3.0 questions...newby

[Daytonatunnel]

Wondering if you can chime in and tell more about this little V6. I'm in the market for a Ranger pick-up (probably 4x4), and would like to learn the pro's and con's of this engine.

I'm buying it for mileage mainly, as I'm sure most people do. I'd like to know what is real world numbers to expect (manual trany) mpg wise. How that would compare with a mid 90's 4 banger ? I'm also curious how the 3.0 feels compared to the 4 cyl, a bit more power or a big improvement ? What are some trouble areas to look for ? How long do they usually live ? Anything that can help me make an educated decision would be great !!! Thanks in advance....

 

[Chris_North]

There are many others much more knowledgeable than I, but from experience if you're looking into a 3.0 for fuel economy reasons you'd best look elsewhere. According to EPA estimates (which I know are not the most accurate) the 4.0 actually gets the same mileage as the 3.0. I can tell you for sure that when I was looking into my 3.0 it was because I was hoping to have something that wouldn't cost a fortune to drive but still have some power to hold its own. I was pretty disappointed after the first month, haha.

The 3.0 Vulcan is more of a car engine. It generates peak power at a high RPM, which for a truck is typically opposite of what you want. In the 4wd Ranger at least, it's not typically very efficient. I average about 14MPG combined driving with a 98 (granted I haul around a lot of tools and have a small lift and bigger tires). Pulling a loaded trailer uphill requires really revving or really slowing. Consensus seems to be that a 3.0 is better with a stick than an auto, not sure what to say about that.

The 3.0 is not really a bad engine, it is fairly reliable. Typically the heads are what are known to have issues. There are also issues with the cam sensor and (unsure if it's specific to the 3.0) low oil pressure issues.

A buddy with a 4 cylinder early-mid 90s 2wd Ranger obliterates me in terms of MPG. I forget what exactly he said he gets to a tank but I recall it being almost double what I get. He does say it's an absolute dog though.

 

[Ledphoot]

If you want to go 4x4 you're not going to get real world mileage anywhere close to a 2wd with the 4 banger or 3.0 and it will be weak. 4.0 will have good power and torque but you are looking at 22 w/ 2wd 4 banger 5 spd and probably 18 with 4x4 4.0 V6 these are ball park and your driving style, weight of truck, tire sizes, gear ratio, whether its lifted or lowered etc all make a difference.

 

[stmitch]

If your main focus is fuel economy, get a 4 cylinder. Ideally, an 01 or newer with the DOHC 4 cylinder. They should get you high 20s- low 30s with a stick. My daily is an 01 4cyl 5 spd, and I get 32mpg when the weather is decent.

The two words that come to mind when describing the 3.0 are 'adequate', and 'durable'.
They make enough power to do basic truck things. It is not what most people would consider fast, but it has enough torque to handle basic hauling or towing.
Fuel economy varies, but 15-20 mpg is probably most common. In my 3.0 regular cab, 2wd(the truck in my pic) I average about 20. The most I ever got over a single tank was 24.

The thing that hurts both performance and fuel economy with the 3.0 is weight. Guys with heavier trucks that are loaded with options, extended cab, and 4wd seem to complain about the 3.0 more than guys with less weight to haul around.

The best aspect of the 3.0 though is it's simple and robust design. Many have no problem at all approaching 250,000miles with only basic maintenance. They are simple, basic engines that don't cost a lot to maintain. The only mechanical red flag would be the cam shaft synchro. They usually last at least 100,000 miles though, and are a relatively cheap fix that takes 30 minutes or less. Plus they give plenty of warning before they fail. You have to work to kill the 3.0.

 

[EMB1230]

I4's and the 3.0 both with auto trans should be avoided at ALL costs. 3.0's with manual are adequate. If you want 4x4, get a 4.0 auto or manual it really doesn't matter. If you want economy get an I4 w/ manual. As for ext cabs, again, if you can get a 4.0, get the 4.0. Believe it or not, depending on the year, a 4.0 manual actually got a little BETTER MPG than a 3.0 auto.

