24 Valve Vulcan - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech General discussion of 2.9L and 3.0L V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
LOL at the Duratec V6 thing. I Guarantee when you have over 400 HP out of one of those (BTW many LS based engines have that stock) you are not getting better gas mileage than a LS engine. I would care to guess they hardly get better stock. I guarantee they cost more money to get to that range, and I guarantee the power is in all the wrong power range for a heavy vehicle like the ranger or most sedans. Hell in stock form it peaks at 6250 RPM (3.5L). Trust me, I look into all options and there isn’t anything out there that you can fit easily into most vehicles, which Cost less, has more aftermarket support, is as reliable (pushrod V8, 6 bolt mains etc), and has more power potential in all power ranges than the LS engine. You give me a car, that makes 400 RWHP, is drivable (meaning almost stock) and gets 25 MPG (many LS swapped 94-96 impalas are in this range) and I will drive it everyday, with a huge smile on my face.

I do agree the 302 is an old school motor (much akin to the First gen GM small block) and while you can build good horsepower, you are going to do so at the alter of efficiency and drivability, and Stock they are just a hair above the 4.0 SOHC in power output.

Now I agree with trying new things, and hey if money grew on trees, Sure what the heck, but this Idea seems hacky to me. If your going through that much trouble, why not swap a complete SHO motor in, you can get one for less than $1000 used and it has everything you are trying to accomplish already.

~HJ

Last edited by HAZZARDJOHN; 11-25-2009 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickranger3.0 View Post
the 3.0L duratecs hold 415whp before needing pistons. 450-500 before needing rods
The rods are good for more than that. The Aston V12 reused the factory 3.0 rods and they are up to 510 BHP and 420 ft-lbs out of the factory. Which is why, for the longest, Pauter was the only manufacturer for forged rods for the Duratec, and recently K1 came in with an "affordable" $700 option. The guys at CEG never came to an exact conclusion at what point the rods themselves fail, more times than not, it's the weak factory bearings, not the structural integrity of the rod. Even high power Noble/Rossion engines use factory rods, factory crank and factory Mondeo ST220 cams, really all AER does when they built the engines was create the turbo manifolds, plumb the turbos and do some mild porting on the heads.

I have a deep respect for the Duratec, I had one in a Mazda6 that I had for a few years until the ex-wife "convinced me" we needed something more "family oriented" for the family we weren't going to have. Though in the time I had it, I did a good bit of work on it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
why toss a SHO motor in when you can run the 3.0L duratec (which you can get for $300-$500) running the same if not more horsepower stock. i believe they are making a 240hp version of the 3.0L. and LOL at the duratec thing? seriously? gearing makes a big difference put down 400whp and set it to a 3.55 rear end im sure it will put down 20+ mpg. **** i know 4 bangers that put down more then that and get 30mpg.

Last edited by sickranger3.0; 11-25-2009 at 02:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
You give me a car, that makes 400 RWHP, is drivable (meaning almost stock) and gets 25 MPG (many LS swapped 94-96 impalas are in this range) and I will drive it everyday, with a huge smile on my face.
~HJ


It is bone stock, gets close to 30 MPG, has north of 400 RWHP, even Edmunds said its comfortable to ride in.

And... it's Duratec V6 powered.

mileages - Noble Rossion Forums
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
So Hazzad what do you have to say to the duratec now. i believe it deserves an apology from you!!! go ahead say your sorry! and i had no idea the rods were good for that high of a hp rating! heck yes. i gotta make the 3.0L duratec fit in the truck! so i can disgrace some LS owners. I can see all the LS owners are like how is a ford ranger passing me? haha

DURATEC FTMFW!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickranger3.0 View Post
So Hazzad what do you have to say to the duratec now. i believe it deserves an apology from you!!! go ahead say your sorry! and i had no idea the rods were good for that high of a hp rating! heck yes. i gotta make the 3.0L duratec fit in the truck! so i can disgrace some LS owners. I can see all the LS owners are like how is a ford ranger passing me? haha
Make sure you get a Lincoln LS or Jaguar 3.0L, they moved the water pump to the front of the block and the newer ones had variable valve timing. Nautilus Performance should have everything else you need to make the engine wild.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-25-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post


It is bone stock, gets close to 30 MPG, has north of 400 RWHP, even Edmunds said its comfortable to ride in.

