02 Fx4

[4x4RangerGuy]

I'd rather not have to slip the clutch for the next 20 minutes just to get the gutless POS to pull the vehicle.

Trucks need LOW SPEED TORQUE. I can't say it any clearer.


There are tons of yokels who post here who babble endlessly about wanting a diesel ranger. So what's so great about a diesel?

Low RPM torque.

What are you talking about? You obviously can't drive a stick if you have to slip the clutch that much on a 3.0. I never have to slip the clutch to get my truck moving; you shouldn't do that anyway, it's bad for it.

Again, if its a POS, why are there so many 3.0s still on the road? Just because it's not a fast motor doesn't mean its a POS.

Also, when did I say I loved diesels? In my post about Ford continuing the Ranger, my argument was to get people to contact Ford so they would continue to produce the vehicle. Diesels are great, no doubt, but I don't think I've ever written anywhere that I love them by any means.

Again, the 3.0 has plenty of low end torque, and I go off roading as well. I have never had a problem with it.

 

[JohnnyO]

Bottom line is how much do you drive and how much does money spent on gas mean to you?
I've leased a 99 Ranger 3.0/stick, 02 Ranger 4.0/auto, 05 Sport Trac 4.0/auto, and just got an 08 Sport Trac 4.0/auto.
Averaged 17 mpg on my 99 in mixed driving, 13-14 in everything else.
Rented several 3.0/autos from Budget when traveling back when they rented Rangers for cheap, they weren't much better on gas than a 4.0/auto.
In my experience you'll save gas with a 3.0/stick, if everything you're looking at is automatics then I'd get the 4.0.

 

[almostclueless]

What are you talking about? You obviously can't drive a stick if you have to slip the clutch that much on a 3.0. I never have to slip the clutch to get my truck moving; you shouldn't do that anyway, it's bad for it.

I'm talking about towing in reference to slipping the clutch. The 3.0 couldn't tow a matchbox car without slipping the clutch.

Again, if its a POS, why are there so many 3.0s still on the road? Just because it's not a fast motor doesn't mean its a POS.

It didn't have to have a torque peak of 3600 freaking RPM. Ford is lazy or indifferent.

Also, when did I say I loved diesels? In my post about Ford continuing the Ranger, my argument was to get people to contact Ford so they would continue to produce the vehicle. Diesels are great, no doubt, but I don't think I've ever written anywhere that I love them by any means.

I didn't say you did.

Again, the 3.0 has plenty of low end torque, and I go off roading as well. I have never had a problem with it.

Either your expectations of torque are very low or you only travel downhill when offroading.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I'm talking about towing in reference to slipping the clutch. The 3.0 couldn't tow a matchbox car without slipping the clutch.

It didn't have to have a torque peak of 3600 freaking RPM. Ford is lazy or indifferent.

I didn't say you did.


Either your expectations of torque are very low or you only travel downhill when offroading.

I actually just towed an 87 Dodge Dakota on a 2 wheel dolly (it was a 2WD) no problem back to my shop for work. I barely had to slip the clutch at all to get it moving. The only time on the way back that I had to slip the clutch was on a hill at about 45 degrees; in that case, I think that's allowable.

3600 isn't that high in my experience; however, to be fair I work on Audi's V6s that live at 3500+. I think revving a motor that high is perfectly acceptable.

I have moderate expectations for torque. My truck has never failed me on or off road and it's always gotten me to where I need to go. No, it doesn't go as fast as a 4.0; however, if it's getting there quicker and having "more" pickup vs. reliability, I will take reliability.

 

[almostclueless]

3600 isn't that high in my experience; however, to be fair I work on Audi's V6s that live at 3500+. I think revving a motor that high is perfectly acceptable.

For my money, I don't want a truck that has characteristics like that or I'd buy a ricer truck.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

For my money, I don't want a truck that has characteristics like that or I'd buy a ricer truck.

3600 is not that high. Those tuner ricer cars you speak of often hit 6000 rpm (chipped, exhaust, intake work, etc.)...I think that's ricey. 3600 really isn't high when you compare it to that.

You do realize that Toyota's newest Tacoma 4.0 V6 makes its peak torque at 4000 rpm? Granted its 266 lb.-ft, but according to your logic it must be a POS if it makes it that high. The Chevy Colorado V6 makes its peak torque around 4600. People seem to get by fine with these trucks.

