3.0 vs 4.0

[Hawker]

This has probably been discussed a lot, but I'm not finding anything so I'll just ask.
Have a perfect 02 XLT extended cab with the 3.0 auto. Love it but sometimes wish for a little more umph. They still make the 4.0 in a 4X2 but I'd have to order one since they're rare. Just wondering if it's worth the effort as I'm not sure what else I'd be getting to justify the expense and is there that much performance improvement?

 

[Will]

There's probably 2 seconds 0-60 improvement with an overhead cam 4.0. It would definately provide you with the extra umph. Whether it's worth it, I don't know. More than likely you will suffer for your sins at the pump.

 

[Bill]

The difference in fuel economy between the two is small. Small enough that if you want the extra power, it warrants buying a 4.0L.

 

[stegomon]

4.0 is more torqu at lower rpm range...were as the 3.0 is a car motor the 4.0 is a truck motor

 

[ZMan]

The difference in fuel economy between the two is small. Small enough that if you want the extra power, it warrants buying a 4.0L.

2-5mpg in my experiance, it can add up. But we are talking 40-50hp/tq here so I think I would just go for the 4.0l anyway.

 

[Ranger44]

The 3.0 gets way better gas mileage than the 4.0. It will get 23-24 with a 5spd. If you really want more power get the 4.0 but if you like reliability over power stick with the 3.0 and swap in some 4.10 gearing for some extra get up.

 

[Jspafford]

The 3.0L I currently have gets worse mileage than my 4.0L did.

My old 4.0L would kick the shit out of the 3.0, but the 3.0L is no slouch. It seems pretty peppy until it hits 2nd gear. That is with 4.10's.

If I was going to do it all over again, I would have not traded in my 2001 4.0L ranger on my F-250, had I known I would be buying my Fiancee' a ranger.

 

[Ranger44]

A 5spd makes a difference... in both being peppy and gas milelage. The 3.0 is a high rever and needs to be at higher rpms to achieve both. No overdrive.

 

[RedRanger]

I have a 2001 Ranger 3.0L with a 5 speed and it dosent have alote of power but with a trac lock and a 4.10 ring gear I can bark 3rd gear and beat just about any 3.8L stock mustang in Hickory. But ive never ran up against any other Ranger with a 4.0L

 

[Will]

The difference in fuel economy between the two is small. Small enough that if you want the extra power, it warrants buying a 4.0L.

Well, it's the same truck, so it should take the same power to accelerate it at the same rate and hold it at the same speed. But when you want more power, that means you are going to use it and you will get worse mileage if you use it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Well, it's the same truck, so it should take the same power to accelerate it at the same rate and hold it at the same speed. But when you want more power, that means you are going to use it and you will get worse mileage if you use it.

My '02 5.4 supercab gets better milage than my brothers '97 4.6 regular cab. Mainly because it has enough ponys to power thru hills as opposed to downshifting alot and multiple times on the same hill, which seems to be a common thing with the smaller engine options, they have the power but have to wind up to find it which takes gas in itself. He even has 3.55 gears with the stock 255 tires, as opposed to mine with 3.31's and 235's replaced with 255's.

 

[2manyfords]

No question about it, the 4.0L is harder on fuel but the 3.0L is lazy.

My dad's '06 Ranger has a 3.0L and it won't even come close to the 2.9L that his old truck has

 

[JohnnyO]

I agree with Bill. I've had a 3.0/stick and two 4.0/autos, all 4x4's.
3.0 was slow and good on gas.
4.0 had a bunch of power and hard on gas.
I've rented several 3.0/autos from Budget back when they'd rent Rangers for cheap and I didn't think they were any better on gas than my 4.0, at least on the highway. City mpg may have been a little better.

 

[ZMan]

every truck is different and everyone drives different is what it comes down to.

Best I've gotten with my 2wd 5 spd 4.0l is about 21 cruising 65 back when I had the 3.08 gears, I can't break 20 now with 3.73s, one time I let my friend drive to give myself a rest, he couldn't muster better than 17mpg, on the HIGHWAY. BTW thats the difference between 65 and 75 for my truck on the highway with the 3.73s, 2-3 fawkin miles per gallon.

My 2wd 3.0l 5spd gets 21-22 with my mix country road and city driving, and 25 cruising 65mph. When my friend (same one as before) owned it with the auto tranny, he could barely break 22 on the highway. Honestly I think the power is fine, it cruises at 80mph perfectly, and is 10x better than driving a 4cyl.

Some people just have no idea HOW to get good mileage. I've tried to explain to my friend a million times why he can't get good mileage out of vehicles but he still keeps driving stupid.

 

[Will]

Yeah, I drove out to Washington D.C. once with my younger brother in my Mazda B2600i to pick up a marine engine. We took turns at the wheel. The truck didn't have cruise control. I made 26mpg on my turns and he made 31mpg on his. He drives a lot more smoothly than I do I guess. With a little engine I think you have to be more steady because if you slow down you really have to get into the pedal more to get back up to speed.

The thing about having to downshift is very true. While a truck should getter better mileage near it's torque peak, it's not making peak torque unless you have it at that particular rpm with the pedal to the floor and it isn't accelerating any more. Any lower torque setting (part throttle cruise) and I believe the lower rpms mean less fristion and the other factors mean less. This theory is born out by poring through the EPA's website and looking at the year before and the year after overdrive showed up. That's 1981-82 depending on the vehicle. Overdrive adds maybe 15%--so anytime you pop out, you are losing that benefit. If you have a wiffle engine that has run run wide open to pull a hill, then it isn't as important.