And... it's Duratec V6 powered.

mileages - Noble Rossion Forums
All for only like 80-90K or whatever they cost just to end up with a Duratec engine. No thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
lol for 70-80K lol it runs 0-60 in 3.1 sec which is quicker then most supercars. haha i have seen them out run ferrari's and keeps up with a damn Carrera GT and also the new version of it which is the Rossion Q1 pulls a 1.1 lateral g's not many cars for that price can pull that off. and you tune it and get close to 500hp. haha seriously? its one of the best priced "supercars" of today.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
I think you missed the cheap, affordable, and economical point I had. You can make 400 Horse out of anything, doesn't mean it is the smart way to go. Show me one engine that can be had cheaper, has a bigger aftermarket support, can fit in lots of vehicles, has been proven to get 25 MPG in a 4500# car, and make over 400 HP stock (no internal upgrades) Not going to happen. Others on here have tried. There are alot more impressive "exotics" out there that are LS powered too, Whats your point?

You make me laugh! Thanks I needed it.

~HJ

BTW, I think the 3.5 Duratec is a Good motor, probably one of the better from ford right now, but there are better mouse traps out there for custom engine swaps. I think the younger Fast and furious crowd have been drinking too much Kool aid.

Last edited by HAZZARDJOHN; 11-25-2009 at 02:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
All for only like 80-90K or whatever they cost just to end up with a Duratec engine. No thanks.
Then how about this?



0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds, 150 MPH top speed, 1,137 lbs curb weight for $66K?

It too is Duratec (Four cylinder) powered.

Or how about this?



$265K and still Duratec powered..

Such a ****ty engine..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
I think 300K cars don't really make a valid point in this arguement. If I had that much to spend, There are so many better cars (whole packages) than those.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
I think 300K cars don't really make a valid point in this arguement. If I had that much to spend, There are so many better cars (whole packages) than those.
I was more ragging on Christian for complaining about a $60K car choosing a "Ford Taurus" engine as its powerplant.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
WOW seriously going to stereotype the younger crowd as fast and furious crowd? you got problems dude. maybe your getting spanked by to many lighter cars in that 4500 pounds tank. Seriously going to bring the weight factor into a car now? after we found a car that gets good gas mileage and over 400whp you bring up its not heavy enough? if you looking at performance uh wouldn't you want a lighter car? i mean come on.. i know i wouldn't want to drive a damn 4500 pound car...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-25-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
For 70 or or 80K I'd get a Z06 vette. No turbos, no exotic parts, no retardedly expensive expensive repairs just 505 hp, 470. Actually Noble cars are just under 130K. ZR1 is cheaper. I'll take ZR1 thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-25-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post
I was more ragging on Christian for complaining about a $60K car choosing a "Ford Taurus" engine as its powerplant.
Actually it is a Mondeo powerplant. But you knew that right? No thanks on the Catterham. I'd rather get a Ariel Atom.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
so now we need to get on topic. i do agree that the 3.0L vulcan will be expensive to build. but a lot of people would be surprised with what it puts down. i personally would go with the 3.0L duratec its got just about the same aftermarket as most v8's. but if you want to build the 3.0L vulcan its heads need special attention. have no idea why we are talking about supercars. but either way. v8 motors aren't then end all motors. not by far.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
I think you missed the cheap, affordable, and economical point I had. You can make 400 Horse out of anything, doesn't mean it is the smart way to go. Show me one engine that can be had cheaper
Lincoln LS engine - $650 used / $4,518 new
LS1 out of a Camaro - $1,400 used / $5,022 new

