What do you think of this 2000 ranger 3.0 v6 4x4

[Gary DuBois]

This ranger is maybe 2-3 miles away from where i live at here in puyallup.

2000 ford ranger for sale by owner - Puyallup, WA - craigslist

2000 Ford Ranger Extended cab, XLT 4X4 Low miles only 132,000 3.0L V6 Automatic transmission this truck is in excellent condition. Options are power windows, door locks, air conditioning, alloy...

seattle.craigslist.org

 

[JoshT]

Looks good in photos, but I'd want to know what it looks like underneath. I'm not a huge fan of the red on it, I think I'd prefer one of the darker metallic reds that was used on the Ranger. Aside from those, there are a few detractors for me.

First, it's a 3.0L, and I wouldn't buy one. Not saying that they are a bad engine, but if I'm buying a V6 ranger it's going to be 4.0L. I'd consider a 4 cylinder if the intent from the start was to add forced induction.

Second, it's a 2000 4x4. Does it have PVH hubs or live axles? No choice when looking at 98-99, but 00 was a transition year. I'd much rather have the live axles. The PVH can be converted, but something to take into consideration when purchasing.

Third, newer tires is always a funny claim to me. It's a 23 year old truck. Newer tires could be 20 years old. I'd figure on needing new tires until I saw them in person.

That truck seems to pretty well match mine for options other than the color and engine. Honestly, if I were wanting to purchase another, similar optioned, truck to keep stock, I'd go atleast a year newer. 2001 and up would gurantee the live axle front, would have the stronger 4.0L SOCH engine, and has the the better looking (in my opinion) front end like your truck. Or with a 2004+ for all of that plus larger front brakes.

 

[superj]

I would not have any trouble with it if it was a stick. I dont want an automatic in a ranger. Its a perfect sized truck that fun to drive when its a stick.

I am looking at a 99 mazda b3000 just because its a 3.0 amd a stick. I ignore any ranger based truck that is an automatic

 

[pjtoledo]

it looks great in pictures, but it is a 24 year old truck. get ready for lots of little things going wrong.

I'm in the rust belt, barely 50 miles south of Detroit. clean trucks like that are long gone in this area so it would be a good buy here.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

It looks great but definitely have a mechanic check it out. I have no problem with it being the 3.0. It might be low on power but parts should be everywhere. The driver's seat shows this was babied.

Definitely worth a closer look.

 

[Gary DuBois]

it looks great in pictures, but it is a 24 year old truck. get ready for lots of little things going wrong.

I'm in the rust belt, barely 50 miles south of Detroit. clean trucks like that are long gone in this area so it would be a good buy here.

2000 is one of my favorite years and body style looks for the ranger =) How much power loss would i notice between my 4.0 v6 sohc and that 3.0 v6 and would the 3.0 v6 be noticablely if at all quiter.

 

[Gary DuBois]

It looks great but definitely have a mechanic check it out. I have no problem with it being the 3.0. It might be low on power but parts should be everywhere. The driver's seat shows this was babied.

Definitely worth a closer look.

2000 is one of my favorite years and body style looks for the ranger =) How much power loss would i notice between my 4.0 v6 sohc and that 3.0 v6 and would the 3.0 v6 be noticablely if at all quiter.

Is that called the drivers side window seal where the chrome is showing

 

[00t444e]

I wouldn't buy a 3.0, the use as much fuel as a 4.0 and are as slow as a 2.3.

 

[Gary DuBois]

I wouldn't buy a 3.0, the use as much fuel as a 4.0 and are as slow as a 2.3.

why would a 3.0 v6 use as much gas as a 4.0 ..... the 3.0 v6 is one liter smaller in engine size ..... why do you say the 3.0 is as slow as a 2.3

 

[Saddle Tramp]

That Chrome is definitely part of the trim .it should be black. Paint can fix that.

I would guestimate 20hp loss not counting hp loss due to age and miles. The main thing is where in the rpms is the power at vs in the 4.0

The 3.0 could kinda be as thirsty as a 4.0 depending on how you drive it. If you stand on it to get the power going, you're going to kill the mileage. You feather it, you'll get great mileage.

