No 3.0 in new Rangers

[Wicked_Sludge]

the SOHC 2.3 made a maximim torque rating of 135, the 3.0 a max of 190, and the 4.0 OHV a max of 220. that makes the split between the 2.3 and the 3.0 55 ft/lbs, vs the split between the 3.0 and 4.0 of only 30ft/lbs. even if you go back a few years with the 3.0, the torque rating is still squarly in the middle of the 2.3 and 4.0 OHV.

 

[Bill]

Yeah, a 2.9 is a set of timing gears, crankshaft, rods, pistons, valvetrain, valves, valve covers, intake/exhaust manifolds and cylinder heads away from being a 2.8. Aside from the block (which may or may not be the same), what's left to change?

The 6.8 V-10 has much more in common with a 4.6 than the 2.9 does a 2.8, so does that make it a car engine too?

Really?

I would like to see you get as far as swapping anything between a 6.8L and a 4.6. I'm not asking you to make it work, just fit the crankshaft or heads from one to another.

You can do that with the 2.8 and 2.9. The heads from a 2.6L (older than a 2.8) will line up on a 2.9L, but will not work due to the way the camshaft is driven (gear vs chain). Some engine builders have used crankshaft from a 2.9 in a 2.8. The front of the crankshaft is machined a bit different to prevent someone from accidentally installing a timing gear in place of a sprocket, so you would have to machine it before using it in a 2.8, but it has been done.

Valve sizes, valve covers and manifolds are insignificant. The changes are due to accommodating different installation configurations. The same engine frequently used different exhaust manifolds in cars and trucks.

Most of the changes over the years were due to improvements and emissions requirements, otherwise we would still be adjusting the lash on our 4.0Ls every year. And some minor redesign is necessary to due these changes. For example, the block on the 4.0L is taller than it was on the original 1.8L V6 for obvious reasons.

 

[rickcdewitt]

the 3.0 a max of 190, and the 4.0 OHV a max of 220.

when did the 3.slow get bumped to 190lb/ft?as far as i can tell its 165lb/ft to 95 and then 162lb/ft in 96-99.

don't tell me about torque not being important.i've driven import trucks for years and hauling a half a ton with a 1600cc isen't fun.even with 4.4 gears and little bity tires.i loved the 2.9 for what it is(a wind up motor like the 3.0) but i'm thoroughly enjoying the 4.0 in my ranger.its just enough to fully utilize the truck for heavy hauling and work.no more zinging off the rev limiter all the time.i get better mpg's than my cousins 4x4 3.0 when i load down my truck and take a long trip in a headwind or up some steep mountains.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Really?

I would like to see you get as far as swapping anything between a 6.8L and a 4.6. I'm not asking you to make it work, just fit the crankshaft or heads from one to another.

You can do that with the 2.8 and 2.9. The heads from a 2.6L (older than a 2.8) will line up on a 2.9L, but will not work due to the way the camshaft is driven (gear vs chain). Some engine builders have used crankshaft from a 2.9 in a 2.8. The front of the crankshaft is machined a bit different to prevent someone from accidentally installing a timing gear in place of a sprocket, so you would have to machine it before using it in a 2.8, but it has been done.

Valve sizes, valve covers and manifolds are insignificant. The changes are due to accommodating different installation configurations. The same engine frequently used different exhaust manifolds in cars and trucks.

Most of the changes over the years were due to improvements and emissions requirements, otherwise we would still be adjusting the lash on our 4.0Ls every year. And some minor redesign is necessary to due these changes. For example, the block on the 4.0L is taller than it was on the original 1.8L V6 for obvious reasons.

Mixing and matching 40 years worth of colone car engine parts isn't quite the same as pulling the entire engine out of a Taurus and having almost EVERYTHING interchange with a Ranger.

Almost ALL engines in trucks have roots going back to a car engine... if they themselves are not car engines. The 2.9 is more different than most vs its car equivilant.

BTW, the crankshaft and cylinder heads are the same design between the windsor 4.6 and 6.8, only one has more stroke with room for two more cylinders. The 5.4 is merely a stroked 4.6 with a slightly taller deck, and the 6.8 is a 10 cylinder 5.4...

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

when did the 3.slow get bumped to 190lb/ft?as far as i can tell its 165lb/ft to 95 and then 162lb/ft in 96-99.

the flex fuel versions were rated at 190ft-lbs due to smaller combustion chambers (higher compression), and larger injectors. later versions were rated at 180ft/lbs, earlier anywhere between 162-178.

don't tell me about torque not being important.

torque is important...but horsepower is equally so.

i get better mpg's than my cousins 4x4 3.0 when i load down my truck and take a long trip in a headwind or up some steep mountains.

i averaged almost 18 MPG towing 3,000lbs with a 200lb topper and 2-300lbs worth of crap in the bed accross the state of washington.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Guys, Give it up already!

The 2.9, 3.0, and 4.0 OHV are all ancient, dead engines. Each engine has those who love it and those who hate it. Some claim extraordinary mileage from their favorite while others claim terrible mileage from the same engine. If you like the engine in your truck, that's great! But there's no point in arguing about because they're all dead!

I myself am looking forward to the 3.5, which will have better economy than the 2.9 and 3.0, more torque than the 4.0 (even down low), and almost double the high end ponies of the 3.0. It will make all previous rbv V-6's look like worthless pieces of iron.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Yeah thats the same thing alot of people said about the 4.2L, 4.6L, and 5.4L when they came out to.

