3.0L unavailable for 09 Ranger - 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 12-23-2008
vindex1963's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: phoenix AZ
Posts: 3,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0RangerEdge2 View Post
I've driven the hell out of the truck for close to 100,000 miles without any issues at all. It gets the truck where it needs to go and it does it well.
That's all that matters.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-24-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by storlied View Post
My dad's B series has a 2.3L I'm sure. (98) And it's never broke down, but then again.. neither has my 5.0L V8. In fact, I haven't seen big problems with any Ford engine. =)

Built Ford Tough
Their truck engines are reliable....their car engines.....
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-24-2008
johnwilliams474's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, tx
Posts: 45
yeah i like my 3.0 but after driving a 08 ford fusion the other day with the v6 and i must says the 3.0 ranger is quite a bit slower
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-25-2008
mj550's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Mine has been good to me so far, 66K miles and responds well to the few bolt ons.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-26-2008
edgeofthecliff's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliams474 View Post
yeah i like my 3.0 but after driving a 08 ford fusion the other day with the v6 and i must says the 3.0 ranger is quite a bit slower
Your comparing a Vulcan to the Fusion's 220HP Duratec 3.0.....big difference lol.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-26-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeofthecliff View Post
Your comparing a Vulcan to the Fusion's 220HP Duratec 3.0.....big difference lol.
Not to mention one is is an aerodynamic car, the other is a big loaf of bread.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-28-2008
vindex1963's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: phoenix AZ
Posts: 3,026
Say to yourself "It's a truck not a race car". Say that 3 times a day until it sinks in.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-28-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindex1963 View Post
Say to yourself "It's a truck not a race car". Say that 3 times a day until it sinks in.
Aerodynamics has alot to play with MPG, I think I am qualified to know about this.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-28-2008
storlied's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Aerodynamics has alot to play with MPG, I think I am qualified to know about this.
Well, that's just an obvious fact.




"Not to mention one is is an aerodynamic car, the other is a big loaf of bread. "


Mine's more of a loaf of bread than urs.... lol..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-28-2008
0RangerEdge2's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,593
I love bread!

But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.

It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-28-2008
vindex1963's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: phoenix AZ
Posts: 3,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Aerodynamics has alot to play with MPG, I think I am qualified to know about this.
I wasn't talking to you but to everyone. Congrats on your qualifications.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-28-2008
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0RangerEdge2 View Post
I love bread!

But really back on topic, the 3.0 isn't terrible. I didn't buy a truck to go fast. It has enough acceleration to work well on the highway and around town. I have 4.10 gears so that helps and it has plenty of torque to get the tires spinning off road.

It works. It moves the truck decent and that's what matters to me.
yeah, i agree. its not terrible but it lacks low end torque. but it can move pretty good when its above 30
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-22-2009
RedRanger91XLT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapala View Post
yeah its sad to see it go but its a really old workhorse... its really simple pushrod engine... Im glad that Ford finally did away with it Im not being negative about it but it just needs to be put out of its misery. I love my 3.0 its a great engine and it can really take a beating.... it may have the gas mileage of a v8 but the horsepower of a honda but it is really reliable and there are plenty of parts out there to repair them if something were to go wrong... I love mine I wish I had more torque but this engine surprises me everyday
I don't know about you guys, but mine has 211 HP. Is that what 4 cylinder cars are at now-a-days? wow... I guess my 96 Saturn 1.9L 4 cylinder was WAY under powered...
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-01-2009
madripor's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincy, OH
Posts: 182
This article pretty much sums it up.
They're replacing the Ranger.

