No 3.0 in new Rangers

[Shawnski]

The 3.0 die with the dignity the 300 I6 has? It doesnt deserve it.

The 300 was a legend, working for 30+ years in everything from F100-F700 trucks, E series vans,School busses, generators, irrigation pumps, forklifts, and im sure im forgetting a few. Most lasting well over 300,000 miles. Generally 1 300 will outlast 2 or 3 trucks.

The 3.0 isnt even in the same class as the 300.

I have good skill when towing a load, doesnt mean i can pull a 44FT enclosed race car hauler with a 2.3L Engine in a F350. (Unless i had 20:1 rear end gears and 30 transmission speeds, then maybe.)

People dont understand, torque is what matters with a load. Horsepower by definition is how fast an engine can move a 1 ton (i think) weight 1 ft in the air. Basically how fast an engine can whind up.

Torque is twisting force exerted by the engine. How can the engine rev and make horsepower if the torque isnt there to twist the tires to get the vehicle moving?

Reason the 2.9 whips the 3.0's ass.

later,
Dustin

Talk about being an ass! From the high alter of the 2.9 you come down on a fellow Ranger enthusiast for liking his 3.0? While I profess to know little of the German built 2.9's other than they clatter like sewing machines - I do like what my little 3.0 has to offer.

This past summer I was hell-bent on finding a Ranger (2wd) for household utility purposes and as an occasional tow-vehicle for my 3000 lbs Farimont road racecar and in case my sons sketchy '89 BMW 325i goes down (actually a very good reliable car).

Anyway had a 2.3 duratech been available during my 1 month search with a 5-speed reg. cab I might have jumped - however the more I compared the more I knew the 3.0 was the right engine for the most basic of Rangers. Besides I had one in a '90 Probe LX and thought it was a smooth performer.

I ended up buying a former Orkin truck - white '05 XL 3.0 5-spd reg. cab short box. I did a deep cleaning, changed all the fluids with synthetic and it currently has 87k mi. I recently diposed of the "oil drum" muffler and replaced this with my own cat- back 2.5" 11" Magnaflow dumped ahead of the passenger side rear wheel.

So far I really love this little truck! Its simple, rugged with timeless good looks - sure its not sophisticated but the engine and trans are ideal for this old school pick-up. To me the torque advantage over the 4cyl is what made me seek a 3.0 and with the Magnaflow it has an unstressed nature and mellow burble - yet will rev past 5k with ease - try that with a factory 300ci six! I average between 18-22 mpg which is way better than my 15 mpg 2004 F150- and its a way smaller pick-up.

The thing that strikes me the best about this engine is it almost silent when running in term of mechanical noise - surley the roller lifters have something to do with this. Bottom line is it reminds me of six cylinder sports car of 40 years ago - simple, torquey and lots of fun to drive without having to go 100+ mph to feel something.

 

[TinyBear]

I too will miss the good old 3.0L.

Heck i purposely bought a left over 2008 Ranger over getting a 2009 just because i wanted a 3.0L.

I have now owned THREE 3.0L rangers (including my new one) and Co-owned a 4.0L SOHC in a explorer. Also had a OHV 4.0L in the family in a Aerostar.

My first Ranger was a 1999 reg cab 2wd 3.0L auto. Sold it with 120,000kms or 75,000miles on and it obviously was problem free with the exception of a O2 sensor. This is still easily one of my favorite truck i have ever had the pleasure of owning. It averaged 24mpg on my at the time highway commute and rarely ever got south of the 20mpg mark.

My second ranger i bought used was 1996 Ex cab 4x4 with the 3.0L and an auto. Sold it with 280,000 or 174,000miles on the clock. It too was nearly trouble free but it had a new exhuast and a IAC took a dump too oh and the steering box got replaced too. Other than that and the reg brakes tires and ALOT of front u-joints buy beating the truck off road it too was all original INCLUDING THE AUTO TRANS. I even used this one to tow over 4000lbs when i moved to my new place. When i sold it the trans was on its way out and the interior had seen better days but that good old 3.0L was still going strong and although not fast by any means of the word was still enuff to out run my brothers Suzuki Grand Vitara 4x4 with the 2.5L DOHC v6 or 89 Jeep Cherokee with a 4.0L inline six. This truck was a PIG on fuel though averaging 18mpg with a worst of 14mpg and a best of 21mpg.

As for the explorer well it was bought NEW for my dads company (witch whom i worked for for many years). It was always maintained by me or ford and always done on time much the same as both my rangers (I was a apprenticing mechanic at the time). at 140,000kms or 87,000miles it developed the COMMON cam chain tenshiner isshue. At 180,000kms or 112,000kms it had a oil starvation problem to the heads. and by 200,000kms or 124,000miles it needed a new engine and the trans was nearly done too. We decided to scrap it as it just was not needed anymore nor worth it. It also averaged 16-18mpg highway since day one and never seen north of 20mpg.

As for the old Aerostar we had. It too was bought new. It was a 1990 model and had the 4.0L ohv V6 and an auto. This thing never failed us and always got the job done from family vacations to company work vehical to tow vehical. Was a great little van and was mostly trouble free. The engine was never a problem except for an alt and two starters and some oil leaks. As for the Van well it had a lot of RUST ishues but other than that was fine. It too drank fuel at a pretty solid 16mpg but was sold with 150,000kms or 93,500miles.

