The 3.0 wastes the same fuel as the 4.0?

[stmitch]

The 3.0 was designed in the mid 80's. Engine designs have gotten more advanced since then. What was satisfactory and competitive for mpg and hp figures in the mid 80's seems wasteful and underpowered when compared to newer vehicles.
The newer OHC engines are more efficient, and more powerful, but the added complexity can cause an earlier demise. You won't find many 4.0 SOHC trucks with over 200,000 miles that don't have timing chain rattles or other serious issues. There are several examples of 3.0's going well over 250,000 or 300,000 miles. Mine was chugging right along with 207,xxx when I pulled it to put the supercharged motor in. Other than routine maintenance, and replacing the injectors and cam sync, it never complained. Cheap and easy to work on too!

The other thing to consider about mpg's is the number of configurations they offered Rangers in. Between engine choices, bed options, standard/extended cabs, trans choices, gearing, and 4wd or 2wd. A 4.0 with 4wd, extended cab, and auto trans might weigh 3800lbs, but my 3.0 2wd, regular cab, auto trans is several hundred lbs lighter than that at 3200lbs even with half a tank of fuel, and my junk in the cab.

 

[bigmark303]

I have a 22 mile drive one way to and from work. Ive tested each of my trucks on that drive and that drive alone. No other driving with the one being tested besides that exact rout. I drove the truck for three fill ups and averaged the mileage. All of my trucks are 100% mechanically sound and the drive is mainly what you would call highway. I live in a rural part that has one main road at 50mph with two lights about 12 miles, then I jump on the highway 55mph no lights about 6 miles, then one light and onto the next highway 55mph about 2 miles, one more light and then 30mph for about 2 miles uphill to work.

1997, Extended Cab, 2wd automatic 5R55E, 4.0L, 3:55 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 189,000 miles when tested.

22mpg average

1997, Extended Cab, 2wd automatic 5R55E, 4.0L, 3:55 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 184,000 miles when tested.

23mpg average

1998, Regular cab short bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 2.5L, 4:10 open differential, 25 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear / 31 inch tires 30psi front 20psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 151,000-153,000 miles when tested.

25mpg average 25 inch tires
23mpg average 31 inch tires

1995, Regualr cab extended bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 2.3L, 3:73 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26 psi rear / 32 inch tires 30psi front 20psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 114,000-115,000 miles when tested.

25mpg average 26.5 inch tires
24mpg average 32 inch tires

1998, Regular cab stepside bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 3.0L, 3:73 open differential, 30.6 inch tires 30psi front 25psi rear / 29 inch tires 32psi front 25psi rear / 25 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 146,000-149,000 miles when tested.

22mpg average 25 inch tires
21mpg average 29 inch tires
20mpg average 30.6 inch tires

The 3.0L runs ridiculously smooth like a car engine compared to the 4cyls and 4.0L but im definitely not interested in another one. The powerband is horrible for a truck and the 4.0L OHV engines I had got the same mileage in a heavier model Ranger.

 

[stmitch]

I have a 22 mile drive one way to and from work. Ive tested each of my trucks on that drive and that drive alone. No other driving with the one being tested besides that exact rout. I drove the truck for three fill ups and averaged the mileage. All of my trucks are 100% mechanically sound and the drive is mainly what you would call highway. I live in a rural part that has one main road at 50mph with two lights about 12 miles, then I jump on the highway 55mph no lights about 6 miles, then one light and onto the next highway 55mph about 2 miles, one more light and then 30mph for about 2 miles uphill to work.

1997, Extended Cab, 2wd automatic 5R55E, 4.0L, 3:55 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 189,000 miles when tested.

22mpg average

1997, Extended Cab, 2wd automatic 5R55E, 4.0L, 3:55 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 184,000 miles when tested.

23mpg average

1998, Regular cab short bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 2.5L, 4:10 open differential, 25 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear / 31 inch tires 30psi front 20psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 151,000-153,000 miles when tested.

