Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[8thTon]

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

Plus it doubles as a tow chain!

 

[sgtsandman]

My Ecoboost is better until the head bursts or the turbo seizes!

 

[1990RangerinSK]

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

So much for G-rated!

If your 2.8 felt more powerful then the 2.9 your 2.9 was on its deathbed. A 2.9 should (and will) smack around a 2.8 or 3.0.

No, Rusty, the reason the 2.8 felt like it had more power was the transmission behind it. It had the 5-speed TK5(?). Being able to directly transfer power to the wheels (without having to transmit that power through liquid) makes a difference. It had less power, but because it had a manual behind it, it felt more powerful.

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?

Nope. Loser gets sold into slavery. Winner gets the loser as his slave.

Cant do that youll wax the rust off.

That would be bad. The rust is the ONLY thing keeping Rusty's truck from falling apart!

The torque curve/ power band is the most important factor in truck engines. Think 300 six cylinder. We sold a pile of Super Duties with 5.4's and fewer with 6.8's before the 6.2 came out. Trucks with 3.73's often had transmission failures because they were constantly shifting down. The dealer's background was in sales and didn't understand that so he'd order V10 trucks with 3.73's thinking that they didn't need the 4.30's and that it would hurt mileage. That caused the shop a lot of headaches because the V10 torque peak is at a higher RPM than a 5.4. The 3.0 vulcan was a fine engine for a car or a 2wd truck that doesn't have to deal with hilly terrain.

Its like comparing a 300 to a 302.

Under the same load a 302 is going to downshift probably twice as much as a 300, and its not going to have the snort coming off a light like a 300.

Engines are tuned high end nowadays because (from what ive read) its eaiser to control emissions and it gives more passing punch.

Thats why they need 6-10 speed autos so they can afford to drop 3 gears when their empty and spin 5000 up a hill. To me thats unacceptable, and totally stupid. Id rather it stay in OD and torque thru it.

I've had a lot of engines over the years, and climbed some pretty steep hills in them. Even my gutless piece of Justy never ran at 5K rpm climbing steep hills. 4500, yes, but not 5k. My manual Rangers ran 3500-4000. My Fit ran 4500. The Focus (with the Z-Tec) ran 2800 on the highway at 70mph. Climbing steep hills, it ran 3500-4000.

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.

The article I quoted last night says this: Horsepower is what really matters. You could have an engine with 1,000 pound feet of torque, but if it only has 60 HP, it's got nothing. Torque is the engine's ability to work. Horsepower is how fast the engine can do the work.

The bottom line is this: if you're talking about accelerating fast, you want horsepower, NOT torque.

 

[Snoranger]

Wartsila Sulzer RTA96-C 14 cylinder Diesel engine, the largest single diesel unit in the world. The engine delivers a maximum power of 108,920hp at 102rpm and a maximum torque of 5,608,312lb/ft at 102rpm.

For some applications, torque is more important then horsepower.

 

[Bgunner]

All of the talk is moot till you take the same exact truck with the same exact transmission behind the each motor, meaning swap motors and test, and you get quantifiable results between the 2.9 and 3.0. You need the same curb weight, trans and gearing to make any test like this mean anything. I could through my little highway beater on track and loose to a 2.9 with 4.10 gears but turn around and swap the gearing around and get different results. If the trucks are not identical the test is skewed one way or another.

Other than entertainment the majority of this test discussion has lost sight of this fact. The only real way to test this is to swap motors out of the same truck using same trans and axles. Even then you need to figure in air temps and track conditions per day, well unless some one has 2 identical trucks willing to put different motors in and weight match them.

I want to see it!!! Can We? Can we?


EDIT: is there a trans that can bolt to both out there? I'm thinking factory for 2 trucks but a single one could be any I guess.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

All of the talk is moot till you take the same exact truck with the same exact transmission behind the each motor, meaning swap motors and test, and you get quantifiable results between the 2.9 and 3.0. You need the same curb weight, trans and gearing to make any test like this mean anything. I could through my little highway beater on track and loose to a 2.9 with 4.10 gears but turn around and swap the gearing around and get different results. If the trucks are not identical the test is skewed one way or another.

