Ranger Confirmed Through 2011

[rboyer]

I love the 3.0 engine. I think it is probably the best thing Ford ever put out as far as reliability. The last vehicle with a 3.0 that I owned was an Aerostar with an M5OD trans and it had almost 300,000 miles on it when I took it to the junkyard and the only reason I took it there was because the body rot was WAY too excessive to even consider repairing. Right now I have a Windstar with a 3.8 in it which I drive from time to time and i'm seriously thinking about getting rid of it before I experience any more motor or trans problems.

 

[koda6966]

I love the 3.0 engine. I think it is probably the best thing Ford ever put out as far as reliability. The last vehicle with a 3.0 that I owned was an Aerostar with an M5OD trans and it had almost 300,000 miles on it when I took it to the junkyard and the only reason I took it there was because the body rot was WAY too excessive to even consider repairing. Right now I have a Windstar with a 3.8 in it which I drive from time to time and i'm seriously thinking about getting rid of it before I experience any more motor or trans problems.

Don't blame tranny problems on the 3.8, the trannys in fords nowdays are for shit.

 

[reginald fairfield]

Don't blame tranny problems on the 3.8, the trannys in fords nowdays are for shit.

he's right.

 

[rboyer]

i'm not blaming tranny problems on the 3.8, i'm blaming the AX series trans for that. As for the 3.8 i'm blaming their poorly designed intakes for my dislike of them. It is not uncommon to see a 99-up 3.8 throw a "system too lean" code.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Yeah, 3.8's are not at all related to a 302 or 5.0L and I know very few people that put them anywhere near the top of ford's engine list. Have you ever driven a 4.0L ranger? The low end torque would make you swear it's got a V8 if you're used to a 3.0. It took 12 psi of intercooled boost on a 3.8 to make roughly the same horsepower and a little more torque than a 4.0 SOHC. Factor in that the 4.0's don't have headgasket eating issues and most would agree the 4.0 is far superior to a 3.8. Plus the 4.0s actually came in the ranger.

I like the 3.0's too for their reliability, longevity, and the fun of winding one out. I do think the 2.3 is probably a bit better in terms of longetivity. I've seen and heard about several more 300,000+ mile 2.3s than 3.0s.

I too am interested to see what Ford does with the engine line-up for the Ranger. The 2.3 is current, the 3.0 is not availible past 08, and the 4.0 is scheduled to end production next year when the Mustang and Explorer get the 3.5. Hopefully they put the 3.5 in the ranger. A 3.5 will eat a 4.0 Cologne and probably get better mileage than a 3.0 Vulcan. I know the 3.5 Duratech Taurus gets better mileage than the 3.0 Duratech Fusion.

 

[dude772]

I talked to one of the older sales guys at work. He said they are going to have the 4.0L in everything but the regular cab rangers.

 

[Simple_serf]

I wouldn't wish a 3.8 on anyone. I had a windstar...It ate coolant and headgaskets for breakfast. With a whole 60K miles too. Ford refused to do anything about it, the problem occured too late, even though it was recalled. I saw that van last night...It's now on it's 3rd engine.

I have a 3.0 in our taurus (one of the last old school tauruses made, 07 Fleet vehicle). I want to get a ranger with one, but I have other places I need to put my $$ now (like passing inspection)

 

[RANGER 07]

Now ,if only Ford would test/change the tranny, before it did come out of 'PRODUCTION',
..now that will be a perfect pick up for me...sigh

 

[reginald fairfield]

Don't get me wrong either, I have nothing against the 4.0 engines. The only thing I really don't like about them in the OHC. I have never worked on a motor with those, only pushrods. That is why I like the 3.0. Yeah, it is pretty nutless for a v6, but that is the tradeoff. The less power you have, the more the motor will tend to last a long time. Most of the time, anyways. That is why 460's only last about 100,000 miles in a lot of cases.

Didn't the 4.0 that used to come in rangers back in the day have pushrods? How did that one run?

My mom used to have an early explorer that had a 4.0, I think it had pushrods... It always ran pretty good.

 

[exbass94]

The OHV 4.0 has pushrods. They came in Explorers and Rangers from 1991 till around 2001. My OHV has 140k trouble-free miles.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 4.0 OHC is a pretty good engine, it had some teething problems out of the hole at first but they have been long worked out.

Considering the 4.0 lineage started out as a V-4 and slowly evolved to its current state, making too much power for its package hasn't been too much of a problem yet, they have done a good job of building it for each evolution (aside from the cylinder heads on the 2.9)

 

[Rulebreaker]

i'm not blaming tranny problems on the 3.8, i'm blaming the AX series trans for that. As for the 3.8 i'm blaming their poorly designed intakes for my dislike of them. It is not uncommon to see a 99-up 3.8 throw a "system too lean" code.

The system too lean is stupid simple to fix. The EGR ports under the upper plastic intake will slowly plug until all the exhaust gas goes to one cylinder causing the code. Just pop the cover off and clean. If they were driven harder it probably wouldn't happen. RB

 

[crazy96863]

I stand corrected on the 3.8 being the same as the 5.0. It does share many common characteristics that the 5.0 has... see the 3.8 swap in the tech library.

I have personally owned a 1990 Ranger 4x4 with the 4.0 and a 1997 Explorer with a 4.0 SOHC. The Ranger made lots of power and gobbs of usable torque however, the Explorer would smoke it on the track. That S.O.B. would run like a scolded dog! The power was comparable to v-8s of the time but weighed allot less.

The old 4.0 were rated for 165-170 HP, the SOHC push 205-210. Not sure here but I think they still sell both in various applications.

My experience was the SOHC was not as reliable as the regular version though. The first time it got hot, it fried just about every sensor and perhaps more. I saw the block on my 1990 Ranger get cherry red a few times and it still ran strong. I beat it until the tranny started slipping then I got a 96 Bronco. Good truck to.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have never heard of a engine getting hot and frying sensers...

Somewhere around 2001 they pulled the plug on the 4.0 OHV. SOHC is pretty much the same engine with different cylinder heads and a more interesting timing chain setup.

My parents have both, a '94 4.0 Explorer XLT and a '02 Explorer XLT. The '94 got a new computer after leaving us stranded once with about 100k on it, as it sits it has 170k on it. The '02 has 77k on it and has required absolutly nothing... and would happily turn the '94 inside out.

 

[crazy96863]

I have never heard of a engine getting hot and frying sensers...

Somewhere around 2001 they pulled the plug on the 4.0 OHV. SOHC is pretty much the same engine with different cylinder heads and a more interesting timing chain setup.

My parents have both, a '94 4.0 Explorer XLT and a '02 Explorer XLT. The '94 got a new computer after leaving us stranded once with about 100k on it, as it sits it has 170k on it. The '02 has 77k on it and has required absolutly nothing... and would happily turn the '94 inside out.

I don't know how she did it but my wife was driving the exploder when it overheated because of the thermostat went bad. The computer actually shut it down on her. She obviously wasn't paying attention to the gauges.

I changed the O2 sensors, plugs, wires, reset the computer and had a mechanic look at it. It ran but it had considerably less power. It would sputter around randomly as well with a check engine light. I finally had enough & got rid of it. It was to small for my family anyway. (4 seater).

There may have been some mechanical issues with it but I couldn't find anything. No noise, no leaks, good compression. My assumption here is it was an electronic issue.