Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[Uncle Gump]

It reminds me of this....

 

[gw33gp]

I have never driven a 3.0 powered ranger but drove an 89 STX 2.9 for 13 years. I can say it was a decent engine but strong is no where in my definition of it. I towed my race car all over the country and did a lot of traveling on the Interstates on vacations. I never considered it a torquey engine. I had to keep it around 3,000 rpm or higher when climbing hills to keep from dropping out of the power band.

My wife hated to drive my Ranger because she would usually kill it when taking out from stop because it had a manual transmission. It was not because she didn't know how to drive a stick, her car also had a manual transmission. It did have a 31" tires but I had 4.10 gears installed in it to accommodate the taller tires. It just didn't have good low end grunt.

When towing my race car I tried to make sure I would never stop on an incline uphill because it was a struggle to get it going again. I learned that if I did have to take out on an incline when towing, I would drop it in low range and drive until I got to nearly level again, then stop put it in high range and continue on. It was not easy to get it going from a stop while towing even on level ground.

I still think it was a good engine. I had just shy of 200K miles on it when I sold it to a coworker. It still ran like new and consumed no more oil than it new when new. It would use a quart in 4K to 5K miles. I never had any major problems with the engine. I did replace the valve cover gaskets at around 90K miles. Other stuff was what I considered maintenance. I can't say it got great gas mileage but it was decent. My wife could get over 20 mpg on the highways during long trips but I was lucky to get 18 when I drove it. I got about 15 mpg around town.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I have never driven a 3.0 powered ranger but drove an 89 STX 2.9 for 13 years. I can say it was a decent engine but strong is no where in my definition of it. I towed my race car all over the country and did a lot of traveling on the Interstates on vacations. I never considered it a torquey engine. I had to keep it around 3,000 rpm or higher when climbing hills to keep from dropping out of the power band.

My wife hated to drive my Ranger because she would usually kill it when taking out from stop because it had a manual transmission. It was not because she didn't know how to drive a stick, her car also had a manual transmission. It did have a 31" tires but I had 4.10 gears installed in it to accommodate the taller tires. It just didn't have good low end grunt.

When towing my race car I tried to make sure I would never stop on an incline uphill because it was a struggle to get it going again. I learned that if I did have to take out on an incline when towing, I would drop it in low range and drive until I got to nearly level again, then stop put it in high range and continue on. It was not easy to get it going from a stop while towing even on level ground.

I still think it was a good engine. I had just shy of 200K miles on it when I sold it to a coworker. It still ran like new and consumed no more oil than it new when new. It would use a quart in 4K to 5K miles. I never had any major problems with the engine. I did replace the valve cover gaskets at around 90K miles. Other stuff was what I considered maintenance. I can't say it got great gas mileage but it was decent. My wife could get over 20 mpg on the highways during long trips but I was lucky to get 18 when I drove it. I got about 15 mpg around town.

If you thought the 2.9 was weak down low then you would have sold the 3.0 truck.

 

[fastpakr]

 

[19Walt93]

Assuming you had 235/75x15's before going to 31's: Dividing the 662 revs per mile of the 31's by the 724 revs the 235's were turning = .914, then multiple that by your 4.10 ratio and it will act like a 3.74 ratio with 235 tires. If it had 3.73's before the gear swap you broke even.

 

[8thTon]

I have never driven a 3.0 powered ranger but drove an 89 STX 2.9 for 13 years. I can say it was a decent engine but strong is no where in my definition of it. I towed my race car all over the country and did a lot of traveling on the Interstates on vacations. I never considered it a torquey engine. I had to keep it around 3,000 rpm or higher when climbing hills to keep from dropping out of the power band.

My wife hated to drive my Ranger because she would usually kill it when taking out from stop because it had a manual transmission. It was not because she didn't know how to drive a stick, her car also had a manual transmission. It did have a 31" tires but I had 4.10 gears installed in it to accommodate the taller tires. It just didn't have good low end grunt.

When towing my race car I tried to make sure I would never stop on an incline uphill because it was a struggle to get it going again. I learned that if I did have to take out on an incline when towing, I would drop it in low range and drive until I got to nearly level again, then stop put it in high range and continue on. It was not easy to get it going from a stop while towing even on level ground.

I still think it was a good engine. I had just shy of 200K miles on it when I sold it to a coworker. It still ran like new and consumed no more oil than it new when new. It would use a quart in 4K to 5K miles. I never had any major problems with the engine. I did replace the valve cover gaskets at around 90K miles. Other stuff was what I considered maintenance. I can't say it got great gas mileage but it was decent. My wife could get over 20 mpg on the highways during long trips but I was lucky to get 18 when I drove it. I got about 15 mpg around town.

When I was young and dumb(er) we towed my wife's race car with a '90 F150 with a 302 & 5spd. Lots of hills going to Watkins Glenn and Summit Point, and the 302 was barely capable - it only worked thanks to the manual trans. Doing that with a 2.9 Ranger sounds like a whole different adventure!

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Wow! I finally finished reading the thread here. Wasn't expecting it to get this lively. You guys are awesome!

So I'm guessing this challenge will happen at the next meet up? ?

 

[Uncle Gump]

I'm guessing this thread caused Rusty to short circuit and he blew a couple fuses.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

It reminds me of the 45 vs 9mm debates I've read.

Been enjoying it honestly.

 

[91stranger]

This is great. Rusty is in denial. The one person who owned a 2.9 and a 3.0 even said the 3.0 was better than the 2.9. GW33GP said it best. The 2.9 couldn't pull a trailer from a dead stop... And to say being at 5k going uphill is bad is just ridiculous.... 5k is not that high when talking about RPM's and my ranger likes high rev's. I couldn't tell you how many times I've held the throttle (in park) and just let the engine bounce off the rev limiter. Never hurt the engine (that's what rev limilters are for, so you don't damage your engine). And to go as far as saying you could beat a 3.0 with a plug wire pulled is far from true. A good running truck is a good running truck. Mine (even with the rear end ef'd up) I can get in it, haul ass up to 70, 80, 90 mph like it's nothing where as how long would it take Rusty's 2.9 to hit 90mph? Don't forget mine doesn't have many miles (126k) and was owner by an older gentlemen before me so it's never been abused until I got it. Still up for the challenge if anyone is near the Mansfield area.

 

[Dirtman]

Let's all just go hug this out in my basement...

 

[Snoranger]

Rusty took some time away to go work on his 2.9L... When he gets back he’s going to stomp on all your 3.0ls.

 

[88workcar]

Rusty took some time away to go work on his 2.9L... When he gets back he’s going to stomp on all your 3.0ls.

I'll be the Huckleberry

 

[8thTon]

Let's all just go hug this out in my basement...

Isn't that where you keep the furnace/commode?

 

[sgtsandman]

It reminds me of the 45 vs 9mm debates I've read.

Been enjoying it honestly.

10mm is better.