What's your favorite RBV engine?

[-Nathan-]

my 4.0 L OHV has 212 000 miles on it, and runs strong. Ive drove a 2.3 for a while, it was QUITE a dog. 4.0 for me.

 

[Blackdog455]

well since ive only driven the 2.3 and 3.0, i can only put down 1 of 2 answers. The 2.3 is in my ranger and the 3.0 ive only ever driven once to help a guy return his ranger to his house (he left it at a friends house and needed someone to drive it home.) soooo yea...Im going to be a little biased on my answer here...

 

[trail B2]

I really like the 4.0 in my bronco it has torque right where I drive it with a stick out on the trail it dosn't stall like the 2.9 does.The other thing that works for me is my 86 with 4.0 manual gets the same mileage as 2.9 and a auto about 18 miles per gallon.Just got a Taurus with a 3.0 but I've only driven it about 150 miles so well see

 

[racsan]

i do have a '93 taurus with a 3.0, have had it for 7 years and have put 100K on it. in the taurus chassis it is quite the mover. but remember there is a big difference between a taurus sedan and a ranger chasis. it weighs about at least 1,000 pounds less, is more areodynamic and the gearing is different. ive never drove a ranger with the 3.0 but everything ive heard suggests its like haveing the power of a 4 cyl with the fuel milage of a V6. one thing ive noticed looking at the specs is that the 3.0 makes its power higher in the rpm band than the other ranger motors (at least in the '93 ranger brocure, not certian about the 4.0-O.H.C.) so it may seem underpowered just because you have to wind those squirrels up real tight, where as with the 4.0 it has a much wider powerband that starts earlier. i do have a hitch on the taurus, but am reluctant to use it. the reason being ive heard that the taurus transmission did well to last 100K just pulling itself down the road, didnt want to shorten its life by pulling the trailer, even though its rated for 3,500 doesnt mean its a good idea. the car is now at 124K and is on borrowed time as it is. my '88 2.3 lima was a real reliable, effecient motor, it just lacked torque. deeper gears may have helped (had 3.73's) but then i might as well have the bigger motor due to fuel consumption.

 

[jenniffermichell]

Hi..
I have not use it but i have heard about the RBV 2.8V6.. I have learn about it..
Thanks

 

[racsan]

i did try a 2.8 in a BII my dad had for a breif time, it was real doggy. in its defence though, it had a ton of miles and was a 500 dollar truck.

 

[wookie13]

I had a y2k exploder w/ the 4.0 once it was a good little v-6. basically the same as a 302 w/ two cylinders chopped off!!

 

[Bryan22]

3.go all the way. I sold my old 92 with the 3.0 and kick myself for it every single day.

I now own a 2.3 driven ranger, had nothing but problems until i got all the previous bugs worked out, then it lost an oil pump, now the new-to-me 2.3 is trouble free.

Still as much as i love this little motor i'll vouche for the 3.0 . only thing i ever had to replace on it was a couple starters and a slave cylinder, 5 years and 150,000 miles later. just can't beat that. i'll take 5 less MPG for the 3.0 anyday.

 

[dauphija#99]

This is going to sound stupid, but whatever. what the difference between the Lima and the Duratech? which one do i have? I have a 2002 ranger 2.3 base model

 

[mp3deviant721]

4.0 is awesome. I don't like the 2.9 much. Can't really say much for the 4 cyl. engines. My dad had a 2.8 truck at one time. I couldn't really say much for that engine either. I couldn't drive then.