Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[rusty ol ranger]

2.8l - 115hp @ 4,600
2.9l - 140hp @ 4,600
3.0l - 145hp @ 4,800

???

If you put an e-fan on the 2.9l it would be the same as 3.0l with mechanical fan

2.9- 170ftlbs@2600rpm
3.0- 165ftlbs@3600rpm.

Watch that dyno video. The 2.9 is putting 150ish ftlb to the wheels from 2100rpm clear to 5000 or so. The 3.0 just doesnt twist down low like a 2.9. Thats all im trying to point out.

A 2.9 truck will beat a 3.0 in everything besides a 60-80 run, or a flat out top end run. Also the 3.0 does seem to be a bit better on fuel.

 

[8thTon]

Why quote the lower output 3.0 numbers? Mine is 154hp @ 5200rpm - a 10% power increase is noticaeable.

 

[Dirtman]

I have solved it.

 

[Curious Hound]

I have solved it.

View attachment 34724

Can’t argue with that.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Why quote the lower output 3.0 numbers? Mine is 154hp @ 5200rpm - a 10% power increase is noticaeable.

Because that power number i quoted is from the 3.0s that were around when the 2.9 was.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Thats because its in a truck that ford figured a 72hp 2.0L 4 cylinder could adequetly push around.

My running weight is close to a late OBS F-150 curb weight. A 72hp anything need not apply.

Going out to Ohio with the truck running level (with '09 Supercab rear springs)... pretty sure I was heavier than most empty F-150's

 

[Dirtman]

This thread should be merged with the pointless thread. There's literally no point to saying this engine will do ths but only if you have 17 cinder blocks in it and one engine is from 1989 and one is from 1993 and it can't be too sunny and the road must have a 3% grade and a 22% recycled asphalt content at 76.4 degrees feirneight when venus is in retrograde.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

This thread should be merged with the pointless thread. There's literally no point to saying this engine will do ths but only if you have 17 cinder blocks in it and one engine is from 1989 and one is from 1993 and it can't be too sunny and the road must have a 3% grade and a 22% recycled asphalt content at 76.4 degrees feirneight when venus is in retrograde.

Tryin to keep shit fair is all.

Comparing a 2008 3.0 to an 86 2.9 is not fair. If for nothing else just the age/wear factor

 

[Dirtman]

So then one wins! You dont give one engine a handicap cause you dont like the results. Lol

 

[8thTon]

So then one wins! You dont give one engine a handicap cause you dont like the results. Lol

You do when you don't want to recognize that power is power, and you want to ascribe meaning to quantities like torque that are not really there.

Comparing a 2008 3.0 to an 86 2.9 is not fair. If for nothing else just the age/wear factor

The 3.0 ended up making more power than the 2.9 ever did in a Ranger.

 

[Dirtman]

And the duratec beats them both... and the 5.0 beats all 4... and the 351 beats all 5... and... and... and...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[rusty ol ranger]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Have yet to find a good running 2.9 to compare honestly.

Hi.

Have two.

Even tried to bait you with a free axle.

 

[G8orFord]

I read this whole thread and I'm still trying to figure out WTF difference it makes if a 2.9 is better off the line or a 3.0 will smoke it top end. They're both dinosaurs. You can change the camshaft in the 3.0 and make it better off the line. Same goes for the 2.9. Obviously there are other modifications to equal them out as well. What difference does it make? I can build a 300 that will whip your 302, and vice versa.

The fact remains, my 40 feet of timing chain will smoke both in all categories...... except MPG