 

[almostclueless]

I wouldn't buy either one of those trucks...and for the record once you get to a certain engine size your torque peak isn't much of a big deal. A 351 with a 4500 RPM torque peak still makes a good deal of torque off idle because of it's sheer displacement.


And I don't care how many people like toyotas....it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy one.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I wouldn't buy either one of those trucks...and for the record once you get to a certain engine size your torque peak isn't much of a big deal. A 351 with a 4500 RPM torque peak still makes a good deal of torque off idle because of it's sheer displacement.


And I don't care how many people like toyotas....it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy one.

Right, but we're not coming close to the displacement of a 351...IIRC the 4.0 is a 245, no?

I probably wouldn't buy either of those trucks either, but I know that the Tacoma is an excellent truck. Toyota does know how to make a small pickup truck. In my area there are far more mid 80s Toyotas than their are Rangers, for example.

 

[almostclueless]

Right, but we're not coming close to the displacement of a 351...IIRC the 4.0 is a 245, no?

Exactly. The RBV V6's are small enough that IMO they shouldn't be cammed for a torque peak above 3K at the absolute highest.....they don't have the cubes to grunt it out from a start when towing.

I would be the one wanting a diesel ranger except gas stations WITHOUT diesel are more plentiful and diesels even today aren't usually as quick as gas vehicles.....yes, I want my truck to be able to tow AND scoot along when not towing. And I want a mini truck and I am partial to Fords.


And I want a billion bucks. And a learjet. And a real life mech suit with fricking laser beams LOL

 

[JohnnyO]

They made diesel Rangers in the mid-80's but I think they only put out about 90 hp.
Occasionally one turns up on eBay. Parts for them are a mofo to get.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

Exactly. The RBV V6's are small enough that IMO they shouldn't be cammed for a torque peak above 3K at the absolute highest.....they don't have the cubes to grunt it out from a start when towing.

I would be the one wanting a diesel ranger except gas stations WITHOUT diesel are more plentiful and diesels even today aren't usually as quick as gas vehicles.....yes, I want my truck to be able to tow AND scoot along when not towing. And I want a mini truck and I am partial to Fords.


And I want a billion bucks. And a learjet. And a real life mech suit with fricking laser beams LOL

Mechwarrior fan?

Well, almost all the V6s today are cammed for high RPM peaks, so there must be a reason...I mean, I agree with you that it can't be hard to lower that peak. Maybe they have to do it for emissions, although I can't see how a higher peak would make that any better.

Diesel is actually more expensive than 93 where I am right now, so I'm not sure if I would buy a diesel. In my opinion, the biggest thing about diesels is their gas mileage.

 

[almostclueless]

No, just a moment of silliness but anyway


The cam timing on a 3.0 appears to be very different from the 2.9 and 4.0


I very much believe a company could sell a good few 3.0 cams if they had a rep for making the 3.0 feel and perform "torquier" at lower RPMs

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I wish there were more reviews about the Camcraft cams for the 3.0...I was thinking of ordering one, but I don't want to go too extreme.

It is too bad there aren't more performance parts for the 3.0...I mean come on, only JBA makes headers? They only produced millions upon millions of 3.0 equipped Rangers...

 

[almostclueless]

I'm telling ya, if someone produced cams or regrinds that had the same timings as a cam for a 4.0 they'd be on to something.


The vulcan is kinda like a mini FE big block......combine the cam I speak of with roller rockers, headers, larger throttle body, injectors that weren't near their limit as delivered, and couple it to a M5OD and 4.10 gears and she'd do decent.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

I'm telling ya, if someone produced cams or regrinds that had the same timings as a cam for a 4.0 they'd be on to something.


The vulcan is kinda like a mini FE big block......combine the cam I speak of with roller rockers, headers, larger throttle body, injectors that weren't near their limit as delivered, and couple it to a M5OD and 4.10 gears and she'd do decent.

You can actually get that. The roller rockers from a 5.0 will swap in, JBA makes headers, and I've heard that the Duratech 3.0 TB from the Escape can work...although that's just hearsay. I've also heard that 5.0 injectors can be put in.