Pros/Cons of 3.0 Vulcan V6

[sheep herder]

Why is there no romulan 3.0?

There is but it's running the cloaking device and can't be seen.

 

[Bgunner]

Why is there no romulan 3.0?

I believe that is what @ericbphoto is building at the moment...

 

[Zachsdad69]

I agree with PetroleumJunkie412 that the engine choice will depend on what you do with it. For a daily driver a 3.0 or 4.0 will be fine with regular maintenance with plenty of every day power to haul the trucks designed weight limits but if you are looking for show or a weekend cruise vehicle other options, V8 swaps, will give the best performance for that type of driving. If you live in snow country stay with stock options for an everyday driver since a V8 and no weight in the rear will make it almost impossible to drive safely in the winter.

While many think the 3.0 is slow it has the power to be a good engine as long as it is geared so the horse power and torque are in a usable range for the work load. These motors are really as useful as a 4 cylinder under 2500 RPM's stock but above that is where they shine... not so useful for a truck that should have the torque in the low RPMs and the HP in the low to mid RPM range. The 4.0 solved that issue being built as a truck engine but has some very weird quirks to go with it.




EDIT: Turbo's: these are great for cars, diesels or race cars/trucks this is because of what is called turbo lag. This is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up and produce air pressure to be forced into the engine. The biggest issue is that there is only 4 cylinder power to break inertia from a dead stop without either having a standard trans ( needing to slip the clutch a lot to control the power or basically power breaking to get the turbo to spool in an automatic... I believe the standard trans is not an option at the moment for the new ranger (?).

While turbos have there place in every day driving the engine must have enough torque to get the weight moving to start with before the turbo cna help produce any extra torque or horse power.


Try driving a turbo'd vehicle with the turbo disabled and you will understand what I am taking about.

Ok, will do.

 

[88workcar]

Now that my 01 single cab, 3.0 is running correct again, it impresses me every time I drive it. I had a hot head pass me yesterday while I was just holding speed on the hwy. Well … I caught up to him at the red light. I cut a .001 on his ass and pulled off to both of our surprise and chocked it up as a win LOL. I like this 3.0

 

[sgtsandman]

The 2.3 ecoboost is not a good option unless you have money and lots of fabrication skills. There is a thread on a shop doing the work and even though they don’t come out and say it, the project screams money and lots of fab work.

If you are going to go turbo, a 2.3 from a Thunderbird is going to be cheaper and much easier.

As far as other engine swaps, others with more knowledge will have to chip in with what works and what is needed.

Me personally, I would stick with the engine it came with and go from there.

 

[8thTon]

EDIT: Turbo's: these are great for cars, diesels or race cars/trucks this is because of what is called turbo lag. This is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up and produce air pressure to be forced into the engine. The biggest issue is that there is only 4 cylinder power to break inertia from a dead stop without either having a standard trans ( needing to slip the clutch a lot to control the power or basically power breaking to get the turbo to spool in an automatic... I believe the standard trans is not an option at the moment for the new ranger (?).

While turbos have there place in every day driving the engine must have enough torque to get the weight moving to start with before the turbo cna help produce any extra torque or horse power.

This is really pretty much obsolete. Modern small turbos are designed to fill in the bottom end power, and lag is mostly a thing of the past.

 

[88workcar]

Wife had a 15 Eco Mustang and now a Escape, both pull hard from a stop.

 

[adsm08]

Hope this engine will last him 100k . After that he can buy what he wishes as long he can pay for it. What you think about the new ranger and it's powerplant little turbo!

I am wary of all of the turbo 4-cylinders right now. We are having coolant consumption issues on the 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0. The 2.3 hasn't been a common engine in a lot of vehicles yet. I somewhat suspect it will develop the same problem as it shares the architecture.

Why is there no romulan 3.0?

There is. The DOHC one, just nobody talks about it.

 

[adsm08]

EDIT: Turbo's: these are great for cars, diesels or race cars/trucks this is because of what is called turbo lag. This is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up and produce air pressure to be forced into the engine. The biggest issue is that there is only 4 cylinder power to break inertia from a dead stop without either having a standard trans ( needing to slip the clutch a lot to control the power or basically power breaking to get the turbo to spool in an automatic... I believe the standard trans is not an option at the moment for the new ranger (?).

While turbos have there place in every day driving the engine must have enough torque to get the weight moving to start with before the turbo cna help produce any extra torque or horse power.


Try driving a turbo'd vehicle with the turbo disabled and you will understand what I am taking about.

I've driven a Cruze with the turbo toasted, and you are right, it can't get out of it's own way. I've also driven a 2.0 Edge with the boost pressure bypass stuck open, so while the turbo still spools all the boost is directed out of the system. That wasn't as bad, but still noticeable.

However if you drive one of the Ecoboost vehicles with a scanner watching boost pressure those turbos are spooling before 1500 RPM. Since they idle at 7-800, they are spooling just a hair off idle. The F-150s actually got rid of the 3.7 and the NA 3.5 is the base engine now, so there you do have an engine that can handle the vehicle without boost.

 

[Curious Hound]

I believe that is what @ericbphoto is building at the moment...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

RBV Engine Hiarchy...

2.9L
2.8L
4.0LOHV
2.3 Lima
2.3 Duratech
4.0 SOHC
2.3 mitsu turbo diesel
2.2 Perkins diesel
2.0L









3.0L.


Just my opinion.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

RBV Engine Hiarchy...

2.9L
2.8L
4.0LOHV
2.3 Lima
2.3 Duratech
4.0 SOHC
2.3 mitsu turbo diesel
2.2 Perkins diesel
2.0L









3.0L.


Just my opinion.

Ya got the first two backwards there...

 

[sgtsandman]

RBV Engine Hiarchy...

2.9L
2.8L
4.0LOHV
2.3 Lima
2.3 Duratech
4.0 SOHC
2.3 mitsu turbo diesel
2.2 Perkins diesel
2.0L









3.0L.


Just my opinion.

No love for the 2.5 Lima?

 

[Curious Hound]

RBV Engine Hiarchy...

2.9L
2.8L
4.0LOHV
2.3 Lima
2.3 Duratech
4.0 SOHC
2.3 mitsu turbo diesel
2.2 Perkins diesel
2.0L









3.0L.


Just my opinion.

Saved the best for last! Thank you.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

RBV Engine Hiarchy...

2.9L
2.5 lima
2.3 lima
2.8L
2.3 Duratech
2.3 mitsu turbo diesel
2.2 Perkins diesel
4.0 OHV
2.0L









3.0L.












4.0 SOHC


Just my opinion.

FIFY