Unexpected side effect from the talk here.

[Saddle Tramp]

Does anyone else want to see a 2.9 vs. 3.0 challenge? After all the trash talk between the two I really want to see which is better at what.

My first thought went straight to "tug-o-war" but I really don't want to see anyone's rig damaged in the process and whichever has the best grip is going to win so it's almost a tire challenge than engine. I think it would have to be multiple challenges:
0-60 times (empty and loaded)
passing time (50-70) again empty and loaded
1/8th mile drag run to imitate freeway entrance ramp.
And gas mileage.

I'm sure the numbers would be minor in difference, but after all the banter....

Anyone else curious?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

tug-o-war is pointless...

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I'll admit that I am. Trash talking aside, as I noted in another post, I've had both engines. The 3.0 had a 5 speed behind it, and had power to spare. The 2.9 had an auto behind it, and it felt like it couldn't get out of its own way.

So, here's what I want to see: I want to see 0-60 times for both engines, with both transmissions.

For the record, I've also had a 2.8 with a 5 speed. It didn't feel as peppy as the 3.0, but it felt more powerful than the 2.9.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I should mention, by the way, that the 2.9 and 3.0 trucks were both supercabs with the 6 foot box. The 2.9 was a 1990, the 3.0 was a 1991. The 2.8, by the way, was a 1985, regular cab long box.

Also, the 2.9 and 3.0 were both XLT trucks, but the 2.8 was an XL.

 

[Uncle Gump]

tug-o-war is pointless...

Pointless seems like such a harsh word... it would have a bunch of entertainment value.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

Pointless seems like such a harsh word... it would have a bunch of entertainment value.

Especially if there's mud involved. And even moreso if @PetroleumJunkie412 gets his truck buried up to the mirrors.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

Especially if there's mud involved. And even moreso if @PetroleumJunkie412 gets his truck buried up to the mirrors.

No, wait. PJ wouldn't be buried to the mirrors. @rusty ol ranger would be buried to the mirrors. PJ would just be buried up to the axles.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

**** it. I'm in. Ericbphoto made me think twice about the 3.0. I'm quietly egging him on to bolt a blower to it.

3.0 has potential. They're stout little ****ers, and won't ****ing die if you maintenance them. With how many are available for next to nothing, they're good candidates to become junkyard built sleepers (my personal favorite build type).

I would like to see a 4wd performance build on one tbh.

 

[Curious Hound]

**** it. I'm in. Ericbphoto made me think twice about the 3.0. I'm quietly egging him on to bolt a blower to it.

3.0 has potential. They're stout little ****ers, and won't ****ing die if you maintenance them. With how many are available for next to nothing, they're good candidates to become junkyard built sleepers (my personal favorite build type).

I would like to see a 4wd performance build on one tbh.

That's the direction I want to go. Just have to get property taxes paid and finish a couple home projects. I've been watching for a cheap donor so I can get the new 3.0 built before taking the old one out of the truck.

 

[Dirtman]

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

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Does anyone else want to see a 2.9 vs. 3.0 challenge? After all the trash talk between the two I really want to see which is better at what.

My first thought went straight to "tug-o-war" but I really don't want to see anyone's rig damaged in the process and whichever has the best grip is going to win so it's almost a tire challenge than engine. I think it would have to be multiple challenges:
0-60 times (empty and loaded)
passing time (50-70) again empty and loaded
1/8th mile drag run to imitate freeway entrance ramp.
And gas mileage.

I'm sure the numbers would be minor in difference, but after all the banter....

Anyone else curious?

Two 2nd gen trucks.
2wd
5speed.
3.45 rear.

As even as possible.

0-60- 2.9.
0-60 loaded- 2.9 (by a rather large margin).

50-70- 3.0
50-70 (loaded) to close to call.

1/8 mi- 2.9
1/8 mi loaded- 2.9.

MPG - 3.0.

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.

The 3.0 is a good engine, they run forever, they are smoother, quieter, more refined then a 2.9.

But make no mistake when its time to boogie the 2.9s gonna smack it around, pretty decent to.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I should mention, by the way, that the 2.9 and 3.0 trucks were both supercabs with the 6 foot box. The 2.9 was a 1990, the 3.0 was a 1991. The 2.8, by the way, was a 1985, regular cab long box.

Also, the 2.9 and 3.0 were both XLT trucks, but the 2.8 was an XL.

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.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

That's the direction I want to go. Just have to get property taxes paid and finish a couple home projects. I've been watching for a cheap donor so I can get the new 3.0 built before taking the old one out of the truck.

Didn't know you were looking for a donor. Or maybe I did. Can't remember. I know now, at least.

I see them for free every now and then. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

 

[Curious Hound]

Didn't know you were looking for a donor. Or maybe I did. Can't remember. I know now, at least.

I see them for free every now and then. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Free is my kind of price

 

[91stranger]

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.