Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[rusty ol ranger]

I'm going with the 3.0 on all scales. Not sure why rusty doesn't think the 3.0 can pull a load because they definitely can. Mine pulls my 700 lb trailer FULLY LOADED with heavy ass fire wood like nothing. It honestly drives nice with a trailer. I've passed people going 55 with a fully loaded trailer. The only thing the 3.0 lacks is take off but makes up for it with high revs. I definitely want to see a 2.9 vs 3.0 matchup. Doesn't matter if the 3.0 was used in a Taurus as well as a ranger because they used the 3.0 for 17 years for an obvious reason.... It did the job. Once I get the axle swapped it will be ready to go so I could help put some times on board.

I never said a 3.0 cant pull.

It just....wont pull as good as a 2.9.

Plus lets not forget an 86/87 2.9 is likely to be paired with the TK 5 with its pretty low (3.96:1) 1st. This coupled with the 2.9s strong low powerband makes things look real bad for a 3.0.

The 2.9 was killed because it was only used in the ranger by 92, it wasnt as refined as the 3.0, and most people bought a 4 banger or 4.0 anyways.

I had a trailer back in the day with 5 ft sides, roughly 5 or 6ft wide and 7 or so feet long, id HEAP that with firewood and shove the bed full as well, and the little 2.9 never gave a whimper.

Ive also hauled 27 bundles of ashphalt shingles IN THE BED of rusty #1, still ran 5th gear all the way home without complaint.

Ive drug cement porches, wedged broncos (long story), and all sorts of other things a ranger pry shouldnt of done. Never once did i ever feel the 2.9 didnt perform.

Ill give the 3.0 credit, like i said, they do ok. But a 2.9 is just better suited to truck duty and gives way more ass kick on an empty dead start.

Have you ever driven a good running 2.9?

 

[Grumpaw]

To the OPs question... I'd rather watch snails fornicate.

Have fun watching...
Grumpaw

 

[Uncle Gump]

I think @rusty ol ranger and @91stranger is the match up of the century... but it needs to be head to head with video.

What would be the prize the winner would receive... making the loser wash and wax the winners truck?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I think @rusty ol ranger and @91stranger is the match up of the century... but it needs to be head to head with video.

What would be the prize the winner would receive... making the loser wash and wax the winners truck?

Cant do that youll wax the rust off.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Cant do that youll wax the rust off.

I dont think '91's truck is that rusty so no worries there.

 

[Uncle Gump]

Cant do that youll wax the rust off.

Understood... you two wouldn't want to lose the patina.

How about... a bumper sticker the loser would have to put on their truck? We can vote on the best saying... I'll start...

My viberater is is powered by a Ford ___. Insert the proper displacement of winning engine.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

96 3.0 Automatic

90 2.9 Automatic (Half throttle start, says in description)

87 2.9/5sp

Pretty clear winner(s) here.

I dont think '91's truck is that rusty so no worries there.

His isnt stock either is it?

Ill gladly hammer all over any stock 3.0 that is up to the challenge.

 

[stmitch]

Theres no contest here. The 3.0 is a mid-high RPM range engine designed to be used in taurus's, its designed to be smooth, quiet, efficent, and to take groceries home.

The 2.9 while in europe a car engine, the 'murican 2.9 was giving a tottally different intake for more efficent cylinder filling at low rpms. This is why euro 2.9s are making 20hp more then the american ones. But the american ones have a flatter torque curve.

I'm tired of the "3.0 is a car engine that has to rev, so it can't be good in a truck" mindset. If your definition of a naturally aspirated, proper truck engine means peak torque below 3000 rpm, I've got some bad news for you because they haven't designed one of those for over 30 years. Probably more like 40 years now since one was designed.

Every LS, new Hemi, etc has done just fine at "truck things" in millions of trucks and large SUVs and they all have peak torque over 4000rpm. The highest peak torque for any 3.0 was 3950rpm. And these are 2 valve, pushrod engines not OHV stuff like Mod motors, which naturally sacrifice bottom end for revs (and still did plenty of truck stuff).

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I'm tired of the "3.0 is a car engine that has to rev, so it can't be good in a truck" mindset. If your definition of a naturally aspirated, proper truck engine means peak torque below 3000 rpm, I've got some bad news for you because they haven't designed one of those for over 30 years. Probably more like 40 years now since one was designed.

Every LS, new Hemi, etc has done just fine at "truck things" in millions of trucks and large SUVs and they all have peak torque over 4k rpm. And these are 2 valve, pushrod engines not OHV stuff like Mod motors, which naturally sacrifice bottom end for revs (and still did plenty of truck stuff).

RPMs are hard on shit and im not saying the 2.9 or the 3.0 are ever going to be put into stump puller catagory. Im just saying the 2.9 has a better powerband.