Other than entertainment the majority of this test discussion has lost sight of this fact. The only real way to test this is to swap motors out of the same truck using same trans and axles. Even then you need to figure in air temps and track conditions per day, well unless some one has 2 identical trucks willing to put different motors in and weight match them.

I want to see it!!! Can We? Can we?


EDIT: is there a trans that can bolt to both out there? I'm thinking factory for 2 trucks but a single one could be any I guess.

Don't f***ing tempt me. I have too many projects already.

 

[Josh B]

I recall a fella having a Honda 125, and another guy having one just a bit bigger. They decided to race their bikes and the guy with the 125 won.
After some snorting around they agreed to swap bikes. The fella with the 125 won both races

 

[Dirtman]

It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. Also he got a race car.

 

[Josh B]

It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter, while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came, and the grasshopper died, and the octopus ate all his acorns. Also he got a race car.

then he got eaten by a shark, who took his racecar, so what's the moral of your story?

 

[Dirtman]

Race cars are neat.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

So much for G-rated!



No, Rusty, the reason the 2.8 felt like it had more power was the transmission behind it. It had the 5-speed TK5(?). Being able to directly transfer power to the wheels (without having to transmit that power through liquid) makes a difference. It had less power, but because it had a manual behind it, it felt more powerful.

Eveb with an auto a 2.9 should eat a 2.8.

That would be bad. The rust is the ONLY thing keeping Rusty's truck from falling apart!

Actually underneath my truck is very solid. Pry cause its mostly coated in oil.

I've had a lot of engines over the years, and climbed some pretty steep hills in them. Even my gutless piece of Justy never ran at 5K rpm climbing steep hills. 4500, yes, but not 5k. My manual Rangers ran 3500-4000. My Fit ran 4500. The Focus (with the Z-Tec) ran 2800 on the highway at 70mph. Climbing steep hills, it ran 3500-4000.

The comment i made about that was more aimed at modern fullsizes. Id rather have my 460 stay in O/D at 2000rpm up a hill then have a 6.2L or whatever that has to drop 2 gears and smash ridiculious RPMS.

The article I quoted last night says this: Horsepower is what really matters. You could have an engine with 1,000 pound feet of torque, but if it only has 60 HP, it's got nothing. Torque is the engine's ability to work. Horsepower is how fast the engine can do the work.

The bottom line is this: if you're talking about accelerating fast, you want horsepower, NOT torque.

Thats only partially true.

HP means very little untill you get rolling good. Torque is what sets the stuff in motion. HP keeps it moving, torque gets it moving. The HP vs TQ thing is pretty mute in this debate though seeing as how both engines are very close in peak numbers.

What matters here is the torque curve. The 2.9 is beating the 3.0 all the way thru its rev range for torque and im sure the 3.0s whole 5hp advantage doesnt happen untill your up around time to shift anyways. Its just a paper victory.

The 2.9 wins this. Either way you slice it.

 

[8thTon]

HP means very little untill you get rolling good. Torque is what sets the stuff in motion. HP keeps it moving, torque gets it moving.

This is just a cute expression you like because it supports your desired conclusion, there is no science behind it at all. Power is what does work, and it’s the shape of the power curve that matters. Torque is just something convenient to measure on the way to figuring out power.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

This is just a cute expression you like because it supports your desired conclusion, there is no science behind it at all. Power is what does work, and it’s the shape of the power curve that matters. Torque is just something convenient to measure on the way to figuring out power.

So if torque dont matter then a 3.5EB making 425hp and 470ftlbs of torque should be able to pull the same load a semi with 425hp and 1300ftlbs of torque right?

Right.

Furthermore the only reason HP gets advertised over torque (generally) is the fact that HP is easy for the general public to invision. Everyone knows what a horse is. Even though 1 horse can generate more the 1hp.

 

[88workcar]

I definitely don't have the education on all of these trucks but I will put my 01 3.0 up against any one of them in the 1/8th or 1/4. That vid with the 3.0 is no where close to how mine runs. And for the record, Louisiana isn't flat either...………. wait...…… I better take that back lol....

 

[Locotomb]

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?

Agreed all the way. A good running 2.9l is like night and day compared to a leaky vacuum/rotted harness 2.9l. And the power is there instantly with the low power band. Oh and BTW, It's not nice to drug a porch. they'd give you a year or more over here for something like that.!!.....(long pause)....It sounded funnier in my head.