25mpg average 25 inch tires
23mpg average 31 inch tires

1995, Regualr cab extended bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 2.3L, 3:73 open differential, 26.5 inch tires 32psi front 26 psi rear / 32 inch tires 30psi front 20psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 114,000-115,000 miles when tested.

25mpg average 26.5 inch tires
24mpg average 32 inch tires

1998, Regular cab stepside bed, 2wd automatic 4R44E, 3.0L, 3:73 open differential, 30.6 inch tires 30psi front 25psi rear / 29 inch tires 32psi front 25psi rear / 25 inch tires 32psi front 26psi rear, Regular 87 octane Shell gas, No A/C or heat used, 146,000-149,000 miles when tested.

22mpg average 25 inch tires
21mpg average 29 inch tires
20mpg average 30.6 inch tires

The 3.0L runs ridiculously smooth like a car engine compared to the 4cyls and 4.0L but im definitely not interested in another one. The powerband is horrible for a truck and the 4.0L OHV engines I had got the same mileage in a heavier model Ranger.

That's very interesting, but I have to ask, was the odometer recalibrated for the changes in tire size on each truck? For example, going from something like a 26.5 inch tall tire to a 32 inch tall tire(like what you did on the 95 2.3L) would change the revs per mile, and slow down the odometer which would skew your mileage calculations. Just curious.

 

[bigmark303]

That's very interesting, but I have to ask, was the odometer recalibrated for the changes in tire size on each truck? For example, going from something like a 26.5 inch tall tire to a 32 inch tall tire(like what you did on the 95 2.3L) would change the revs per mile, and slow down the odometer which would skew your mileage calculations. Just curious.

Yes, I didnt forget about that. I adjusted according to the trucks stock tire size in relation to the wheels they had fitted from the factory.

I was as precise as I could be. Not perfect but very very close. Ive gone down to 24" tires on my 3.0l now and its my lightest truck being a single cab short bed with the fiberglass stepside bed. I still cant get better mileage than my 4.0L rangers did. But thats why I always compare mileage of them all, now I know i like the 4.0L the best and second the 2.3L over the 2.5L. And not a fan of the 3.0L as a truck motor at all. Mileage and other reasons.

 

[2wdmuddin]

??? I'm not sure what your talking about. The 2.3L has to work the hardest of all and still kickes but in mpg's. Mind you the 2.3 has slightly smaller tires but still. I think the problem is this vulcan 3.0l engine had very little improvements over the last couple decades. If you want mpgs there's the 2.3, if you want power there's the 4.0L. The 3.0L vulcan seems to offer neither.

Also the newer 2.3 L has almost the same power of the 3.0L. meanwhile all this time the 3.O seems to be an unchanged un-improved motor.
I supose you can look on the bright side and say that you'll save a couple dollar bills at the gas pump compared to the 4.0l. And the fact that it was an initial cheaper purchase price then the 4.0l. But other then that it's obvious why this motor was discontinued. Power and fuel consumption wise this motor has been unchanged for the last 2 decades.

As stmitch said, you can't get the miles out of the sohc as you can out of the 3.0 Vulcan. So that's what the 3L offers, reliability and longevity, I mean you can run the hell out of these motors and they won't let you down as long as you keep water, oil, and gas in it. So yea the 3L gets about the same gas as the 4L and it didn't have many improvements over the years, but it also will last you 2 or 3 times as long and not drain your wallet every time you turn around.

 

[EMB1230]

I had a 97 Taurus, the Vulcan was rated 20/28 in that, and I didn't think that was all that great either especially with how low of a drag coefficient those had. I think the fact that they were heavier than the previous generation was the contributing factor for their so-so highway mileage.

 

[bluebombersfan]

My 2006 ranger vulcan puts out 30lb's of more torque over the 2.3. I have 4.10 gearing. If this same truck had a 2.3 with 4.55 gearing it would tow the same stuff on the highway. That would be an awsome set up. But I don't think I will complain because this vulcan seems to be slightly more durable over the 2.3 and 4.0.