 

[sgtsandman]

why would a 3.0 v6 use as much gas as a 4.0 ..... the 3.0 v6 is one liter smaller in engine size ..... why do you say the 3.0 is as slow as a 2.3

The engine doesn't put out as much power as a 4.0, so has to work harder. That increases fuel consumption.

As far as the speed, the engine was designed for use in a car and was repurposed for use in the Ranger. Where it generates it's best power is higher up in the RPM range, where many people don't want to rev and engine. So, the perception is that the engine is weak. Compared to the 4.0, it kind of is, even when run properly, but the biggest thing is people are used to engines that produce their power lower and the shift point is around 2,000 - 2,500 rpm rather than up around 3,000 - 3,500 rpm.

My Honda CR-Vs were like that and people didn't think I knew how to drive a stick shift because I shifting at that higher rpm. They didn't understand I was using the power band of the engine properly and refused to accept or wrap their head around the concept.

 

[JoshT]

How much power loss would i notice between my 4.0 v6 sohc and that 3.0 v6 and would the 3.0 v6 be noticablely if at all quiter.

Dad has the 4.0 SOHC in his Ranger, same engine yours has. My Ranger has the 4.0 OHV. Otherwise they are optioned about the same. The power difference between the two engines is definitely noticable.

Back around 2002 dad bought a 2000 3.0L 2wd. In 2005 I bought my '99 4.0L OHV and I remember a noticable difference in power between the two, but they were also very different trucks (gearing, tires, etc). That's been over 15 years ago. Wasn't long after I bought my 99 that he traded up to his current Ranger.

I'd imagine that comparing his 4.0L SOHC to his prior 3.0L OHV would have been a very noticable difference. I'm sure that's part of the reason he traded, he certainly didn't need another 4wd or a larger engine at the time.

As far as the speed, the engine was designed for use in a car and was repurposed for use in the Ranger. Where it generates it's best power is higher up in the RPM range, where many people don't want to rev and engine. So, the perception is that the engine is weak. Compared to the 4.0, it kind of is, even when run properly, but the biggest thing is people are used to engines that produce their power lower and the shift point is around 2,000 - 2,500 rpm rather than up around 3,000 - 3,500 rpm.

Seemed like Ford crippled it, the 2.8L and maybe the 2.9L all in the same way. Like the 3.0L the 2.8 was a repurposed car engine. When they put it in the truck they gave it truck gearing that had the engine out of the RPM range it liked. Turn up the RPM and it goes, unfortunately that kind of hurts it's utility as a truck. Still got my old 2.8L (lightly ported, offy, holley & mild cam) that I'd like to find a home for someday, but give it proper gearing in a lighter weight body. Heck, even proper gearing in another early Ranger would be good. I don't need another project right now though.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Dad has the 4.0 SOHC in his Ranger, same engine yours has. My Ranger has the 4.0 OHV. Otherwise they are optioned about the same. The power difference between the two engines is definitely noticable.

Back around 2002 dad bought a 2000 3.0L 2wd. In 2005 I bought my '99 4.0L OHV and I remember a noticable difference in power between the two, but they were also very different trucks (gearing, tires, etc). That's been over 15 years ago. Wasn't long after I bought my 99 that he traded up to his current Ranger.

I'd imagine that comparing his 4.0L SOHC to his prior 3.0L OHV would have been a very noticable difference. I'm sure that's part of the reason he traded, he certainly didn't need another 4wd or a larger engine at the time.



Seemed like Ford crippled it, the 2.8L and maybe the 2.9L all in the same way. Like the 3.0L the 2.8 was a repurposed car engine. When they put it in the truck they gave it truck gearing that had the engine out of the RPM range it liked. Turn up the RPM and it goes, unfortunately that kind of hurts it's utility as a truck. Still got my old 2.8L (lightly ported, offy, holley & mild cam) that I'd like to find a home for someday, but give it proper gearing in a lighter weight body. Heck, even proper gearing in another early Ranger would be good. I don't need another project right now though.

The 2.8 came in a pinto....

 

[JoshT]

The 2.8 came in a pinto....

...and Rangers, BIIs, Mustangs, Capris, TVRs, Kallistas, etc.

Pinto certainly isn't what I want to put it into. A Capri would be interesting, but good luck finding an appropriate candidate over here. I've also thought about something similar in appearance to the Kallista, but no running boards.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

The Kallista looks cool. Never heard of it before.