What's your favorite RBV engine?

[blackbronc]

Had 2.3 Turbo coupe great power and mileage, 98 Mazda b2300? great mileage power not so much, Stock 2.8 fair power and mileage, 2.8 ported heads 270 cam offy intake 465 holley headers great power poor mileage big smile, 2 2.9 great mileage fair power, 3.0 great mileage gotta rev the snot out of it for any power. 4.0 best great torque fair power reasonable mileage. Makes a little ranger run like hell. But i learned to drive with a big block 4 speed posi muscle car. 4.0 gives performance without ridiculous gas bill.

 

[Will]

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

My brother bought a new Toyota Prius. It gets 61mpg town and 50 highway. It has a curb weight of 2,932#--which is higher than a 2wd 4-cylinder 1993 Ford Ranger

Rangers are small trucks. I was at Kroots after selling off a truckload of scrap metal. Sitting in the office watching other trucks go back and forth on the scales. A half-ton pickup only weighs about 4,000#. My diesel crewcab weighed 300# more empty than an 80s F150 with a 16'ish 2-axle utility trailer piled with a 6' stack of pole barn siding. I almost sold it to them and took public transport home.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Is that real world or EPA estimated?

EPA. 37 for the front wheel drive and 32 for the 4wd. i always check the instant economy feature in the dash when one of these comes in and the EPA guestimates are not far off. between 33-35 seems to be pretty common.

the escape motors also have a combined higher horsepower then the 2.9 (155 vs 140). only 124ft-lbs though...no towing for the hybrid

 

[zuki]

A 4.0 in a sammi, I want some pics!!! That sounds very interesting. I often thought of a 2.9 in one would work nice.

i started a new thread for it, didn't want to hyjack this one.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18646#post18646

 

[4x4junkie]

I'm voting for the 4.0L OHV, although it's a real close call between it and the 2.9L

I like the 4.0L for it's gobs of torque and simple overall design.
It's 160 HP is a bit on the low side for an engine of such displacement though (yes I'm aware of the SOHC's figures, I'd rather have them on the OHV).

The 2.9L has a good combination of power and fuel economy. It also doesn't fall flat on it's face at low RPMs like some engines of similar size do.
The 2.9L has a pretty narrow MPG "sweet spot" though. If it's not cruising at at least 2700-2800 RPM or so (65 MPH), it's MPG starts looking like that of the 4.0L's (or even worse).

 

[almostclueless]

The 4.0 ohv is SLAYING the 3.0 for good reason.


I've owned several 2.9 RBV's....NONE of them smoked, rattled, ticked, or leaked (internally or externally). Good motor as far as I'm concerned.


I've owned and rented several 3.0 RBV's. Their power SUCKS.

 

[Will]

I'm voting for the 4.0L OHV, although it's a real close call between it and the 2.9L

I like the 4.0L for it's gobs of torque and simple overall design.
It's 160 HP is a bit on the low side for an engine of such displacement though (yes I'm aware of the SOHC's figures, I'd rather have them on the OHV).

The 2.9L has a good combination of power and fuel economy. It also doesn't fall flat on it's face at low RPMs like some engines of similar size do.
The 2.9L has a pretty narrow MPG "sweet spot" though. If it's not cruising at at least 2700-2800 RPM or so (65 MPH), it's MPG starts looking like that of the 4.0L's (or even worse).

I thought my 2 2.9s were weak. They wouldn't hold the same hills with the cruise on that the 4.0 does--with the same relative. I never liked the 2.9 and the 4.0 was mana in the wilderness.

I've driven only 1 4.0 SOHC. I replaced a motor in a '97 4.0 Explorer that had 4.10 gears and dissolved the nylon chain guides and tensioners. It was exactly like my 4.0. I never pushed it very hard because it was a new motor, but it was exactly the same in feel. I never drive where I need the extra 50hp so I don't begrudge Ford for not making them available. I'm sure the pushrod 4.0 would not be as good as it is if they had tried to push it for more power.

It's just numbers. Where we use our trucks, the SOHC has no advantage. And it's a complicated and huge thing. There are 4 seperate timing chains--some are 6' long. And the nylon guides historically dissolve. There is no way for Joe Public to fix it, and the dealer wouldn't touch it at the time I did that job. The dealer wanted $5,000 for a new motor. i don't think they were yet trained in setting up the timing. And the parts were $500 to replace the guides and tensioners. That isn't your best choice for a motor. But that is about what you need for a 200+ hp 4.0.

 

[bullitt]

Well it looks as though all of the 3.0 vote is in, lol.

 

[mattpresley]

Not looking to start an argument, as I know there are strong feelings on this subject. Just thought it would be interesting to see the statistics. So what's your favorit RBV engine?

Having driven a 2.3 Lima, 2.9, 4.0 OHV and 4.0 SOHC, I must say that the 2.3 Lima is my favorite simply because of the modability factor.

I didn't include the 2.0 because it is the same motor as the 2.3 Lima, minus some power. The 2.5 counts as a 2.3. I also didn't include the diesels because they are too rare.

umm the 2.5 isnt an option?

 

[BlackBII]

This thread is only 2 years old.....lol

 

[country0001]

Well I voted for the 4.0 cause of the one in my ranger, I like to 2.9 but that tick is annoying and draws funny loooks. The power is fine ine the 2.9 and I.ve had it revved up to 5 grand and it still has done well. 4.0 is still going in my B2 this spring.

 

[mc_muench]

mos def 3.0, because of one reason...durability

my truck, 3.0 5spd, has been the starter vechile for 4 boys. Which means all 293,XXXmi have been complete torture and abuse. Yes I agree with other people that the power sucks and you have to be reving it the whole way, but it takes it. My 92 isn't in the best of shape, that will be fixed soon, but I never worry about will it start or can I make it home.

The 3.0 is like the kid that knows he will lose the fight but just keeps coming back for more.

 

[loneranger04]

well dispite all the hagle and fuss i must say i have to stick with my 3.0. it gets pretty good MPG's for my long comute but turns enough rpm's i can run down the strip on test and tune night at the track. and durability as truck in general well thats just above and beyond.

 

[Hopman]

I'm loving the 2.3 twin-spark 4 in my '94. I've never driven a 4-banger that is so torquey in the bottom end. It has a torque curve that's about as flat as Nebraska. Granted, it may not be a glamerous as a v-6, but it should last damn near forever!

 

[TheBeast]

Going with the 4.0. I had a fairly modified 3.0. I liked it, got to the job done with 4.10s in a 4x4 truck on 31's. Just can't beat the extra power of the 4.0, and my truck has 228k bought used and fairly beaten, doesn't smoke a lick. Has a bunch of oil leaks, but once I seal em up, it'll probably go another 200k miles no problem