Oh and last i checked anyone looking to do "real truck stuff" with a modern fullsize buys a diesel....why? Low end torque.

Oh and just for fun....the same 87 from the video above on a dyno....look at the torque curve. Plus it had 218k on it.

 

[19Walt93]

As a Ford service manager for 35 years I've driven many Rangers with 2.8, 2.9, 3.0, 4.0 ohv & sohc v6's, and 4 cylinders. I liked the 2.8 until the 2.9 was introduced, it ran better had more power and didn't have solid lifters.(try selling a valve adjustment to a customer who doesn't know that tick shouldn't be there). The 2.9's leaked oil at the valve covers and intake manifolds until Ford gave up on cork gaskets and some would crack heads if they were badly overheated- customers would say "sure the gauge went up but it still ran fine so I drove home". I liked the 3.0 in Taurus's once we got the piston slap fixed in the 86's and the broken head bolts fixed in the 87's but was sorely disappointed when I drove one in a Ranger. With 4.10's and an automatic they were underpowered, with a stick they were unpowered. I'd like to see the 0-60 test run uphill. I liked the 4.0 ohv really well once we got all the oil leaks fixed- Ford forgot how the cork gaskets worked in the 2.9 apparently. I notice that most of the 3.0 fans are from relatively flat states, NH isn't flat. A friend is a retired airline pilot, he told me if you ironed NH and Vt out flat they'd be bigger than Texas but he might have been exagerating.

 

[8thTon]

Who cares what rpm the engine makes it's peak power at? Gear it properly and it doesn't make any difference. If you've got an engine that isn't matched to the gearing then it will be a dog, but where is the surprise there? My 3.0 is 154hp and it's well matched to the 4.10 rear and transmission gears - it pulls well in a light std cab truck. It makes almost exactly 3/4 the power of a SOHC 4.0 with a very similar power curve shape, so it's no slouch.

Engines don't know what kind of vehicles they were designed for, they're bits of metal bolted together. A 2.9 derived from a 1.2L V4 intended for a tiny car - does that make it a "truck engine"?

Two cast iron bock & head 2valve pushrod 60deg V6's of almost identical displacement. It comes down to port & manifold shapes, combustion chambers, valve sizes and cam profiles. The 2.9 has a larger bore vs stroke so it should have the capability of bigger valves, but I'm not sure that it actually does. The problem with the 2.9 in my view is the antiquated valve train and lubrication system, and the half-assed attempt to retofit hydraulic lifters.

 

[8thTon]

I notice that most of the 3.0 fans are from relatively flat states, NH isn't flat. A friend is a retired airline pilot, he told me if you ironed NH and Vt out flat they'd be bigger than Texas but he might have been exagerating.

Eastern PA is not flat - I have two major ridges to cross on my commute. The 3.0 is never even working on that drive, and I don't drive slow. Then again the transmission shifts very well and keeps the engine in the power band as it should.

 

[stmitch]

RPMs are hard on shit and im not saying the 2.9 or the 3.0 are ever going to be put into stump puller catagory. Im just saying the 2.9 has a better powerband.

And I'm saying that if it really was a "better powerband", every automaker around would've kept making low rpm engines. Instead, they all invested billions into new engine designs that did the exact opposite. Gearing matters.

I realize that area under the curve matters a lot more than peak numbers or where the peak occurs. I'm just saying that peak torque rpm shouldn't determine whether an engine is good at truck stuff or not. It's only a single part of the entire system.

As another fun exercise, GM's 8.1 probably has the lowest peak torque rpm of any naturally aspirated engine designed in the fairly recent past. They're exclusively work engines put into heavy duty trucks. It made peak torque of 440ft-lbs at 3200rpm or 54.3ft-lbs/L of displacement. That 96 3.0 I mentioned made 162ft-lbs for 54ft-lbs/L. If the 96 3.0 had simply been scaled up to 8.1L, it would've had 437.4ft-lbs @3250rpm. That's not enough difference in either category for anybody to notice from the driver's seat.

 

[19Walt93]

I've driven as far west in Pa as State College/Bellefonte. Relative to NH it's flat. An automatic transmission works best with a 3.0 because a stick doesn't have a torque convertor and depends on the driver to shift down. You also have a 2wd which is lighter than a 4x4 because your winters are much milder than ours- during my daughter's decade in Pa she only had one winter where snow lasted more than a day before it melted. Our dealer never stocked 2wd trucks because we sold so few of them.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Eastern PA is not flat - I have two major ridges to cross on my commute. The 3.0 is never even working on that drive, and I don't drive slow. Then again the transmission shifts very well and keeps the engine in the power band as it should.

Everybody thinks Iowa is flat too, the bottom third is more like the stereotypical Missouri with rolling hills.

And really for the tire and gear I was running my 2.8 was adequate. It would be neat to run into one that wasn't dying to compare.