Are the 4cyl 4wd and 3.0 v6 4wd rangers any fun ?

[Gary DuBois]

I am a 4.0 v6 ranger type of guy

 

[Blmpkn]

I have a lot of fun in my 2.3 4x4 truck

 

[Gary DuBois]

I have a lot of fun in my 2.3 4x4 truck

Do you have a picture of your 2.3 4x4 truck

 

[JohnnyO]

My first Ranger was a '99 3.0/stick 4x4 Supercab that I got new.
Pros:
The 3.0 is indestructible and good on gas for a 4x4.
Cons:
Slow as molasses on the highway to where on-ramps and long uphills were downright dangerous.
Very little you can do to make it more powerful.

 

[Gary DuBois]

My first Ranger was a '99 3.0/stick 4x4 Supercab that I got new.
Pros:
The 3.0 is indestructible and good on gas for a 4x4.
Cons:
Slow as molasses on the highway to where on-ramps and long uphills were downright dangerous.
Very little you can do to make it more powerful.

How did you like your 99 ranger 4x4 supercab and how much did your ranger cost new.
How is the 3.0 indestructible and what was your mpgs.
Do you wish you had the 4.0 v6 ohv

 

[JohnnyO]

How did you like your 99 ranger 4x4 supercab and how much did your ranger cost new.
How is the 3.0 indestructible and what was your mpgs.
Do you wish you had the 4.0 v6 ohv

If memory serves, it cost about $21,000. Only vehicle I ever special-ordered and my first truck. My wife had absconded to Upstate NY with our kids and I needed something to get back and forth in horrendous snow and be good on gas. XLT Supercab, base engine and trans, only options were 4 doors (an option at that time), limited-slip rear, tilt wheel with cruise, and CD player.

I averaged 18-19 mpg. The 3.0 is a basic cast iron OHV engine with a regular timing chain and doesn't make enough power to hurt itself. Bud of mine has a '96 with a 3.0 and he put 350,000 miles on the original engine, got a Jasper reman engine, and is approaching 500,000 miles. Truck still looks good actually.

At the time I owned a small company and leased a new vehicle every three years through the company for a tax write-off. The '99 performed it's duties admirably without issue and I liked it, except for being slow. Was thinking about keeping it but three months before the lease was up someone ran a stop sign and t-boned me in the driver's side, tearing the crap out of the door, fender, and suspension. Ford was offering $3000 rebates at the time so I left it at the dealer's body shop, gave them the insurance check, and leased a new '02 with a 4.0 SOHC and automatic, with the rebate it only cost $10 more a month than the '99. It was a rocket ship by comparison but used a lot more gas.

If I had to do it again I'd probably get the 4.0 OHV. At that time though the 4.0 OHV was a pricey option because it wasn't just the engine, they put a heavier rear axle in the 4.0 trucks too so it cost about $900 more. 3.0 was just too slow. When I got the '02 the 4.0 SOHC was the standard engine in 4x4 Supercabs.

 

[Blmpkn]

Do you have a picture of your 2.3 4x4 truck

 

[fastpakr]

I've had fun with every RBV I've owned, regardless of drivetrain. Though the 5.0 setup does bring a little bigger smile than the other trucks.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

My first vehicle was a brand new 2000 extended cab 2wd 3.0 manual. Once I figured out it liked to rev (power band is like 2,800-4,800 or something like that) and would shift to keep it producing the most power, it was reasonably peppy. I’ve heard the autos are dogs because they shift too early. I want to say it ended up being $10,500 to me after discounts, negotiations, and being the end of the model year and end of body style (sort of). Up until the ethanol gas, I was getting 22/23 around town and 28-31 highway with 3.73 gears. After ethanol gas I was getting 18 around town and 22 highway. 235/75-15 tires

I have two 2.3s but haven’t really run either. One is in a parts truck and the other is in my boat.

My 00 4x4 Ranger (green Ranger), 4.0 auto 4.10 gears with 31” tires was getting 13/14 around town and 15/16 highway. Dad has the exact same truck in a 99 with nearly 100k more miles that gets 16/17 around town and has more pep. Not entirely sure why. I’m in the process of a 5.0/auto/AWD swap plus suspension and 3.73 gears and tire change and all on my green Ranger, so we’ll see what that gets us. Dad’s 00 Ranger was a 4.0/auto/4x4 with 4.10 gears that we did the 5.0/auto/AWD swap to and if you could keep your foot out of it, it would do 17 around town and if you put your foot in, it was a fun 15 mpg.

My 92 was a bit of a dog until I swapped in the 4.0 out of my green Ranger (the 92 slagged a piston on me with the original 4.0 that was in it) and did a shift kit and some other stuff to the auto transmission, then it was actually kinda impressive. 15mpg around town. It was 13 mpg until I did the work. 3.73 gears and 30” tires, 4x4.

Owned a few Bronco II’s with the 2.9, technically one was a 2wd but I never drove it as a 2wd, only drove it after converting to 4x4. That one is also a manual with 4.10 gears and had 31, 33 and now 35” tires. The 2.9 did decent up until the 35” tires, then it would pull hard first through third and fall flat on its face in 4th. A 4.0 cured that problem. Not sure what mileage ended up being, I’m on my third 4.0 and it needs replaced. The other 2.9 B2s were not particularly impressive, but all auto, 4x4, 3.73 gears. Knowing what I do now about the autos, a shift kit and some transmission work should make the one I still have in that configuration much more enjoyable. Fun fact, the OHV 4.0 is essentially a bored and stroked 2.9.

