Newb Question About 3.0 injection

[rusty ol ranger]

But now Rusty Old Ranger now has me thinking about getting one of the old boxy Rangers (1990?). And his comment reminds me, nothing sounds more bad ass than those old carb’d engines. That’s +1 for the carbs for sure!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good. Atleast 1 person around here agrees with me.

Find yourself an 86-88 with a 2.9L V6/5sp, same mileage as a 3.0 and way more punch. On paper they look equal, (140hp/170ftlbs for a 2.9, 145hp/165ftlbs for a 3.0), but the 2.9 has a kick in the ass coming outta the gate that will make a 3.0 piss itself.

Just make sure theres no coolant in places its not supposed to be (oil). The 2.9s achillies heel are its heads. But other then that, they are damn near bulletproof.

 

[rangerenthiusiast]

I grew up driving carb’d vehicles, but am now on my third vehicle with fuel injection. Even after having to replace the injectors on the Ranger I just picked up (first time doing this job), I’ll never go back (unless it’s a classic muscle car that I’m trying to keep stock).

Not trying to hurt anyone’s feeling here (if it works for you, then it works). But man, it’s such a better world for me. And I’ve never touched a latte. Just my 2 cents.

 

[rangerenthiusiast]

This is the most active thread I’ve ever started in my life, so thank you everyone for the input.

I have been looking at other Rangers to replace mine, which is high on heart but low on power ...thanks to the 3.0 and a slight manifold exhaust leak. I could rebuild the head, and I might, but it would be my first time and I’d probably still be disappointed with the power out put.

But now Rusty Old Ranger now has me thinking about getting one of the old boxy Rangers (1990?). And his comment reminds me, nothing sounds more bad ass than those old carb’d engines. That’s +1 for the carbs for sure!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Rusty’s advice is solid here. My first Ranger was an ’83 with the 2.8 and a 4-speed with OD (basically a 5 speed). That little engine kicked ass and I did a TON of work with it. :headband:

The ’92 that I just picked up has the 4.0, but you’re looking at fuel injection there. I’m pretty happy with it so far. Mated to the 8.8 rear, it’s a darn torquey little truck.

 

[adsm08]

Find yourself an 86-88 with a 2.9L V6/5sp, same mileage as a 3.0 and way more punch. On paper they look equal, (140hp/170ftlbs for a 2.9, 145hp/165ftlbs for a 3.0), but the 2.9 has a kick in the ass coming outta the gate that will make a 3.0 piss itself.

This right here 110%.

The 3.0 is a nice reliable boring engine.

The 2.9 is a nice reliable little badass. It has no right to make the power it does with its size.

Back a few years ago I was responsible for taking care of oil filter disposal at the shop I was at. I started doing it while I had a 2.9 in the truck, and that time spanned over into the period after the 4.0 swap. The only difference I ever really noticed was that on the road to the scrap yard I had to do less back and forth between 3 and 4 in the curves with the 4.0. And that was with the same trans in the truck for both engines.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

This right here 110%.

The 3.0 is a nice reliable boring engine.

The 2.9 is a nice reliable little badass. It has no right to make the power it does with its size.

Back a few years ago I was responsible for taking care of oil filter disposal at the shop I was at. I started doing it while I had a 2.9 in the truck, and that time spanned over into the period after the 4.0 swap. The only difference I ever really noticed was that on the road to the scrap yard I had to do less back and forth between 3 and 4 in the curves with the 4.0. And that was with the same trans in the truck for both engines.

"Nice, reliable, boring"...lol kinda like the taurus it was designed for.

By the numbers, the 2.9 makes more power per CI then the 5.0 H.O of the same era, so, in theory, the 2.9 could itself be classed as a "high performance" engine. What helps the 2.9 is its pretty flat torque curve that comes on strong down low. The 3.0 just doesnt have that snort untill you get it spinning.

Ive never understood the attraction to the 4.0. I mean, if your 2.9 takes a shit then by all means, but, atleast in my opinion, ripping out a perfectly functioning 2.9 to drop in a 4.0 isnt worth the effort.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I grew up driving carb’d vehicles, but am now on my third vehicle with fuel injection. Even after having to replace the injectors on the Ranger I just picked up (first time doing this job), I’ll never go back (unless it’s a classic muscle car that I’m trying to keep stock).

Not trying to hurt anyone’s feeling here (if it works for you, then it works). But man, it’s such a better world for me. And I’ve never touched a latte. Just my 2 cents.

What i value most about carburated engines, and older stuff in general is simplicity. A EFI system requires numerous sensors, and along with thst mang feet of wireing, any of which after some age are just waiting to deterorate and cause headaches. Sure, you can plug a scaner in, change the sensor out, just to find out its another sensor causeing the original sensor to read wrong, or worse yet, spending hours tracking down wiring issues.

On a carburated vehicle, if you have issues its either the filter, the pump, the needle/seat/float,, or the choke. All of which can be verified in working order in a few minutes.

 

[adsm08]

What i value most about carburated engines, and older stuff in general is simplicity. A EFI system requires numerous sensors, and along with thst mang feet of wireing, any of which after some age are just waiting to deterorate and cause headaches. Sure, you can plug a scaner in, change the sensor out, just to find out its another sensor causeing the original sensor to read wrong, or worse yet, spending hours tracking down wiring issues.

Written in the truest fashion of someone who doesn't know what they are doing working on an EFI system.

On the other hand I think that golf clubs are the right tools for working on carbs, so that street can go both ways.