Let's not even get into pricing an LS2 or LS7.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
has a bigger aftermarket support,
Its no contest for the LS, but you would be surprised exactly how much support there is for the Duratec.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
can fit in lots of vehicles
I think we've already proven this is the case with the Duratec, from factory applications to custom applications, from Lotus Espirits to Fieros and more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
has been proven to get 25 MPG in a 4500# car
2010 Ford Taurus SHO, 4,368 lbs curb weight, 25 MPG, 365 BHP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
You make me laugh! Thanks I needed it.
Ditto.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickranger3.0 View Post
WOW seriously going to stereotype the younger crowd as fast and furious crowd? you got problems dude. maybe your getting spanked by to many lighter cars in that 4500 pounds tank. Seriously going to bring the weight factor into a car now? after we found a car that gets good gas mileage and over 400whp you bring up its not heavy enough? if you looking at performance uh wouldn't you want a lighter car? i mean come on.. i know i wouldn't want to drive a damn 4500 pound car...
LOL, I don't even own a fast car, I have and will again (My Dodge is a work horse and my Caddy is a cruising boat 0-60 in 12 seconds! Whoo hoo). That has nothing to do with it. You are just plain wrong if you think a 3.5L duratec is a better engine for a build to swap into anything than an LS based engine. My Comment on the Fast and furious generation is they think smaller motors more cams and more turbos ( I own a turbo Buick, but it is cause it is rare more than "wow it has a turbo") are the only way to go. Well it isn't. I'm fine if you want to waste your money trying to make a lesser engine equal, I jsut think it is silly. Facts are stubborn things, I can show you LS build after LS build from people I know that get 400+ RWHP without even removing the heads. They have less than 5-10K in the builds (I even know of one build that was $3500 complete with an LQ4), get 25 MPG and are reliable daily drivers (not a cammed to hell racecar, which my impala was when I bought it very annoying) Show me on 3.5 Duratec that fits all that and I will back down.

~HJ

Oh and on the lighter car thing, sure lighter is great but to what extent? I will take my 4500# B-bodies over anything you probably think is cool. They are cheap, comfortable, you don't look like a douche when you drive one, and for about 10K in investment it will run 12's all day long then drive you half way across the country. I have seen it many times. I can make anything have obscene amounts of horsepower but it will tear itself apart, get horrible gas mileage and be annoying after the “what the hell is that” cool factor goes away.

Last edited by HAZZARDJOHN; 11-25-2009 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-25-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
SHO Taurus is another pile. It needs turbos to make power. The Infinity G37 sedan blows the SHO out of the water at everything. Both were tested by Autoweek and they liked the G more. Yeah it makes less power but its faster than the SHO. Handling is also way better with the G. So you can get the slower, crappy handling, more expensive SHO or the all around better and less expensive G. Also the G is rated for better MPG but one downfall is that it requires premium fuel(I think).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
Actually it is a Mondeo powerplant. But you knew that right? No thanks on the Catterham. I'd rather get a Ariel Atom.
Actually it isn't. The cams are the only thing that AER sources from Ford of Europe, which did come out of a Mondeo ST220. The rest is sourced locally as AER is a remanufacturing company as well, and located in Texas, which is not apart of the United Kingdom, but you knew that right?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-25-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post
Actually it isn't. The cams are the only thing that AER sources from Ford of Europe, which did come out of a Mondeo ST220. The rest is sourced locally as AER is a remanufacturing company as well, and located in Texas, which is not apart of the United Kingdom, but you knew that right?
I didn't but I really didn't care.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
SHO Taurus is another pile. It needs turbos to make power. The Infinity G37 sedan blows the SHO out of the water at everything. Both were tested by Autoweek and they liked the G more. Yeah it makes less power but its faster than the SHO. Handling is also way better with the G. So you can get the slower, crappy handling, more expensive SHO or the all around better and less expensive G. Also the G is rated for better MPG but one downfall is that it requires premium fuel(I think).
The SHO, I have seen said Premium Fuel recommended on the cap. I actually think it is a nice car, just to expensice for what it is. Probably has the nicest fit and finish interior of any american car I have seen in years.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-25-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
LOL, I don't even own a fast car, I have and will again (My Dodge is a work horse and my Caddy is a cruising boat 0-60 in 12 seconds! Whoo hoo). That has nothing to do with it. You are just plain wrong if you think a 3.5L duratec is a better engine for a build to swap into anything than an LS based engine. My Comment on the Fast and furious generation is they think smaller motors more cams and more turbos ( I own a turbo Buick, but it is cause it is rare more than "wow it has a turbo") are the only way to go. Well it isn't. I'm fine if you want to waste your money trying to make a lesser engine equal, I jsut think it is silly. Facts are stubborn things, I can show you LS build after LS build from people I know that get 400+ RWHP without even removing the heads. They have less than 5-10K in the builds (I even know of one build that was $3500 complete with an LQ4), get 25 MPG and are reliable daily drivers (not a cammed to hell racecar, which my impala was when I bought it very annoying) Show me on 3.5 Duratec that fits all that and I will back down.


