3.0 Question

[bowturkey]

This might be a dumb question but here goes. I have been use to a 4.0 standard tranny ranger for about 16 years.I just got a 2000 ranger with a 3.0 and an automatic tranny. Is it me or are tese trucks gutless wonders. The engine is a crate motor with about 60000 miles and a freshly rebuilt tranny.
It basicly can't get out of it's own way. Is this normal? I'm thinking of tryng one out at a dealer to compare.

Thanks, Bowturkey

 

[PaleBlue90]

from what i understand the 3.0's are gutless. but will run forever. the only rangers ive owned are my 2.3 4cyl and 2.9 v6. my 4.0 exploder was a big jump. ive never drove a 3.0 so im unshure. its just what ive heard,

another thing that makes it feel gutless is the auto tranny. IMO sticks always feel a bit more powerful then a auto

 

[snake]

3.slows are gutless wonders. Only a few more horse than the 4 cylinder. And the mileage between it and the 4.0 is about the same... One reason they stopped using it in rangers in 08 or 09. They are bullet-proof, good engines- but gutless.

 

[triumphrider-1]

A big difference may be because of the transmissions. The 5-speeds seem to have a bit more pop (atleast to me).

What is your rear end gearing?

 

[kamps989]

Hey easy now, my 3.0 with 4.10's produces all the power I need and I think it has a solid amount of pep from a stop. The only time it lacks is on the highway above 70, but even then once it downshifts the truck will get moving just fine.

 

[Milker]

ive got the 93 3.0. its not blessed with power but it does alright. mines the 5 spd. its good on gas, im a V8 man though

 

[loneranger04]

yes i agree the 3.0 are not a power house but they are as bullet proof as it gets. from idle speeds to redline on the free way they never stop giving there all.

2004 ext cab Edge
auto tranny, 4.10 gears.
3.0

 

[dorman68]

ive got the 93 3.0. its not blessed with power but it does alright. mines the 5 spd. its good on gas, im a V8 man though

2x - I agree, I have 2 Rangers (1992 3.0L and 1994 2.3L). They feel the same when it comes to power range. I love the 2.3L because it gets awesome fuel mileage.

 

[bigcountry]

hey now my 07 3.0 has way more power than my yota 3.0 would even think of having but then agian it was almost 20 years old with 270,000 miles but the yota 3.0 were very fragile once you over heated it once or twice you had to replace the heads

 

[SixFoFalcon]

The 3.0L is a bit of a compromise. It gets decent fuel mileage (not spectacular) just enough torque for most light-duty hauling (but nothing serious) and modest acceleration. When you consider that the Vulcan is now nearly a 25-year-old design, you can see that for all its perceived shortcomings, it has held up pretty well to the test of time. I liken it to the old Chebby 305--always unimpressive, but it's not really a bad engine per se, and for the most part it gets the job done.

Now if your Ranger's acceleration seems downright slow, not just mediocre, then I'd say something is amiss. (Throttle cable fix, anyone?!)

 

[mattri]

Not to hijack but when you say that you're getting "alright" mpg what does that mean?

 

[SixFoFalcon]

I have computerized records (AutoFile) for every fuel purchase I've made for this truck. My all time worst fuel economy was 14.6 MPG when my brother was hauling junk through the Poconos with it. My average true-city (not suburbs) mileage is around 16 MPG. Mostly-highway mileage averages around 21 MPG with a high of 22.3 MPG.

EDIT - Still waiting to see if I'll pick up a MPG or two from the cat-back. I also just installed a tonneau cover, although from what I have read, that doesn't really make a noticable difference.

 

[jcolgan_42]

I have both the 3.0 and 4.0. The 3.0 in a '94 Ranger, 5 spd manual and the 4.0 in a '91 Explorer, auto tranny. Gas mileage between the two seems to be virtually the same, the 4.0 getting, on average, about 18, and the 3.0, 19 almost 20. I use regular gas in both, 87 octane. I don't use any additives.
I can certainly tell the difference between the two, as far as power is concerned, but still the 3.0 performs adequately. Except when it's cold, then it's a total dog.
My trip to work includes a pretty steep hill that I climb immediately after a stop sign, and the 3.0 climbs it in a smart manner, pulling the majority of the hill in 3rd gear at approx 25-30 mph, with power to spare.
To date, I have no issues with the power and torque of the 3.0, altho I've put less that 5k on it and haven't as of yet towed the boat.
I won't expect miracles towing with the 3.0, after all it's a small V-6.

 

[4x4fun]

just a side note 3.0l are rev'ers you stay below 3k your gonna be putting around

 

[RumpRanger98]

Ive got a bone stock 3.0 5speed, 1999 ranger. I wouldn't call the motor "gutless". Im guessing the auto would probably make it seem a bit more "gutless". It could sure use some more HP. I use mine for hauling stuff to the dump and from home depot or just getting around town while Im working on my maxima. And I have no problems with how much power it puts out. I pull away at green light at higher speeds than needed and if I need to pass some slow douche bag it picks up speed just fine. Of course if I wanted to drive fast, I would much rather do it in a car than a truck due to better handling.