What's your favorite RBV engine?

[rickcdewitt]

the ohv 4.0l has good bottom end power,right for a truck.my vote.

 

[Nutz-N-Boltz]

I would definately have to stay with the 5.0, just too bad they didn't come stock in the anything but the ex.

 

[Original_Ranger84]

I still prefer my 2.8l for a few reasons.
1. It still runs awsome and has never had any problems (FI and alittle more sound would be nice)
2. I have only driven my friends 3.0L

 

[WhiteRanger4x4]

First is the 4.0 Plenty of power,good gas mileage.Second the 2.9 decent power good gas mileage, the two 2.9 that I have own DID NOT TIC EVER!!Third is the gutless wonder 3.0.The 2.9 and the 4.0 have it beat on power and they get just as good or better gas mileage.JMO!

 

[Maverick]

In a 4wd, either of the 4.0's.
In a 2wd, the 2.3 Duratech hands down. My vote went towards the Duratech overall, it's one helluva fun motor and gets damn good fuel mileage.

 

[ozzy85]

I've been a V-8 guy most of my life and think the 289/302 is one of the best engines ever made, but I ended up voting for my 2.3L. Since I live in town, its pleny enough for me, gets decent fuel economy, and is durable as an anvil. I have a friend who would probably agree, he's had 2 of them. I've thought of doing a 5.0 swap, but my truck runs too damn good to mess with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Wow! The 2.8 has two more votes than I thought it would (zero )!!!

 

[Capt Jay]

Had a 2.3...blew it up.
Had a 2.0...blew it up.
Had a 4.0...wanted to blow it up. (terrible gas mileage)
Had a 2.8 it took every bit of abuse I could had out. Really easy to work on and didn't care about what RPM's I threw at it. The heads leaked a little (foamy oil) and the valves needed adjusting every now and again but all in all it was very forgiving for the abuse it took. The only reason it was removed was to add a couple of cylinders ( love the 8).

That's just my opinion, ( many may think I'm wrong ) and I could be.
Jay

 

[gw33gp]

I drove a 2.9L for almost 200,000 miles in a 4wd Ranger. That engine had to work very hard when towing but it took the hard work (near abuse) very well. Now I have a 4.0 SOHC in my Ranger and really like it. It just cruises while towing the same thing the 2.9L strained at.

I am actually getting a little better gas mileage with the 4.0 SOHC engine than I did with the 2.9L engine in almost every circumstance. I will say the 4.0 SOHC engine has the potential to use more fuel if you can't control the right foot but my right foot was a quick learner.

My only concern with the SOHC engine is the long term durability of the cam drive system. My vote still goes to the 4.0 SOHC because it sure works well fo me now.

 

[dogboy]

I went ahead and voted for the 4.0L OHV becuase it is what is in my truck and I like the power. It was a tough choice between my 4.0L and the 2.3 Duratech that is in our B2300 (for sale by the way). Something about 25+ MPG vs. 15 gets me, . The 2.3 does have alot of torque for a 4cly that is almost half the size of mine. I Don't know if a 2.3 manual vs. a 4.0 automatic makes a whole lot of differance or not.

 

[Jspafford]

My 2.9L gets close to 25 MPG 70/30 city/highway. Hell half the hybrids can't get much more than that and I have 18 yr old technology. It has slowly gotten better and better mileage since I have owned it and put a lot of work into it.

My 4.0SOHC in my 2001 would get real close to 20 MPG for about one week in the dead of summer.. The rest of the time and in the winter I got about 15MPG. It was horrible.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

My 2.9L gets close to 25 MPG 70/30 city/highway. Hell half the hybrids can't get much more than that

the escape hybrid (compairable by weight, size, and shape), gets 37 MPG

 

[Will]

I Don't know if a 2.3 manual vs. a 4.0 automatic makes a whole lot of differance or not.

Yeah, it takes about 100ft# of torque to operate an automatic transmission.

Not really.

Fact is, the more resistance you give a torque converter, the more torque it puts out. At stall speed, an average torque converter gives you about double the input torque. Drag cars with manual trannies run low rear gears. The first gear in a manual tranny has to be deeper--and it still isn't as good at getting a load moving.

The actual losses in using an automatic are pretty much gone now that lock-up converters are the norm. There is little to no difference in mileage in most vehicles. And the torque converter can actually prevent downshifts because it will automatically unlock and provide torque multiplication keeping the cruise from kicking off.

To sum it up, the losses from an auto were mostly due to heat in the converter--it was churning and churning even when you didn't want it for torque multiplication. With the converter clutch engaged, all the secret parts lock together and the only thing that is taking any power is the hydraulic pump which is holding servos and pistons to keep it in gear.

When you can get a good one, I much prefer an auto. That's a problem in a Ranger, which is why I installed a 5-speed in my current B2.

 

[exbass94]

I voted for 4.0 OHV because the one in my Explorer has been very trouble-free and has great power. The only other RBV engines I have experience with are the 4.0 SOHC in my Ranger, but it only has 14,600 miles on it so I can't really say much about it's long-term reliability. I also drive a Ranger at work with the 2.3 Duratech and it has almost 200k miles, but I'm not sure how many times that has been repaired. Although, it has taken a beating and still runs like brand new. I would definitely buy a Duratech if I was looking for a 2wd Ranger, although I wouldn't mind a Lima either since they're also reliable.

 

[Jspafford]

the escape hybrid (compairable by weight, size, and shape), gets 37 MPG

Is that real world or EPA estimated?