 

[bocefas]

I know by saying this I will draw a lot of ire, but my 3.0 5 speed 4x4 is the most underpowered thing I have ever owned...and I have owned both a Chey Chevette and a Dodge Omni, so that's saying something. The only thing I've ever driven that is worse is a smart car a friend of mine owns. That being said, I drive my truck to work and get into a 2006 Ranger 4.0 auto 4x4 and it's like a Ferrari compared to my truck. MPG isn't everything.

 

[adsm08]

The 3.0 lies in a moronic no-mans land created from an accountant and a marketing executive deciding they needed a smaller V6 option in the small truck and that they were going to use a car engine to do it.

It has only slightly more available power than a 4-cyl, but gets the same fuel economy as a 4.0. It is no more or less reliable than either of those other two.


If you want fuel economy, get a 4-cyl, or better yet get a small car.

If you want a small truck that won't make you hate driving it, get something with a 4.0.

 

[EMB1230]

As much as I hate to admit it, GM had the right idea by dropping the small 2.8 V6 from the S-10 for 94. prior to that (from '89 to '93), only offering a manual trans with it. I was not crazy about the J- body's 2.0 or 2.2 in those either, another fwd engine adapted to a rwd layout, not to mention, the 2.2 was a notorious HG blower.

 

[adsm08]

As much as I hate to admit it, GM had the right idea by dropping the small 2.8 V6 from the S-10 for 94. prior to that (from '89 to '93), only offering a manual trans with it. I was not crazy about the J- body's 2.0 or 2.2 in those either, another fwd engine adapted to a rwd layout, not to mention, the 2.2 was a notorious HG blower.

Heh, I'd take a 2.2 before a 3.0. My wife was driving an 01 S-10 with a 2.2 manual when I met her, and I tell you what that little thing could MOVE.

Even loaded it would give the Ranger a run for her money. It hauled 1500 pounds down to the scrap yard once.

 

[EMB1230]

Heh, I'd take a 2.2 before a 3.0. My wife was driving an 01 S-10 with a 2.2 manual when I met her, and I tell you what that little thing could MOVE.

Even loaded it would give the Ranger a run for her money. It hauled 1500 pounds down to the scrap yard once.

well they were something like 120hp, which back then was not too shabby.

My buddy has a 07 G6 with the 2.4, talk about MOVE, lol

 

[buckshotmudder]

I am a one owner of a 91 3.0. This Vulcan has 306,000+ and still going. My original window sticker claimed 19 mpg city and 25 mpg hwy. I have increased my hwy mpg to approximately 30 with a rear gear change and not using overdrive.

Power wise, the 3.0 and 4.0 have nearly identical HP numbers when operated at their respective peak torques. The 4.0 of course has more torque compared to the 3.0.

 

[bocefas]

I am a one owner of a 91 3.0. This Vulcan has 306,000+ and still going. My original window sticker claimed 19 mpg city and 25 mpg hwy. I have increased my hwy mpg to approximately 30 with a rear gear change and not using overdrive.

Power wise, the 3.0 and 4.0 have nearly identical HP numbers when operated at their respective peak torques. The 4.0 of course has more torque compared to the 3.0.

Must be a 2wd and you must do a lot of flat, highway driving. If my truck had 3.08's in it I would have to stop on a downhill every time to get going...my truck was ordered new by my Uncle and now I have it, 110k and meticulously maintained. As I mentioned earlier, I get out of my 3.0 B3000 and right into a 4.0 4wd ranger at work and the difference is night and day. I would rather get 10 mpg and have some power than get 20 mpg and bitch every time I drive it. To the original poster: BUY A 4.0 TRUCK!

 

[EMB1230]

Regardless of what engine a pickup/SUV/minivan has, they ALL get terrible highway gas mileage. Some do great in town, some do ok in town, but it's on the hwy that they really get shitty mileage. A 4 cyl 5 speed Ranger will get better mileage @ 55-65 than a big V8 car, but just barely.