how tough is the 3.0?

[TinyBear]

My family has had two 4L V6 (one 1990 ohv and one 2000 sohc) and i have had three 3.0L v6 (1999, 1996, 2008). The OHV 4.0L had 140,000kms on it when sold and was pretty decently reliable. But with an average fuel milage of 15-16mpg id rather get a 5.0L v8 same fuel milage and better power. The 2000 4.0L SOHC in the exploder had WAY WAY too many issues. It went to 140,000kms mostly trouble free but after that it was in the garage all the time. Oil feed issues to the heads, cam chain teshioners, and finaly head gasket failure and ultimatly ending the life of the truck at 200,000kms what a POS. OH and that thing never did get better than 17mpg

By far i prefer the 3.0L over the 4.0L. My little 3.0l's has done everything from getting my rear to work every day to hauling over 5000lbs of my stuff to my new house. My 1996 was 4x4 and had seen more abuse than ANY of my others and never once complained. IT only got 17-18mpg and again i would have much rather have a small block V8 witch is why i sold it.

As for all three of my 3.0L only engine isshues any of em seen was two o2 sensors, one
IAC motor, and two Belt tenshiners.

Now i got my 2008 and i expect good things from it even during break in i seen 19mpg from it and hope to see the twenties come summer. It has plenty of power when ya put the hammer down and will be more than enuff to haul around the two bikes or my yard waste.

 

[Mechanickid]

You can't compare any v6 to a small block, thats just unfair.

 

[TinyBear]

How is it unfair.

A mildly tuned small block V8 easily gets the same kinda fuel economy as the 4.0L V6's but makes WAY more hp/tq.

Family also owned a 1991 F150 5.0L V8 Auto 2wd. It got anywere from 14-19mpg and had no troubles hauling a 20' aluminum bow rider boat.

My 3.0L ranger is what i prefer as it gets SLIGHTLY better economy (Very slightly) is even more reliable has plenty of power to get what i need done and is in a nice sized vehical for daily use. Its a nice easy engine to maintain and has never left me stranded.

I have owned BIG trucks before (1994 F250 ex cab long bed 2wd that by the way averaged 18mpg with a 7.3L v8 turbo Diesel) and they simply are not very fun as a daily driver. my ranger is about the same size as a large car but is much more utilitarian in use.

If Ford offered the 5.0L from the factory in a Ranger i would have opted for that as its a better bang for the buck but between a 3.0L and a 4.0L i will take the 3.0L thank you.

 

[Bryan22]

1994 with 7.3 turbo? sounds like fun! The newer 7.3's are awsome. I drive a 2000 f-250 with a 7.3 for work. I could deffenitely dd that thing. it's got the half doors and really isn't too bad to park. the full 4-door is a pain to park. If i had the money though i would deffenitely get a full sized truck with the 7.3! The one i drive for work usually gets 20-22 MPG constantly hauling about 1,000 lbs of tools around, and about 16-18 MPG with a trailer and about 8,000 lbs of concrete liners. can't beat that.

oh yeah, i had a 3.0 in my 92 ranger single cab with a 5sp tranny. that thing was the best truck ever. I have done my best to kill it and could never do it.

 

[3literEarl91]

My 91 has over 350000 on it now and it still doesnt use oil or make any noises. It will still get 25 on the highway too. It has been the most reliable thing I have EVER had. (I also beat on it a fair amount, not as much as i used to though)

 

[rangerbum]

Yep. Got a Taurus in the drive way. Started out as a Hertz rental car. Then was purchased by a person that drove it like a rental car

Now it has 210K miles. No rebuild. Doesn't use a drop of oil. I mean not a drop in between changes.

I sure hope the ranger lasts that long.

Man, I work at Hertz Rent-a-car. After seeing the way I treat the cars, and knowing all the other employees at both Hertz and the other agencies treat the cars, plus the renters, not to mention seeing how poorly maintained they usually are; I will never buy a former rent-a-car.

 

[BeaterMan]

the 3.0 is a bad ass engine, i drive up i70 in colorado going into the mountains with 2 dirt bikes in the bed all the time with the rpm's at 4200-4600 the whole way up and it never misses a beat. i dish it out putting that lil motor through hell and it just keeps going and then some.

 

[TinyBear]

1994 with 7.3 turbo? sounds like fun! The newer 7.3's are awsome. I drive a 2000 f-250 with a 7.3 for work. I could deffenitely dd that thing. it's got the half doors and really isn't too bad to park. the full 4-door is a pain to park. If i had the money though i would deffenitely get a full sized truck with the 7.3! The one i drive for work usually gets 20-22 MPG constantly hauling about 1,000 lbs of tools around, and about 16-18 MPG with a trailer and about 8,000 lbs of concrete liners. can't beat that.

oh yeah, i had a 3.0 in my 92 ranger single cab with a 5sp tranny. that thing was the best truck ever. I have done my best to kill it and could never do it.

Yeah it was a fun truck but for daily driving it was a PIG. It was also a expensive pig for maintence and i am a diesel mechanic for a living.

It was nothing like the newer engines as it was a older IDI 7.3L with the VERY rare factory turbo option. They actually out preformed the first gen powerstroke engines and were alot easier to maintain too. Granted i Moded mine to hell but i was costantly destroying stuff. Shattered the TQ/converter, Blew the rad twice and killed to water pumps.

I am not a big Fan of the powerstrokes as they are just too complicated for my liking (honestly why use preasurized engine oil to inject fuel) but the later model 7.3L are pretty good engines with very few issues.

I never had a hard time parking (hell i drive rigs regularly) but for daily driving a Ranger is a much nicer vehical. Smoother Smaller and Slightly better on Fuel.