so your saying a smaller displacement motor is a lesser motor because its smaller? damn i had no idea!!!! guess i gotta get the cubic inches up!!!! like i have stated before. if i ever see a v8 with the technology that the newer motors have then yeah ill think about putting it in. but i havent really seen many v8 motors change their technology much. more turbos? bigger turbo maybe. one thing about the v8 guys is they are against technology. turbos make engines more efficient. AHHHH what? more efficient? and what did i say before im all about efficiency. 10k in investment for a 12 sec car is kinda ****ty. what cars do you think i like nothing but imports? you have me all wrong. Grand national is probably one of my favorite cars and that thing kicks ***. Chevy Vega's are reasonably light and i think those look sweet. ever look up Culture Shock Camaro it has a 1000hp 2jz in it. that car is so sexy! I do like a nicely done 240sx s14, 300zx, Civic Hatch stuff like that. Im well rounded. and what makes a car make you look like a douche? i think the person makes themselves look like a douche. i mean seriously. your stereotyping like crazy right now.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-25-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZZARDJOHN View Post
LOL, I don't even own a fast car, I have and will again (My Dodge is a work horse and my Caddy is a cruising boat 0-60 in 12 seconds! Whoo hoo).
Since we are already off topic, from one B-body owner to another, buy some Monroe Severe Service shocks for an early 90s Caprice 9C1 (Police Interceptor). Poor man's Bilsteins is really what they are. On my Bonneville, it went from a boat, sloshing side to side in the turns and front end picking up anytime the throttle was stabbed to solid and it was nothing more than just replacing shocks. The 9C1 steering box is also a great upgrade, better ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-25-2009
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Do you not know how to read? LOL, all I want you to show me is one engine, I don't care if it is a 1 liter or a ten liter that is Cheap, reliable, daily drivable, 400 RWHP, can be put in very small engine compartments, has a great aftermarket support, can move a 4000# truck or car to 12.5 to 13 sec 1/4 mile times, and gets 20-25 MPG. Show me that and I will send you an e-Cookie.

~HJ
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: ranger 4.0 headgasket valve cover gasket header gasket & viton valve stem seals $10+ talkforparts Interior, Exterior, Electrical, & Misc. 0 07-20-2010 02:41 PM
Who still makes a SC for the Vulcan? Wertzy 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 5 10-22-2006 08:32 PM
Vulcan texasfan1000 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 5 09-18-2006 09:54 AM
Newb question: Vulcan? buzzair 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 8 01-08-2006 08:58 AM
A new V-6? Will they finally kill the vulcan? TremorJon 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 16 12-06-2005 09:02 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:46 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.