No 3.0 in new Rangers

[jds3403]

What v8 full size trucks are you talking about? pullin shit out ur ass?
misinformed? I just summed up the history of these motors in about a paragraph sorry if it wasn't detailed for you.
Im glad that you use your truck for whatever you said you used it for I personally didn't finish reading your post as i got bored with your rant.

And by the way this previous post was meant to be sarcastic and humorous So lighten up and buy a 4.0
Have a good one there pablo

 

[pacodiablo]

You didn't sum up the history of anything. Your post really didn't contain anything informative.

And I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. Many optioned out full size trucks have low payload capacities around 1000 lbs. Crew cabs, big engines, 4WD, etc, weigh a lot...that cuts into payload. My I4 Ranger didn't weigh a lot, so it had a payload capacity at the higher end of what you can get with a Ranger and into fullsize territory. That doesn't make me a douche, it just makes you misinformed.

I have owned a 4.0. I've had a 3.0 and 2.5 too. Have you?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What v8 full size trucks are you talking about? pullin shit out ur ass?
misinformed? I just summed up the history of these motors in about a paragraph sorry if it wasn't detailed for you.
Im glad that you use your truck for whatever you said you used it for I personally didn't finish reading your post as i got bored with your rant.

2009 4.6L Supercrew 4x4 has a max payload of 1390, the shorter bed-longer cab trucks don't have the payload of the longer bed trucks because they have increased cab weight eating up the payload capacity.

I have had 1k in the back of my Ranger and it handled it fine... and that is with the weak 2.8. I do think a fullsize would handle the same load better though, just because they are wider and more stable.

And I am happy with my 2.8 when the stinkin carb works right. If I had plans of rebuilding this engine instead of going to a V-8 I would replace the stock one with a aftermarket one and life would be good... except I would still have a A4LD.

 

[jds3403]

You didn't sum up the history of anything. Your post really didn't contain anything informative.

Oh I didn't? Well excuse me for not writing a novel,
Did the 4.0 ohv not have oiling issues in the upper valve train? Did the 4.0 SOHC not have problems with the timing chain? so WTF are you talking about? Im sorry that i didn't explain when the 95tm castings reigned versus the 98tm's.

I have owned a 4.0. I've had a 3.0 and 2.5 too. Have you?

I owned a 98' b2500 5spd. Drove it for a while it was a very good truck I towed my 17 foot bow runner with it and it worked ok. It was good on gas and i didn't have any problems with it until i needed something bigger Sold it
I went and test drove a 2000 ext. cab auto 40k miles with the 3.0.... HA HA HA Two extra cylinders yet it accelerated like a ford aspire!!!! My wife was with me and said "HELL NO". That truck was completely gutless!!!!
I would seriously of been afraid to go down a sandy trail let alone get on the boat ramp. and i know that me trying to keep pace with traffic with that gutless rig would have resulted in heavy petal action and hence forth horrible mileage.
I found another truck which is my daily driver 2000 ranger 4.0 great truck except for the oiling issue. i replaced the cam, lifters and rockers due to the noise and it has been good ever since. This truck is much more powerful than the 3.0 that i drove. i am running 32 11.5's and am returning 19 mpg. not bad might not = a 3.0 but i have the reassurance that my vehicle can move its own fat ass.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

test driving a vehicle doesnt account for shit.

ive had my 3.0 for half a decade and have used it for everything from daily driver, to stump puller, to piano hauler, to toy hauler...and everything in between. i know how to drive it and what its capable of. i return a consistant 24MPG highway (with 31's and poor gearing) and have towed more than the trucks empty weight down the highway with it. its made the trip from alaska to the lower 48 - twice. total mileage is about 130,000 miles but the truck runs like it was built yesterday.

like pacodiablo said, you are gravely misinformed.

if you have such a problem with every engine born in the ranger, why do you own one? better sell it and go get an s-10, stat...you know, because thats such a better truck (insert sarcastic snicker here).

 

[pacodiablo]

Oh I didn't? Well excuse me for not writing a novel,
Did the 4.0 ohv not have oiling issues in the upper valve train? Did the 4.0 SOHC not have problems with the timing chain? so WTF are you talking about? Im sorry that i didn't explain when the 95tm castings reigned versus the 98tm's.

Yes and yes, but despite their issues I wouldn't call them crap. I have seen OHV 4.0 Explorers with 300K on the odo.