And now i am on Ranger three and 3.0L number 3. This ones a NEW 2008 Ranger Spot ex cab 2wd auto with the 4:10 rear end. Its much more zippy than i remeber my old ones to be but has yet to get better than 19mpg (still breaking it in). I expect to see around 19-20mpg on my mostly country road commute and MANY MANY MANY trouble free miles. as it stands it only has 2300kms or 1400miles so i got many years to look forward too.

 

[terroristthret15]

dah, go with the 4.0 for a v6...

 

[jax4bangin]

herd horror stories (and witnessed some) bout the 4.0 warping heads around 150k to
200k so i wudnt plan on rackin on the miles

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin

 

[TinyBear]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin

That is a pretty weak argument. Your saying that just cause the engine got its roots in cars (much like many other "TRUCK" engines AKA 5.0L 5.8L etc) and it makes power differantly than another engine it does not deserve any respect???

Listen i love the 300/4.9L I6 ford engines and still have fond memories of grandpas old 70's ford F100 with a 300 and a 3 in the tree trans. BUT i EQUALLY love my little 3.0L's. Sure i gotta rev her a bit to get her to move but they have never failed me and have always got what ever job done i needed.

Hell I have towed more damn loads behind my old 3.0L rangers than i ever did with my Old F250 with a REAL truck engine a International 7.3 IDI Turbo.

 

[reginald fairfield]

Well said.

 

[RangerRock]

My brother 4X4 2001 F-150 XL get better millage with teh 4.2L, than my dad's friends 06 ford Ranger 4X4 XLT the the f 150 wiht tonneua cover on the bed get roughly 18-20 Mpg the Ranger was getting about 15-19 wiht a toneau, both truck have auto tranny.

Now my 92 wiht teh 3.0l, 2wd 5 speedwiht tonneau gets about 26 mpgwhere my dads @008 ranger wiht the 2.3L duratech 5 speed , also wiht toneau gets, 28-30+.

And if im not mistaken the newer 3.0 were makeing 150 Hp thanks to the improved composite intake.

Gonne miss the ol reliable 3.0 vulcan
gonna run mine into the ground then rebuild it and do it over again


Here an idea give us ranger owners the Duratech 3.0L we have all wanted since intorduction in the tarus, more more beter economy, what more could we want from a 3.0 replacment?

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the 3.0 vulcan and 3.0 duratec in the taurus have basicaly the same fuel economy rating...but the extra 50HP wouldnt be a bad thing.

 

[Shawnski]

Get over it

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

But argueing that the 3.0 deserves as much respect as a 300 I6 is crazy.

The 300 doesnt need to rev past 3500RPM, unlike the 3.0 it is a truck engine and makes it torque down low.

later,
Dustin

Dustin, last I checked you could not get the 2.9 or 3.0. Your point is moot, I hardly think someone would replace their mid-range 3.0 with an equally mid range 2.9. The fact that a six cylinder is not available in the short base cab is a loss in anyones book.

 

[pacodiablo]

I dont care if people like the 3.0, i like the 2.9.

I don't care if you like the 2.9. I like the 3.0. That doesn't mean I'm going to dog the 2.9 just because it isn't a 3.0 though.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

well said.

the 2.9 had a good run before it was replaced by the 3.0. and the 3.0 had a good run until it got replaced with engine X (time will tell ). both were good motors and both deserve to die with dignity.

but i still prefer my 3.0

 

[souldoubt88]

get me an ecoboost v6 in a ranger

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the whole point of the "ecoboost" (why ford thinks this is new technology i dont know) is to use the smallest engine possible and make up the power with boost. so an ecoboost v-6 in your ranger would be pretty pointless. id rather have something like a 1.3L that makes 70 HP n/a boosted to 20 PSI. thatd give you OHV 4.0 pushrod power with better than 2.3 mileage.

 

[souldoubt88]

A direct-injected, twin-turbocharged version of the all-aluminum Duratec 35 has been developed, producing 430 hp (321 kW) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque. The TwinForce 3.5 L V6 is intended to deliver the performance (on demand) of a typical large displacement 6.0 L-class V8, with the normal driving (highway) fuel efficiency of a 3.0 L to 4.0 L class V6.At the 2008 NAIAS, Ford introduced a similar gasoline turbocharged direct injected engine family called EcoBoost, scheduled for production starting in 2009.The EcoBoost family is expected to be available as four-cylinder I4 and six-cylinder V6 versions. The 2010 Lincoln MKS is scheduled to kick off EcoBoost production, with a 3.5 L V6 version estimated at 340 hp, in mid-2009, followed closely by the Ford Flex. The Ford Explorer America and Lincoln MKT concept crossover utility vehicles, which debuted in the 2008 NAIAS, show a similar displacement GTDI EcoBoost engine with up to an estimated 415 hp. The company eventually plans to equip a half-million cars and trucks annually with turbocharged EcoBoost engines by 2013.
Gasoline direct injection more precisely manages fuel flow into the cylinders, for more efficient combustion and emissions control, when compared to port injection. Twin-turbocharging forces more air into the engine on demand, allowing additional fuel to be injected and burned, producing more power: 118 hp (88 kW) per liter in the case of the TwinForce. Technologies for the twin turbocharging system were developed in cooperation with Volvo Cars, and the gasoline direct injection system is a joint development between Ford and Bosch based on Bosch DFI systems already in production.

doesnt sound pointless to me.....