No 3.0 in new Rangers

[Rulebreaker]

I'd like to see a 2.9L put on a dyno and then dyno'd way past red line. My 87 had no tack and I would run it till it "sounded" like it was time to shift. I remember I would shift from 3rd to 4th at 90 MPH. I then drove a friend of mine's Ranger and it had a tack and his would hit red line in 3rd at around 65 or so. So if the trucks were geared the same and I don't know what the ratio's were I was pushing some serious RPM's. I do know that it really ran good up top. Enough so that when i was 17 I raced a friend of mine with a RS Camaro with a 305 V8 and beat him. My 87 Ranger was one of the best running Ford's I've ever owned. Never leaked or burned a drip of oil and was run hard and put away wet. Man i miss that truck! RB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

fuel cutoff is at 5200 RPM, so you werent much past that...and cologn engines dont pull very hard past 4500 or so anyway.

305's dont provide much bragging rights. i used to work with a guy that owned a 305 monte carlo SS that couldnt keep pace with my ranger at speed.

 

[triumphrider-1]

Once again...playing with a desktop dyno.....

92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 2.9L 3.45 gears....
VS
92 Ranger, 2wd, 5sp, 3.0L 3.45 gears....

2.9....
0-60 10.1
0-100 17.6
1/4mi trap 17.2@77MPH

3.0
0-60 10.2
0-100 17.7
1/4mi trap 17.3@77MPH

Nearly Identical, but if you were to raise the gear ratio, or put more weight on the vehicle...

Lets try it with say, a 3500LB trailer, rasing the weight of the vehicle from 3800, to 7300lbs

2.9- 0-60 19.6
0-100 22.2
1/4 mi trap 21.7@63MPH

3.0 0-60 21.3
0-100 25.8
1/4mi 24.7@ 60mph

The 3.0 just isnt that great of a truck engine

later,
Dustin

Holy s#$%t! If my 3.0L was that slow getting to 60 I never would have bought it. Might won't to go back and make sure your numbers were correct for all of them (my 2.9L was definatley not that slow either).

My truck has been about the same as Wickeds' (mines an auto), gets about 23.5MPG on the highway and about 19-20MPG driving in the city.


I do not use 4x4 while on the highway, adjust speed according to conditions.

 

[Maverick]

fuel cutoff is at 5200 RPM, so you werent much past that...and cologn engines dont pull very hard past 4500 or so anyway.

Now you're officially talking out of your ass. There is no fuel cut off on a 2.9 (if there is, it's way the hell up there). I ran my old (bone stock) 2.9 truck up to 6500 RPM multiple times while off road.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

perhaps the older, gen 1 trucks dont have a rev limiter then. i know gen 2's had them since ive been in a '90 2.9 when it hit the rev limiter.

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.

 

[Rulebreaker]

perhaps the older, gen 1 trucks dont have a rev limiter then. i know gen 2's had them since ive been in a '90 2.9 when it hit the rev limiter.

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.

Neither one of my 2.9L's had any sort of rev limiter and both made excellent power over red line. My 89 had a tack and I buried it all the time. That's why I'd like to see some dyno #'s instead of more worthless opinions. I don't shift till the valves are walking. That's my policy! RB

 

[Hahnsb2]

either way, revving a 2.9 past 5k is pointless and quite hard on stock valve springs.

While I agree that there is no balls beyond 5k, I had my 2.9 to 5500 RPMs all the time, 6K a few times and 6200-6300 a couple times with never a sign of cutting out. I know I've had my 4.0 to 5500 a couple times with no cutting out. My buddy who used to have a second gen 2.9 had his to 5500 a few times as well

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

heres a stock OHV 4.0 dyno sheet (a 2.9 would have very similar power curves, a little higher revving due to the smaller bore). notice peak power is just over 4 grand, but begins to taper off just before they cut it. the 2.9's peak power is at 4600, and will also begin to taper afterwards. revving to 6 grand is well out of the powerband and your actually making LESS power then you are below 5 grand.

 

[2manyfords]

a little higher revving due to the smaller bore).

The longer stroke is the reason it's lower revving, not the bore.

 

[Rulebreaker]

Looking at this chart it just seems backwards to me. The good torque #'s should be down low and the HP #'s up high. It looks like max HP is at 2400. Or have I been driving a diesel too long. RB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

your backwards, your thinking the HP line is the torque line and visa versa. the torque line is the one thats higher at lower rpm.

 

[rickcdewitt]

that must be at the tires?25 lb/ft at 1800 rpm's?sorry nope

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

given the peak ratings, id say thats flywheel. the sheet i posted (with only 131hp) is at the wheels.

 

[rickcdewitt]

thats pretty impressive to be laying down almost the same torque rating at the tires as the flywheel.a healthy 4.0 might make more than the factory suggests.

 

[mtm006]

the end of the 3.0 marks the end of an era