3.0 Question

[Destroyer]

My 2000 Ranger feels pretty slow to me and it's a 5 speed. I swapped in a rear end from an automatic '00 Ranger so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. For it's size and lack of power I expected better gas mileage. My '05 extended cab Ram Daytona averages 16mpg with a modded Hemi and my Ranger, so far is only averaging about 18 mpg.

 

[djm3452004]

My '94 3.0L 5-speed does alright for power at lower speeds, but in 5th gear on the highway, it is near useless. Any kind of hill I come across is enough to drag the RPM down to the point you need to downshift, even if I have my foot through the firewall! I still don't know if that is normal or not, but it is slightly disappointing to me.

 

[dorman68]

My '94 3.0L 5-speed does alright for power at lower speeds, but in 5th gear on the highway, it is near useless. Any kind of hill I come across is enough to drag the RPM down to the point you need to downshift, even if I have my foot through the firewall! I still don't know if that is normal or not, but it is slightly disappointing to me.

I here you man! I just can't push the accelerator pedal far enough through the firewall. My 2.3L Ranger is just as fast or slow - however you want to put it but gets better mpgs.

 

[Destroyer]

I here you man! I just can't push the accelerator pedal far enough through the firewall. My 2.3L Ranger is just as fast or slow - however you want to put it but gets better mpgs.

So what advantage is there in having a 3.0 vs a 2.3? The 3.0 HAS to be able to tow/haul more right?

 

[JayGeePee]

Slow, but bullet proof...

Slow down now... Yes there slow, but not that slow. I raced a 97 V6 Trans-Am in mine and had him until 75mph. We raced from a dead stop, I pulled 2 car links on him until 75 and than he started realing me in. He had dump exhaust and a few other things done. I had tools and trash bags in the back -aaaahh, keep the good times rollin'.

 

[Seb_L]

I have a 4.0 and it's fast, faster than my 2.4 cobalt I had before. When I tried my buddy's 3.0 I was let down. My truck pushes you to the seat when you give her, the 3.0 barely did anything. We raced and I just left him in the dust the first time. I thought I jumped so we did it again (waited until he moved) and as soon as I hit the pedal I had a car length, and kept it when I let go of the throttle to about 1/2-3/4. I have a hard time believing him when he says he can brake stand anywhere... It might feel slow to me because I have the 4.0 with what.. 80hp more?

 

[Destroyer]

Slow down now... Yes there slow, but not that slow. I raced a 97 V6 Trans-Am in mine and had him until 75mph. We raced from a dead stop, I pulled 2 car links on him until 75 and than he started realing me in. He had dump exhaust and a few other things done. I had tools and trash bags in the back -aaaahh, keep the good times rollin'.

A. There is no such thing as a v6 Trans Am so you raced a Firebird. B. A '97 Firebird has a 200hp 3800 V6, he was not racing you or he would have won...........by alot!

 

[djm3452004]

Slow down now... Yes there slow, but not that slow. I raced a 97 V6 Trans-Am in mine and had him until 75mph. We raced from a dead stop, I pulled 2 car links on him until 75 and than he started realing me in. He had dump exhaust and a few other things done. I had tools and trash bags in the back -aaaahh, keep the good times rollin'.

True, but you're only running 2-wheel drive. I've got another 500 lbs of front drive axle, differential and transfer case that my 3.0L is trying to push along. I guess I'm comparing my truck's performance to my old '96 GMC Sonoma 4x4 that had a 4.3L. I think it's one of those situations where you have a heavy vehicle and a large motor may sound less effricient, but it will produce more power and have better fuel economy overall because it's not straining all the time. I've read many comments about the fuel economy of the 3.0L (or lack thereof) in the trucks and this seems to be the case. In a Taurus, the 3.0L has more than enough power.

 

[ckblum]

My 3.0L is gutless, but I still waste my friends CRX haha. I was scared something was wrong with my engine cause in the wintertime my mileage dropped to like 20mpg (Cdn). I was getting about 27 in the Summer just cruising. But yea not my motor of choice, but hey you learn from experience, it's only my second vehicle. My first was an 87 4x4 ex cab Ranger, I would take the 2.9 over the 3.0L any day, a lot more peppy.

 

[4x4fun]

True, but you're only running 2-wheel drive. I've got another 500 lbs of front drive axle, differential and transfer case that my 3.0L is trying to push along. I guess I'm comparing my truck's performance to my old '96 GMC Sonoma 4x4 that had a 4.3L. I think it's one of those situations where you have a heavy vehicle and a large motor may sound less effricient, but it will produce more power and have better fuel economy overall because it's not straining all the time. I've read many comments about the fuel economy of the 3.0L (or lack thereof) in the trucks and this seems to be the case. In a Taurus, the 3.0L has more than enough power.

x2

im finding as far as suv and trucks go, the 4.0Lish is a very fuel efficient, cause it will make enuff hp with out working hard, but not alot extra. my 3.9 Dakota got great gas mileage.

 

[redneck9956]

i have a 3.o in my ranger and i pull a 16 feet trailer and have no lack of power but mine is a 5 speed and it on 35s

 

[JayGeePee]

Forgot to mention.

I forgot to mention he had an automatic also. And yes he was racing because he honked at me and than reved his motor up. Either he wasnt a good driver or I was a better one. It was a Firebird also - they all look the freaking same to me... I ran him up to 100mph by that time he had 2 car links on me. It was fun! If only I had my 93 5.0 Coupe, he would of gotten smoked!<---SOLD

 

[JayGeePee]

True, but you're only running 2-wheel drive. I've got another 500 lbs of front drive axle, differential and transfer case that my 3.0L is trying to push along. I guess I'm comparing my truck's performance to my old '96 GMC Sonoma 4x4 that had a 4.3L. I think it's one of those situations where you have a heavy vehicle and a large motor may sound less effricient, but it will produce more power and have better fuel economy overall because it's not straining all the time. I've read many comments about the fuel economy of the 3.0L (or lack thereof) in the trucks and this seems to be the case. In a Taurus, the 3.0L has more than enough power.

The Taurus has less parasitic loss to the wheels. With the Ranger you lose power because of all the extra weight you have to turn - Driveshaft, rearend, etc. The tauruses power goes straight to the wheels with trans-axles. Less weight to turn.

 

[shaffer20]

when i bought my 06 3.0 5spd in december. i test drove a 3.0 auto and the lack of power really concerned me. i almost didnt want to bother trying a 5spd. with the auto i had my foot to the floor and it felt more like moped then a v6. but im happy i ended up taking out the 5spd. i ended up buying it. 4x4fun is right the 3.0 are rev'ers the 5spd gives you the control you need to get the pep when you want it. i find it great on gas if i am concervitive i can get 600km easily, 650+km if im all highway. thats on 62 liters, ive never put more then that in the tank. i usually dont drive concervitivly though. lol. usually go 20km over limit and get 550km

 

[shaffer20]

My 2000 Ranger feels pretty slow to me and it's a 5 speed. I swapped in a rear end from an automatic '00 Ranger so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. For it's size and lack of power I expected better gas mileage. My '05 extended cab Ram Daytona averages 16mpg with a modded Hemi and my Ranger, so far is only averaging about 18 mpg.

run a can of seafoam through your ranger. when mine only had 60k, i did seafoam and switched over to synthetic. i did synthetic mainly so i could go more then 6 weeks between oil changes. but it did help with mileage. about 50km-70k more a tank.