 

[Gary DuBois]

View attachment 90279

Thats a clean looking truck but im not a grey colored truck type of guy for on the exterior

 

[Gary DuBois]

If memory serves, it cost about $21,000. Only vehicle I ever special-ordered and my first truck. My wife had absconded to Upstate NY with our kids and I needed something to get back and forth in horrendous snow and be good on gas. XLT Supercab, base engine and trans, only options were 4 doors (an option at that time), limited-slip rear, tilt wheel with cruise, and CD player.

I averaged 18-19 mpg. The 3.0 is a basic cast iron OHV engine with a regular timing chain and doesn't make enough power to hurt itself. Bud of mine has a '96 with a 3.0 and he put 350,000 miles on the original engine, got a Jasper reman engine, and is approaching 500,000 miles. Truck still looks good actually.

At the time I owned a small company and leased a new vehicle every three years through the company for a tax write-off. The '99 performed it's duties admirably without issue and I liked it, except for being slow. Was thinking about keeping it but three months before the lease was up someone ran a stop sign and t-boned me in the driver's side, tearing the crap out of the door, fender, and suspension. Ford was offering $3000 rebates at the time so I left it at the dealer's body shop, gave them the insurance check, and leased a new '02 with a 4.0 SOHC and automatic, with the rebate it only cost $10 more a month than the '99. It was a rocket ship by comparison but used a lot more gas.

If I had to do it again I'd probably get the 4.0 OHV. At that time though the 4.0 OHV was a pricey option because it wasn't just the engine, they put a heavier rear axle in the 4.0 trucks too so it cost about $900 more. 3.0 was just too slow. When I got the '02 the 4.0 SOHC was the standard engine in 4x4 Supercabs.

How did you feel after spending $21,000, do you wish you still had your first truck, what does absconded mean and what does horrendous mean, how much snow do they get there, i bet you liked having 4 doors.

That is pretty good for mpg's, what is the cubic inch for a 3.0 and there is a utility ranger at work that has the 3.0 v6 2wd regular cab automatic that i drove for the first time last week and it seemed like it had decent power, I heard that jasper is a good brand for new engines, do you have a picture of your friends truck.

What small company did you own, how could you notice your 3.0 was slow, thats sad how fast were they going when they crashed into you, why do you say the 02 with the 4.0 v6 sohc was a rocket ship and how much more gas did that 245 engine use than your 3.0. how much heavyier was the rear axle in the 4.0 ohv compared to the rear axle in the 3.0 v6, the 3.0 to 4.0 is a 1 liter size difference and i love my 4.0 v6 245 sohc but the 3.0 v6 might be fun i will have to drive that 3.0 v6 ranger thats at work a few more times to see if i like that size engine and then i will let you know. Happy Spring First

 

[JohnnyO]

How did you feel after spending $21,000, do you wish you still had your first truck, what does absconded mean and what does horrendous mean, how much snow do they get there, i bet you liked having 4 doors.

That is pretty good for mpg's, what is the cubic inch for a 3.0 and there is a utility ranger at work that has the 3.0 v6 2wd regular cab automatic that i drove for the first time last week and it seemed like it had decent power, I heard that jasper is a good brand for new engines, do you have a picture of your friends truck.

What small company did you own, how could you notice your 3.0 was slow, thats sad how fast were they going when they crashed into you, why do you say the 02 with the 4.0 v6 sohc was a rocket ship and how much more gas did that 245 engine use than your 3.0. how much heavyier was the rear axle in the 4.0 ohv compared to the rear axle in the 3.0 v6, the 3.0 to 4.0 is a 1 liter size difference and i love my 4.0 v6 245 sohc but the 3.0 v6 might be fun i will have to drive that 3.0 v6 ranger thats at work a few more times to see if i like that size engine and then i will let you know. Happy Spring First

I didn’t spend $21,000, I spent $400 a month on lease payments.
Absconded means took off.
Horrendous means snow is measured by the foot, not the inch, and white outs.
It doesn’t matter what company I owned. Small local business.
I would guess the person who hit me was going about 30 mph.
I noticed the 3.0 was slow when I’d hit a hill on the Interstate, be in 3rd gear going 50 at the top and never took my foot off the floor.
3.0 trucks get a 7.5” rear and 4.0 trucks get a larger 8.8” rear.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

@Gary DuBois

So I’ll give my answer for a couple of the questions you asked @JohnnyO

My first Ranger didn’t have the extended cab doors. Neither does my 92 because the option for extended cab doors didn’t start until 98. It was still nice having the extended cab, but the extra doors for it make it much, much more convenient. My 00 Green Ranger and both of dad’s Rangers have the extended cab doors.

My 3.0 Ranger, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), when run through the gears in the power band, had as much or more go than my 4.0 OHV powered automatics. The 4.0s towed better though, but not by a lot. Mom has a 4.0 SOHC auto Explorer and it has noticeably more power on tap than the OHV motors, but I’m not really a fan of the SOHC motors. The 5.0 swapped Rangers are a LOT of fun and even better than the 4.0 SOHC for power.

All 4.0 powered got the 8.8 rear, most of the rest got 7.5”, but my 3.0 Ranger had a 7.5” with the same brakes as the 8.8”. I swapped a same ratio 8.8 with limited slip in my 3.0 Ranger and there was no difference except better traction that I noticed.

Mom’s SOHC 4.0 Explorer gets 17 mpg around town and low 20’s highway.

A shift kit and valve body mods as well as adjusting the drive bands (if adjustable) in the automatics makes an absolute world of difference. I very highly recommend. It’s not particularly hard to do, just a little time consuming as it’s an exercise in patience and cleanliness. I went through that with my 92 and it went from a somewhat sluggish, sloppy turd to being able to light up the tires by hitting the throttle too hard from a stop.