I owned a 98' b2500 5spd. Drove it for a while it was a very good truck I towed my 17 foot bow runner with it and it worked ok. It was good on gas and i didn't have any problems with it until i needed something bigger Sold it
I went and test drove a 2000 ext. cab auto 40k miles with the 3.0.... HA HA HA Two extra cylinders yet it accelerated like a ford aspire!!!! My wife was with me and said "HELL NO". That truck was completely gutless!!!!
I would seriously of been afraid to go down a sandy trail let alone get on the boat ramp. and i know that me trying to keep pace with traffic with that gutless rig would have resulted in heavy petal action and hence forth horrible mileage.

I can't say I have had the same issue with my 3.0, though it does have 2WD, decent gears (3.73) and a good transmission (5-speed 5R44E). I deal with Charlotte daily, and the truck has been through almost every large city on the East Coast. But we've gone over that...

I found another truck which is my daily driver 2000 ranger 4.0 great truck except for the oiling issue. i replaced the cam, lifters and rockers due to the noise and it has been good ever since. This truck is much more powerful than the 3.0 that i drove. i am running 32 11.5's and am returning 19 mpg. not bad might not = a 3.0 but i have the reassurance that my vehicle can move its own fat ass.

You bought what works for you, fair enough. I did the same thing.

 

[jds3403]

test driving a vehicle doesnt account for shit.

How the hell does it not account for shit? Thats what usually determines if you like the MF in the first place I am glad ur ass buys what ever you first come into contact with and if that works for you then wow.... I bet you own all of Billy May's shit don't ya.

ive had my 3.0 for half a decade and have used it for everything from daily driver, to stump puller, to piano hauler, to toy hauler...and everything in between. i know how to drive it and what its capable of. i return a consistant 24MPG highway (with 31's and poor gearing) and have towed more than the trucks empty weight down the highway with it. its made the trip from alaska to the lower 48 - twice. total mileage is about 130,000 miles but the truck runs like it was built yesterday

like pacodiablo said, you are gravely misinformed.

No IMO the 3.0 is terribly under powered don't tell me my opinion is wrong and say yours is right thats pretty fuckin arrogant. Thats like sayinig my farts stink and yours don't WTF?

if you have such a problem with every engine born in the ranger, why do you own one? better sell it and go get an s-10, stat...you know, because thats such a better truck (insert sarcastic snicker here).

Obviously ur misinformed cause i didn't mention the 2.8's or the 2.9's in my original rant so how do i have a problem with every engine?

I am a sarcastic **** that likes to poke fun at shit got a problem? Example, if i saw that u had a giant wart on your face i (because it is u) would point it out and laugh and do the whole austin powers thing MAN YOUVE GOT A MOLE MOLEE MOLEE MOLE!!!
it so happens that IMO i think the ranger has the least problems of them all. Its like the elections, you pick the lesser of the evils understand?

 

[jds3403]

Look whatever floats your boat is cool
in the same respect that whatever tickles my pickle is cool too. The 3.0 has it's own place and niche if you found it and are happy that is rare. i am power hungry to begin with and would love a turbo'ed 5.0 set up. So i hate my 4.0 for it's 175-ish hp performance.
Again i like to make fun of all knids of things humor is better that anger
I'll demonstrate FU versus HA HA
I personally like the HA HA better than the FU
COOL?

Have an imaginary beer on me and drink all you want, I'll pick up the imaginary tab.

 

[Kdawg532]

i own a 3.0 and with what i have in it it was dyno'd at 175 hp, and it will pull a burn out from here to california, it will also acclerate from 0-60 in 7.9 seconds thats pretty good (for a vulcan) to me, i have also carried a payload in the bed of 1800 pounds and it still had plenty of power to spare, i have driven SOHC 4.0's they are nothin to brag about but they are pretty nice, i also loved my 2.5 200+K on it when i wrecked

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i own a 3.0 and with what i have in it it was dyno'd at 175 hp

175 on a chassis dyno? i find that a little far fetched for just a cat-back and chip. thatd put you over 200HP at the crank...not likely

 

[Hahnsb2]

175 on a chassis dyno? i find that a little far fetched for just a cat-back and chip. thatd put you over 200HP at the crank...not likely

 

[Kdawg532]

"no at crank that was a tuners "dyno" guestamate i'd say maybe 130 at the wheel at most, BTW how in the world can those things "Calculate" horses??

 

[Kdawg532]

you guys just cant see the 3.0 for what it is i just read all 8 pages and damn it tired me out enough to go to bed, and i agree with everything sludge said cause i have owned a number of 3.0s and all of them have been great engines

 

[red85]

There is a reason we call the 3.0 Vulcan "the Roach". It will go through armageddon like situations and survive to have coffee with Keith Richards.

 

[Timo99]

Yeah it sucks they finally gave up on the Vulcan. They'll be greatly missed.