answer. My 1996 3.0L ranger has been pretty sluggish and has no power so I decided to put the code reader on it and see what it tells me about my timing. The answer I got was + 25 degrees and +12 degrees. One was in park and one was in drive - don't remember which - I can check if that isn't obvious to people who know what they're doing. So my question is what should the readings be and how do you change them if they're off. My truck currently has no power at all. It was OK before it got hot.

 

[Dirtman]

You cant change the timing, its entirely done by the computer and is constantly varying based on the conditions. Those numbers are fine.

 

[RonD]

1995 and up Ranger 3.0l was distributorless which means you can't adjust the spark timing as is
There are modules and software that allow you to change the computer's factory settings for many things, including spark timing.

Probaby 25 in Park and under 20 in Drive, at idle, that would be normal, but also depends on engine temp

3.0l is a high RPM engine, it should have no power under 3,200RPM, best power at 3,700RPM or so, thats its Design
Most engines have lower RPM curve, like 2,500 for peak power

 

[8thTon]

1995 and up Ranger 3.0l was distributorless which means you can't adjust the spark timing as is
There are modules and software that allow you to change the computer's factory settings for many things, including spark timing.

Probaby 25 in Park and under 20 in Drive, at idle, that would be normal, but also depends on engine temp

3.0l is a high RPM engine, it should have no power under 3,200RPM, best power at 3,700RPM or so, thats its Design
Most engines have lower RPM curve, like 2,500 for peak power

You know of a modern engine with a hp peak at 2500?

 

[stmitch]

3.0l is a high RPM engine, it should have no power under 3,200RPM, best power at 3,700RPM or so, thats its Design
Most engines have lower RPM curve, like 2,500 for peak power

I'm guessing when you say "like 2500rpm for peak power" you're referring to peak torque and not peak hp?

For what it's worth, the tech library says that peak torque for a 96 3.0 like the OP's was @3250rpm. It's not a diesel, but it's not a high rpm screamer with no bottom end either.

 

[adsm08]

For what it's worth, the tech library says that peak torque for a 96 3.0 like the OP's was @3250rpm. It's not a diesel, but it's not a high rpm screamer with no bottom end either.

That's a matter of perspective.

Having grown up driving Cologne engines that max out and are screaming for their lives by 3500 RPM, 3250 seems really high to me.

 

[RonD]

Yes, torque gets you up to speed(pushes you back in your seat), horsepower just keeps you at that speed, peak HP is way too high in the RPM band to be of much use in daily driving

So you need to drive it with engine above 3,000rpm if you want to be in the highest "power" band
Ford's modular V8s also have that in common with the Vulcan

But most engines have best torque under 3,000rpm

 

[8thTon]

More words have been wasted on trying to define the difference between torque and horsepower on automotive forums than anything else. In fact they are slightly different representations of exactly the same thing - power. This is because when one talks of engine torque, it's not static torque but torque at an rpm, and that's the definition of power. I can convert a plot of torque to one of horsepower (or the other way) with no additional information. It's easier to measure torque on a dyno, so the torque plot is just an intermediate step to getting a horsepower plot, which is what actually matters.

Horsepower is the rate of energy transfer, which is what does work, so that plot shows you directly what the engine can do. Looking at the torque plot is just a harder to interpret version of the same info, which tends to fool people about what the engine can actually do.

The 3.0 has a very normal power curve with a predictable rise, as shown in the white curve (this is a 2004 Taurus version, and they vary a bit by year and manifold design). If the power peak is at a higher rpm than desired for a given road speed, gears will fix that.

Still, I know no one will agree and the meaningless debate will go on.....

 

[Dirtman]

I think we can all just agree that the 3.0 is slow without needing to envolve "math".

 

[stmitch]

Yes, torque gets you up to speed(pushes you back in your seat), horsepower just keeps you at that speed, peak HP is way too high in the RPM band to be of much use in daily driving

So you need to drive it with engine above 3,000rpm if you want to be in the highest "power" band
Ford's modular V8s also have that in common with the Vulcan

But most engines have best torque under 3,000rpm

Do they though? Is there a pushrod engine designed since the mid 80s that has peak tq below 3000rpm? I'm having a hard time coming up with any naturally aspirated, pushrod engine that's designed after the 3.0 Vulcan that actually has a lower peak tq rpm.

The old pushrod 5.0 (which is very similar in design to the 3.0 Vulcan) made peak tq @ 3300rpm in the Explorer, and anywhere from 3000rpm to 4000rpm in Mustangs since 1985 model year.

All of the LS engines made peak tq @ or above 4000rpm. They worked just fine towing people's boats behind their 5000lb trucks and SUVs.

GM's LV3 4.3V6 made peak power @ 3900rpm in full size trucks

All of Chrysler's modern HEMI engines peak @ or above 4000rpm. They put them in Durangos, Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500-3500 trucks where they get worked hard.

 

[RonD]

Yes, engine designers kinda lost the plot since the 70's and 80's, maybe they will go back to building better engines one day
Higher RPM = higher wear, doesn't take a genius to figure that out, duh

I like direct injection, good idea
Turbos are not good, unless you live in Denver, then you have to use one
Variable valve timing, keep that off every engine
multi-valves and overhead cams, back to the drawing board guys, remember KISS, keep it simple stupid
2 valves work, short timing chain and one cam, very very KISS
My first car(willys-overlander) had a FLATHEAD 6, that was pretty simple, having direct injection and distributorless would have been sweet

 

[8thTon]

Maybe it's what you get used to running. I'll take the new engines with direct injection, variable valve timing, multi-valves and low pressure turbos. The efficiency and power they get from small displacement is impressive. I had some small, high rpms engines I ran the snot out of. Wear does not increase linearly with rpm - with good oil pressure and coolant circulation I never found it to be a problem.

 

[stmitch]

Yes, engine designers kinda lost the plot since the 70's and 80's, maybe they will go back to building better engines one day
Higher RPM = higher wear, doesn't take a genius to figure that out, duh

I like direct injection, good idea
Turbos are not good, unless you live in Denver, then you have to use one
Variable valve timing, keep that off every engine
multi-valves and overhead cams, back to the drawing board guys, remember KISS, keep it simple stupid
2 valves work, short timing chain and one cam, very very KISS
My first car(willys-overlander) had a FLATHEAD 6, that was pretty simple, having direct injection and distributorless would have been sweet

Oookkkaaayyy. The engines that I listed are all simple, old school cam-in-block, 2 valve designs. Most of them are port injection. No complex valve trains or timing chains, and they're cleaner, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and longer lasting than older engines. But yeah, we need to go back to the days of 500lb V8s that got 8mpg, made 140hp/280tq, and were junk by 100k miles...

Tear a modern engine down after 100k and you'll still see crosshatch marks on the cylinder walls from when it was originally machined. They're not wearing out from higher rpms, or more stress from higher power levels and they're doing everything better than older engines did.

It's time to put the "3.0 isn't a truck engine because it's got peak tq above 3k" attitudes away. Because if that's how you define what a truck engine is, then nobody has made one for 30 years now, and it's unlikely that they ever will again. The only ones that come close do it with evil tech like forced induction, more than 2 valves per cylinder, and variable cam timing.

 

[Ranger Mark]

RonD,
I'm wondering how you're going to feel about the tesla truck. .......... it is technically KISS and yet not.