3.0 SUCKS! - Page 3 - 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
  #51  
Old 07-31-2004
aftermarket's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ab, ab
Posts: 655
Thanks for the link though....helps out a lot. Although the "tunes" terminology the mention confuses me a little.

Anyone care to help a newb out with that?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-31-2004
Zero's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Poteau, Oklahoma
Posts: 435
I hate my 3.0... To bad I didnt know anything about vehicles or motors when me and my dad got it.. If I had the choice I would go back in time and get a V8 or save my money and search for a 4.0 reg cab... sadly I didnt and now I'm stuck with this slow monster :(
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-31-2004
FoMoCoFiddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Smackdownville Tx
Posts: 4,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04 EDGE
3.0-4.0 dont matter!

they both cut out at 90 MPH !!!!!!!

Ha, mine doesnt....


Ive driven a 3.0, my friend has a 03 EDGE supercab w/3.73's , it does ok to like 60mph, then its done, and the peddle is hard as hell, mine is smooth, and when you just tap it, the truck jumps...

I love my 4.0, i just WAXED THE CRAP out of a Ram"non-Hemi" ....

The 3.0 does fine for itself, at 150hp, that only about 110hp to the wheels..And most of you have 31's or bigger, especially those w/33's and lift, "did you think it was gonna be faster" lol...

Good stuff. should have been the 3.0Escape engine instead...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-31-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 638
3.0 sucks! I hate it, damnit!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-31-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 638
Again, I just want to say that the 3.0 sucks, it really does!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-31-2004
gatorblue92's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 8,238
i still like mine... i dont care what y'all say :)
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-31-2004
Wowak's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 2,223
I still say theres no problem with my 3.0L that a Whipple won't solve.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-31-2004
aftermarket's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ab, ab
Posts: 655
Approx price for a whipple unit??
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-31-2004
Trevelyn1015's Avatar
Still El Presidente...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by aftermarket
Approx price for a whipple unit??
.



$2495 (black) | $3095 (polished)

https://secure.whipplesuperchargers....nger/index.asp
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-31-2004
Zero's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Poteau, Oklahoma
Posts: 435
And the numbers from the normal unit im not to impressed with... now Dougs high output unit is a different story...
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-31-2004
FLPanther's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polk County, FL
Posts: 543
I love my 3.0L it is faster than my 2.5L and I'm getting between 18 - 22 mpg so I'm happy with it :D
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-20-2004
pacodiablo's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,126
The 3.0 isn't bad. My mom's '02 has one. It is sluggish, but I think that has more to do with the automatic transmission than anything else. With a manual I think it would perform much better.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-22-2004
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 2,123
Well I finally broke out of the high 15's MPG wise. In the city I was getting 15.5 MPG regularly. Now that I have a 12 mile commute to work, it actually warms up before it's time to park it, and much less stoplights.

But anyway, my 16-17 MPG still won't cut it. Seriously thinking about taking advantage of the 3,000 dollar rebates going on now until September 30th.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-22-2004
Wowak's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 2,223
The WORST I've ever gotten was 18.5mpg. Worst.

I usually average between 19.5 and 21.5mpg.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-22-2004
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
You know what guys my 2.3L sucks MORE! I'd kill to just have the 3.0L, and i'd jump in front of Leo's truck to steal his motor, haha.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-28-2004
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 638
Did yall read the specs for the 2005 Ranger? The 2005 4 banger 2.3 was rated at like 140 horsepower and the 3.0 V-6 was rated 148....not much difference if you ask me, id take a 2.3 with better gas mileage and do a couple of mods to get it up to 148 over a 3.0 V-6!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-28-2004
edgeofthecliff's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 392
Nothin wrong with my 3.0L. Sure it's not much but it's very durable and hellav lot better in mileage than on my 4.0L Explorer. Anyways they're sacrificing some of the 3.0L HP to add on the Torque. Should help it more when towing and loading.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-28-2004
FoMoCoFiddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Smackdownville Tx
Posts: 4,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckstone
You know what guys my 2.3L sucks MORE! I'd kill to just have the 3.0L, and i'd jump in front of Leo's truck to steal his motor, haha.
How about i just let you drive it...lol
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-29-2004
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 2,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2K3TremorJon
Did yall read the specs for the 2005 Ranger? The 2005 4 banger 2.3 was rated at like 140 horsepower and the 3.0 V-6 was rated 148....not much difference if you ask me, id take a 2.3 with better gas mileage and do a couple of mods to get it up to 148 over a 3.0 V-6!
Yeah gas milage is no comparison, but you do get around 30 extra pounds of torque.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-29-2004
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2K3TremorJon
Did yall read the specs for the 2005 Ranger? The 2005 4 banger 2.3 was rated at like 140 horsepower and the 3.0 V-6 was rated 148....not much difference if you ask me, id take a 2.3 with better gas mileage and do a couple of mods to get it up to 148 over a 3.0 V-6!
Well, Jon, that's fine but I don't think the torque on the 2.3 is as much -- and that's important with a truck. The torque curve may rise enough to give you that HP at high RPM -- but at lower RPMS it's not so good as either of the 6 cylinders and most mods won't help that since most mods are just breathing enhancements that affect upper RPM performance.

I will say that people whine a lot about the 3.0 (like in this topic for instance ) -- but with a few mods it's a tolerable engine and WAY more reliable than the 4.0. There's no question that the bigger engine is stronger, but the 3.0 doesn't suck -- it just is what it is: a solid low cost engine.

My 3.0 for 2002 was rated 154 HP and with mods it's looking like 180 in 0-60 trials. Not too bad. I'm not racing mine though. I have the 4.10 rear which helps a lot with the "feel" in daily driving as well as offroad.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-02-2004
2004edge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 387
yeh theres no comparison here engine wise between the 4 banger and the 3.0. I4's just dont have the torque a v6 has in general. hook a 3,000 lb trailer behind the 2.3 and the 3.0 and do a 1/4 mile drag then youll see the power diffrence
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-02-2004
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowak
The WORST I've ever gotten was 18.5mpg. Worst.

I usually average between 19.5 and 21.5mpg.
I'm sure since you have the lighter standard cab plus the manual transmission. Makes for the best mileage on this engine for sure.

I get the 16-17 average these days. I get as much as 22 on highway trips, with 20-21 more typical, depending on the trip and the terrain.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-02-2004
John Moorehead's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 1,002
FS offtopic: Two of my Nextel Phones

I average 21 MPG on every tank....in town it's probably closer to 18-19, but on the highway I really rack up.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-03-2004
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
think a 3.0 is bad??? try driving a fullsize with a 300 inline 6! lol. my cuz's 93 ranger with a 3.0 isnt to bad but it has 200K and is luggin 31s with 3:55s...id take one in a reg. cab 2wd =D
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-03-2004
eXtremePC's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: St. Peters, MO
Posts: 355
I like my 3.0 with 3.73. No it's not very fast but if I want a fast engine I'd get a Mustang or something along those lines. It gets good gas mileage too. An average of 21 MPG is great with me :)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pulling trans in the driveway sucks! SuicideAxles Drivetrain Tech 2 06-28-2006 04:28 PM
dang 4 wheel parts sucks..... lifted97ranger General Ford Ranger Discussion 24 06-16-2006 02:43 PM
this sucks i_love_paintbal Suspension Tech 45 01-08-2006 07:06 PM
Sucks for this guy (pic) SanityAside General Ford Ranger Discussion 15 10-07-2005 02:23 AM
Desperation SUCKS.... John Moorehead Exterior Semi-Tech 13 12-27-2004 07:12 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 12:37 AM.


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.