That the 3.0L really suffers from a bad case of mass production. The engine, in itself, is a very good engine (don't argue with me, I'm a grown mechanic and ever since the day I turned 16 I've had either a B3000 or a Ranger 3.0 and a 4.0 thrown in) but the way Ford put it together is terrible. It seems like everything they could do to lose performance, they did. The stock 3.0 is slow, gets bad mileage, the exhaust system is HORRIBLE, and a list more. But after you install a good exhaust system, decent headers, proper fuel systems, get a decent chip in, basically go in and take out all the cheap **** Ford put in to save on the $$$, it's a good engine that will deliver a ton more power and torque. I don't know about the Ford side as far as relability, but all the Mazdas I've had are extremally tough, IF you take care of them. I've seen properly maintained trucks last for 400,000 miles and still running strong, and I've seen damn kids that don't do **** for their trucks lose them at 50,000 miles.


Thoughts?

 

I've got a 3.0 that has 70,000, one with 90,0000, and one with 130,000. I had to put a new tranny in the 90,000 mile truck but it's a manual towing granite everyday. Pretty understandable on that. Past that I can't recall anything that has been replaced except a battery, brakes, fluids, plugs, wires, etc.

The future is in the DOHCs. The 3.0 duratech produces 50 hp more than the vulcan 3.0. The new EDGE has the 3.5 which produces 265. The vulcan will go bye bye with the Ranger.

 

heres what I got from ford...

The 3.0L OHV V6 with 148 horsepower and 180 lb.-ft. of torque delivers the necessary towing strength needed in an entry V6 engine without sacrificing a lot of fuel economy. fuel economy...lol right...

When you say edge you mean the SUV??? sounds like a NIssan Xtera...they got a V6 with 246....dang I might do a trade in when they get a bigger 6

 

Cody, you have the Vulcan 3.0. It's a tuff engine, just doesn't have the HP of the newer ones. Probably doesn't have the headaches either. On my wifes Mariner (3.0 duratech), I'll have to pull the intake manifold off to change the spark plugs.

The Edge is the new crossover from Ford. It'll hit showrooms next month. I may go out and test drive it. I'm pretty curious about it. It was the pace car at the Nascar Bush race today.

 

For me, I would take ease of maintenance over more horsepower, as well as fewer moving parts in an engine overall. I wouldn't want to own the newer engines when they have 150K plus on them and are ready for a major overhaul. (Assuming that they are even worth rebuilding at that point). The older 3.0L will be a far less expensive rebuild or replace, not to mention simply to maintain.

I have a buddy that runs several Aerostar vans as delivery vehicles, he's got three 1994 3.0L Automatics still in service, each has well over 300K and only one has had a trans rebuild. They are company vehicles that get driven hard and they have held up well. I have no doubt that the engines will outlast the trucks. He had a few 4.0L vans but they died long ago of engine failure.
To me that really says something about the 3.0L OHV engine as far as it's durability.

I worked in Ford dealers for over fifteen years and can't recall any 3.0L concerns or failures. I don't even remember having to replace a single one, but I've replaced, repaired, or rebuild dozens of 4.0L's. I wouldn't hesitate to own the 3.0L, in fact I would choose it over any of the available options that they offer today.

The 3.0L is not a performance oriented engine, besides, if I wanted to go fast, I'd go buy a Mustang.
Most of all of my Rangers have been 2.3L powered, and with no real complaints as far as the engine goes, but have several friends with 3.0L trucks and have never heard a fuel milage complaint from any of them. What are you considering poor fuel milage?

My 94 2.3L gets 29 MPG on average, and I would expect somewhere around 16 to 22 out of a 3.0L, depending on how it's driven and whether it's a 4x2 or 4x4. I did ask one buddy the other day that drives a 1998 4x2 with a 3.0L 5 speed and he figures he's getting around 23 to 25 MPG. His has a 3.55:1 rear ratio. I don't consider that bad at all. Fuel milage can vary greatly in the same vehicle between different drivers, I have one van that is driven by several different drivers, one driver brags about how good the milage is for it being a one ton van, and the other can barely get to the next gas station. One driver averages nearly 18 per gallon, while another gets less than 10. While that definitely tells me how they drive, it only shows how much driving habits can change milage. When I drive that truck, it generally gets around 15 or 16 mpg.

A lot of how I think an engine should be judged by is not by how reliable or economical it is now, when it's new, but how it will be when it's no longer under warranty or when it's past it's first 100K.
I would definitely sacrifice some performance for an engine that will be around for the life of the truck, still doing the job then that it was built to do when it was new.

 

yes the 3.0L is a very dependable motor and very reliable. but Jesus its slow and extreamly under powered...

 

are they in the same price range? lol my mom might wanna look into one of these

 

A mariner/escape? Looks like it. It was showing awd for 18K, stating it was the least expensive awd crossover in the marketplace. That seems a little too cheap, I would guess mid-high 20's for a loaded awd edge. I'm not sure if the pricing is out yet.

 

havent we decided 1000 threads ago that the 3.0 is slow? if you dont like it drop in another engine.

 

the only bad gas mileage i have gotten is when, dont know what its called, but it is a sensor right on top of the engine a little black box failed, it has something to do with recycling the fuel, and it dropped fuel mileage to like 10mpg

the mech. that worked on it said that ford is the only one that uses it and they only put it on select vehicles. he said it was worthless but the truck sucks without it.

 

well mine doesn't feel slow... I love it, coming from a 93 2.3L

 

Ugghh...I was wondering about that. Looks like a real PITA. We recently bought an '07 3.0 Mariner. It is a great vehicle though and it is loaded and pretty quick. I'm trying to address the excessive front brake dust issue right now (that is common on Escapes & Mariners)

 

i am getting use to my 3.slow being so slow, but i still love it at 163,000 miles.

 

im in the same boat ..i love my freaking 3.0 it dosnt seem slow to me.I also came froma 4 banger 2.3 =/ but even still mine feels pretty damn good.147k runing strong

 

we get that brake dust also. lol. Ceramic pads will help.

 

I came to driving my 3.0 after rolling in a little 4cyl Tacoma thru highschool so it feels faster than that. But when I drive a 4.0 mine seems slow again. It's all in what you compare it to...sure its no mustang or v8 muscle car....its not built to be. I dont need a ticket anyways.