3.0 durability? - 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
  #1  
Old 11-20-2014
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3
3.0 durability?

Hi all! I looked at a 2000 Ranger the other night that has 170000 miles on it. What is the durability of the 3.0 l engine compared to the 4.0 l engines that I have heard called "bulletproof"? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-20-2014
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Posts: 349
I have 216K on my 2000 Ranger, equipped with the 3.0. I pull a camper with it; I'm that trusting of the engine, and it has not let me down.

The 3.0 will not rock your socks in the way of power or speed. If you want that, move on to the 4.0.

The 3.0 is a reliable engine if given good maintenance. It has live expectency into the 300K range before major engine work could be expected. There are lots of them on the road, and parts (new and used) are plentiful.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-20-2014
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,220
I have 280,000 on my 3.0, and I've never done anything but routine maintainance. Still starts up quick and runs great.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2014
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Posts: 349
I need to add that I've had several trucks in my driving lifetime; F-150's of various years, Chevy's, and a Dodge Ram. Out of them all, I enjoy this Ranger 3.0 the best. Don't know why though. Maybe it's size suits me, maybe the fact that with 216K, it still runs great.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2014
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,584
While any used vehicle is a gamble at best, the Rangers seem to hold up well.
3.0l Vulcan engine was used in several Ford models from 1986 to 2008, not just Rangers(1991–2008), and if serviced it also holds up well.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-20-2014
Tredeh's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Killen, Alabama
Posts: 32
3.0s are good engines, with proper maintenance they'll last 300,000+ miles and stand up to a lot of abuse.
3.0 + 5 speed = unstoppable

Still wish I had an auto though.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-20-2014
99offroadrngr's Avatar
TOYOTA
iTrader: (37)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 11,728
Yep they're really reliable. I kinda miss my old truck, a 99 that had a 3.0 although it was a dog.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-20-2014
pearlkid9988's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newnan Georgia
Posts: 828
We used to service a guys aerostar had the 3.0l with m50d with more than 350k on the clock and very little trouble from it. They are notoriously long lived if maintained. The 4.0 is also an excellent motor they to have a decently long life and comparable gas mileage. If you want power then get a 4.0 if your solely interested in long service life i would suggest the 3.0 you'll be hard pressed to find a longer lasting motor.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-21-2014
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tredeh View Post
3.0s are good engines, with proper maintenance they'll last 300,000+ miles and stand up to a lot of abuse.
3.0 + 5 speed = unstoppable

Still wish I had an auto though.
I have the automatic...not that I prefer it, but now glad I do, as they are rated higher for towing weight capacity. I guess the clutch does not hold up as well when towing heavier trailers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-21-2014
pearlkid9988's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newnan Georgia
Posts: 828
The clutch isn't necessarily why its rated so low it has a lot to do with modern day manual trans drivers. Its kind of a lost art so long as you don't let it slip and heat up to much mechanically it "can" tow pretty close to what an auto will. Ive had 4000lbs behind my truck before and after trans swap and its basically the same it revs a little higher due to different ratios but it has no problems pulling it you just have to be careful with the clutch. Its rated so low for warranty reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-21-2014
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucko View Post
I have the automatic...not that I prefer it, but now glad I do, as they are rated higher for towing weight capacity. I guess the clutch does not hold up as well when towing heavier trailers.
The weight capacity is lower for manuals because of general operator knowledge.
To cover legal parameters they have to consider the driver a novice operator using a manual or an automatic..........how would you rate that?
Yes, less weight for manual, lol.

Semi-trucks only used manual transmissions for many many years, so manual is better if you know what you are doing.
"Because of the wide variety of loads the semi may carry, they usually have a manual transmission to allow the driver to have as much control as possible."

Newer Semi's can have automatics but they are usually manual shift, so automatic clutch, more than automatic transmission.

But none of that changes the facts that "legally" a passenger vehicle with an automatic has a higher towing weight capacity.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2014
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Posts: 349
And for me, my wife; she does not drive a manual, nor has any desire to learn. After 34 years of marrage, no need for me to even try anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2014
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,584
Yes, lol, same here.
My wife "can" drive a manual, she just "may" not, my rules, lol.

She is a perfect example of why weight limits are lower for manual trans vehicles, I can see her getting in over her head going up or down hills in a manual with a heavy load in tow.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2014
Fordzilla80's Avatar
YZ
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,038
I don't miss my automatic. After it blew up at 78,000 miles, I said goodbye to it and never looked back. Manuals ftw!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-2014
pearlkid9988's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newnan Georgia
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordzilla80 View Post
I don't miss my automatic. After it blew up at 78,000 miles, I said goodbye to it and never looked back. Manuals ftw!
Agreed having the ability to drive an identical truck before and after a manual it is by far my favorite no other changes were made performance wise in between and its by far the best "bolt on" change lol. it really is night and day difference as far as acceleration speed and overall performance. And the durability/gas mileage improvements alone are enough to make it worthwhile to have the manual.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-18-2015
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tabor City
Posts: 29
i've got a 94 3.0 with 230k on the clock. the previous owner(S) did ZERO maintenance to it. i mean nothing. the radiator exploded a week after i bought it. change of oil, new spark plugs, new wires, and a fresh radiator later, and it runs excellently, except on start. blame the idiots, for bypassing the EGR valve. morons.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Improvements in reliability/durability since 2001? TheBob General Ford Ranger Discussion 6 01-07-2011 03:07 PM


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 06:47 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.