 

[FillMarr]

Good stuff! I “love” my boring 3.0, but only because it has been amazingly reliable and the first and only vehicle I’ve owned. And it’s been an amazing truck to learn how to wrench on.

Rusty, are you saying you are more about the little 4 banger than the 4.0?! Interesting. I hadn’t even thought about looking at one of those until now. The 4.0s are peppy, which is what has taken my interest. But the high milage ones I test drove sounded loud in a way that made me think the engines must not be as long lasting as the 3.0. It could’ve just been me not being used to that noise though.

I have nothing against fuel injection, not that I think anyone’s feelings have been hurt here.All in all, they must be more reliable. It’s just, you can’t beat the sound, yes simplicity, and fun of the carb. Especially when you are waiting at a light next to a Camry or something. It just makes you realize how boring safe, efficient and reliable is!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Good stuff! I “love” my boring 3.0, but only because it has been amazingly reliable and the first and only vehicle I’ve owned. And it’s been an amazing truck to learn how to wrench on.

Rusty, are you saying you are more about the little 4 banger than the 4.0?! Interesting. I hadn’t even thought about looking at one of those until now. The 4.0s are peppy, which is what has taken my interest. But the high milage ones I test drove sounded loud in a way that made me think the engines must not be as long lasting as the 3.0. It could’ve just been me not being used to that noise though.

I have nothing against fuel injection, not that I think anyone’s feelings have been hurt here.All in all, they must be more reliable. It’s just, you can’t beat the sound, yes simplicity, and fun of the carb. Especially when you are waiting at a light next to a Camry or something. It just makes you realize how boring safe, efficient and reliable is!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No no no, the 2.9 is a V6. I hate 4 cylinders lol.

Written in the truest fashion of someone who doesn't know what they are doing working on an EFI system.

On the other hand I think that golf clubs are the right tools for working on carbs, so that street can go both ways.

To each their own bud. Its like argueing over blondes or brunettes, at the end of the day neither one of us will change the others opinion.

 

[fastpakr]

Honestly, most of us don't actually hate carbs. Every motorcycle I've owned was carbureted along with a few cars. My boss has a '74 Datsun with a Weber progressive carb just like the one I used to run on a Nissan Pulsar. They get the job done and can be fun to tinker with sometimes. Fuel injection just makes an evolutionary improvement on virtually every aspect of what a carb does. Once you learn your way around it, it's really not that complicated. Replacing a part to find out that you got the wrong one should never happen if you've done your diagnostics correctly. The factory puts out clear flowchart tests for things just like we used to use on carbureted vehicles (like what you'd find in a Mitchell manual from the 80's and 90's). Read through RonD's posts as well. He regularly responds with simple, logical tests to narrow down the cause of a problem. It's not that hard, just a different system to learn than carburetion.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Honestly, most of us don't actually hate carbs. Every motorcycle I've owned was carbureted along with a few cars. My boss has a '74 Datsun with a Weber progressive carb just like the one I used to run on a Nissan Pulsar. They get the job done and can be fun to tinker with sometimes. Fuel injection just makes an evolutionary improvement on virtually every aspect of what a carb does. Once you learn your way around it, it's really not that complicated. Replacing a part to find out that you got the wrong one should never happen if you've done your diagnostics correctly. The factory puts out clear flowchart tests for things just like we used to use on carbureted vehicles (like what you'd find in a Mitchell manual from the 80's and 90's). Read through RonD's posts as well. He regularly responds with simple, logical tests to narrow down the cause of a problem. It's not that hard, just a different system to learn than carburetion.

I dont hate EFI. I have read many of rons posts, and they are good, much better then the half ass rambling i do.

That being said, i do know enough about fuel injection to piss my way thru most things. But, and this is just me, i tend to run out of paitence quickly, secure my ticket to the fiery underworld with a spoken paragraph, and send tools flying when i cant just look at something, see the obvious problem, and fix it. Im that way with everything, not just vehicles. Carbs are very hands on, theres the issue, done.

Its just my preference and i take pride in being one of the few left capable of performing a lost art.

 

[adsm08]

To each their own bud. Its like argueing over blondes or brunettes, at the end of the day neither one of us will change the others opinion.

They all look the same with the lights out.

 

[saskbill]

This right here 110%.

The 3.0 is a nice reliable boring engine.

The 2.9 is a nice reliable little badass. It has no right to make the power it does with its size.

Agreed. But your post reminds me - The 3.0 has a nice boring side-mounted oil filter that's easy to change with a cheap strap-type wrench (if required). The 2.9, with it's vertical placement and limited side clearance, may force a guy to go shopping for an end-gripper or a vertical style strapwrench, if the PO decided to reef it in there!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Agreed. But your post reminds me - The 3.0 has a nice boring side-mounted oil filter that's easy to change with a cheap strap-type wrench (if required). The 2.9, with it's vertical placement and limited side clearance, may force a guy to go shopping for an end-gripper or a vertical style strapwrench, if the PO decided to reef it in there!

Hey man, every rose has its thorn. But i doubt the 2.9 owner will be to upset about his oil filter placement when he drops the clutch on a taurus powered 3rd gen and stomps a mudhole in it.

Besides, since 2.9 owners are real men theyll just grip that sumbitch with their large hands filled with calliouses from all the heavy stuff they load into their truck that can actually move stuff and twist it right off. Ford figured anyone with a 3.0 truck will just go to the quick-lube anyways

 

[Curious Hound]

Ford figured anyone with a 3.0 truck will just go to the quick-lube anyways

Hey!!!! That's not nice.