The 4.6L is decent, and a good replacment for the 302, the 4.2L isnt half the engine the 300 was, and the 5.4L is a spark plug shooting piece of shit.

later,
Dustin

 

[Rulebreaker]

I put no faith in #'s, as they don't mean crap in the real world. I do however have allot of RBV engine experience. I've had a Ranger 2.8L, a Ranger 2.9L, a Ranger extended cab 3.0L, an Explorer 4.0L OHV, a BroncoII 2.9L, a Aerostar 3.0L, and 2 4.0L Aerostars. They all got around 14MPG except the 2.9's got much better. The Ranger got 19-23 MPG. The B2 got 16-20. I liked all the engines except the 3.0L. It couldn't get out of it's own way empty, then when I would hook onto my 2 place snowmobile trailer and lock in 4 wheel drive, well lets just say I sold it. I replaced it with the Explorer and the milage was the same but i could pull my trailer so i dont see why anyone would want a 3.0L when you could get a 4.0L. I currently have 2 running 4.0L with 250,000 miles so it's not like the 3.0L lasts longer. Just my 2 cents. RB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i dont see why anyone would want a 3.0L when you could get a 4.0L.

because my 3.0 gets better mileage than 90% of 4.0's

I currently have 2 running 4.0L with 250,000 miles so it's not like the 3.0L lasts longer. Just my 2 cents. RB

there was a guy on here that had over 300,000 miles on his sprayed 3.0.

you can "not have faith" in numbers all you want. but unfortunately, even you arent ammune to mathmatics. personal experience is subjective, whereas numbers are objective.

 

[Accord4tehloss!]

I think maybe alot of the people with completely gutless 3.0 have stretched throttle cables. The 3.0 seems (had one in a taurus) to get alot of its power near the end of the throttle. I know my old taurus was slow as hell until i tightened the cable so the plates opened up all the way. The 2.9 and 4.0 with there higher torque dont seem to be as affected by the throttle not opening up all the way. since they make power lower in the RPM range and at smaller throttle movements

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

you know, thats quite likely actually...i never thought about that. i havnt had to do the throttle cable "mod" (whys it called a mod and not a repair...?) because my throttle plate opens 90 degrees...but i can imagine it would have a serious impact on an engine that loves its revs (and thus, its CFM).

 

[Rulebreaker]

because my 3.0 gets better mileage than 90% of 4.0's



there was a guy on here that had over 300,000 miles on his sprayed 3.0.

you can "not have faith" in numbers all you want. but unfortunately, even you arent ammune to mathmatics. personal experience is subjective, whereas numbers are objective.

Did you pull the 90% out of a hat? If your talking 4x4's i highly doubt it. I believe Cheapthrills 4.0L had well into the 300,000 mile range when he pulled it out for a lower mileage one. As far as #'s go, if you look at the HP# of many of todays half ton trucks they look impressive. Then when you drive one your like where's the beef? Dodges Hemi is a prime example. Read any test drive report from like Peterson or 4 wheeler and they all agree with me that the power is overrated. I think that the 3.0L is reliable enough but I won't drive something gutless. The last straw for me was going down a flat freeway with a two place snowmobile trailer 1200#'s at most in 3rd gear at red line because if i put it in 4th I couldn't hold 65 mph. 5th gear wasn't an option. How long would an engine last doing that? Bought a 91 Explorer and pulled the same trailer in OD with the cruise set at 80MPH. Mileage was exactly the same. 14MPG didn't matter if i was on the freeway or in the city. RB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

If your talking 4x4's i highly doubt it

if you had kept up with the thread, you'd know my truck does 22-24 unloaded on the highway and about 20 in town. 19-20 highway towing my boat. yes its 4wd...and yes it has shitty gearing to boot.

The last straw for me was going down a flat freeway with a two place snowmobile trailer 1200#'s at most in 3rd gear at red line because if i put it in 4th I couldn't hold 65 mph. 5th gear wasn't an option.

there was something seriously wrong with your 3.0. my truck jerks around my boat (about 1500lbs) like its not even there. overdrive up light hills, no lower than 4th gear on steeper ones...i even pass slower traffic on 2 lane highways with it.

How long would an engine last doing that?

coming though the canadian rockies at about 6500 GCVW, i DID spend a lot of time in 3rd and 4th gears, above 4,500-5,000 RPM (gotta make that HP work for you...torque just creates heat, which is death at low speeds up mountain passes). we averaged 10 driving hours a day, and still averaged around 55 MPH without excessive speeding. if 10 hours over spinning over 4 grand at near full throttle isnt a torture test...im not sure what is...

 

[Rulebreaker]

if you had kept up with the thread, you'd know my truck does 22-24 unloaded on the highway and about 20 in town. 19-20 highway towing my boat. yes its 4wd...and yes it has shitty gearing to boot.



there was something seriously wrong with your 3.0. my truck jerks around my boat (about 1500lbs) like its not even there. overdrive up light hills, no lower than 4th gear on steeper ones...i even pass slower traffic on 2 lane highways with it.



coming though the canadian rockies at about 6500 GCVW, i DID spend a lot of time in 3rd and 4th gears, above 4,500-5,000 RPM (gotta make that HP work for you...torque just creates heat, which is death at low speeds up mountain passes). we averaged 10 driving hours a day, and still averaged around 55 MPH without excessive speeding. if 10 hours over spinning over 4 grand at near full throttle isnt a torture test...im not sure what is...

My guess is the super cab and need of 4x4 engaged. RB

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

who needs 4wd on a flat highway?

and theres less than a 300lb difference in weight between a standard and super cab of the same trim schemes (conveniently, about the weight difference of my boat and his snow machine trailer).