Ford chose to invest improvements in the Ford Explorer SUV which was branched to a more advanced platform than the Ranger, letting Ranger's sales decline. A similar strategy was applied to the Ford Taurus, another former best seller which was replaced by two new nameplates rather than redesigned. However as a result of the drastic shift toward smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles in North America, Ford has said it will continue to produce the Ford Ranger through 2011 at its Twin Cities, Minn. plant, which was scheduled to close in 2009.[7]

Since then, all of its competitors from the Dodge Dakota to the Toyota Tacoma have been redesigned and enlarged towards the mid-size market (with the Dakota offering a V8 engine) and leaving the Ranger and its twin, the Mazda B-Series, the only compact trucks on the market. For example, the 2005 Nissan Frontier offered up to 28% more power than a Ranger (265 vs. 207), and the entry level model was over a foot longer.[8] Since 2004, Toyota Tacoma has taken a commanding lead (93% higher sales than the Ranger in 2006) in the segment. In January 2007, Ford sold 4,652 Rangers, a decline of 25% from the previous year, one-tenth the number of F-Series trucks, and about half as many as the Explorer.

Contrary to rumors of its demise, MotorTrend confirms that "Ford is working on two new, smaller-than-F-150 pickup trucks, one based on the F-Series and the other a replacement for the aged Ranger compact, which is unchanged, save for facelifts, since the 1998 model year.

The smaller F-150 is codenamed P525 and may be badged F-100, the name of Ford's lightest duty pickups until 1982. At one point, P525 and the Ranger replacement were competing proposals, but with growing need for higher-fuel-mileage trucks, both projects will become reality in 2010 or 2011.[9] The P525 is rumored to have the V-6 EcoBoost (gas direct injection and turbocharging) engine as its primary engine, with fuel economy and torque optimized for interim Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards expected to kick in for the 2011 model year. The second engine which may not be available at release is a new small modular 5.0 liter V-8 featuring Ford's version of displacement on demand.

The Ranger replacement, codenamed T6, is being designed and developed by Ford Australia [10] and was originally intended only for world markets other than the U.S. Some news sources of indicated that Dearborn has reconsidered that plan, and that Ford thinks high gas prices are definitely here to stay.

The plan for F-100 was put on hold, instead the company decided to offer EcoBoost engines for F-150.[11] The new truck was to have been built at the Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, but Ford has decided to retool that plant to produce small cars. It could still build the F-100 at one of its other truck plants if it later determines there is a need for the product. Since the '09 F-150 isn't offered in V6 or manual transmission, the "F-100" will come optional with both.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-01-2009
Rapala's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRanger91XLT View Post
I don't know about you guys, but mine has 211 HP. Is that what 4 cylinder cars are at now-a-days? wow... I guess my 96 Saturn 1.9L 4 cylinder was WAY under powered...
care to go further as to what it is that you have that as 211 horsepower?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-03-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
im not gonna get rid of my ranger for a slightly bigger truck its fine for me and what i do. the 3.0L of mine has plenty of power and has plans to be boosted. so i don't need a new motor. whenever my motor goes ill just mate the 3.5L duratec transmission that is supposed to be in the f-150 to a 3.0L duratec. then turbo that motor. (since all the duratecs have the same bolt pattern from what i remember)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-04-2009
red_rider's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Port Byron, IL
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Why would you want a pushrod motor. Inferior technology.
GM's LS v8's and Chrysler's 5.7 HEMI would like to speak with you.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-04-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 161
Remember that it's not about speed, if you're important, people will wait...
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-04-2009
Rapala's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
Why would you want a pushrod motor. Inferior technology.
apparently this inferior technology is keeping ford out of bankruptcy
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-13-2009
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: West Melbourne, FL
Posts: 14
whats wrong with 20mpg. heck my f150 5.4 don't get near that.

Also the new engines don't use pushrods? what do they use.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-13-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffb View Post
Also the new engines don't use pushrods? what do they use.
Overhead cams.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-13-2009
Tys 4x4 FTW's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 6,575
lol at pushrod motors being inferior. they're not inferior. they are an old, proven, reliable technology. look at the GM 3.8, old *** design. badass motor. (torque wise at least)

but, the 3.0 sucks. lol
ive driven my friends 98 5spd 3.0. and i think i'd rather peddle a bike.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-14-2009
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
Overhead cams.
Gerbil Wheels.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-14-2009
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapala View Post
apparently this inferior technology is keeping ford out of bankruptcy
dude, Ford is all about gtdi now. with dohc. Thats whats keeping them out of bankruptcy.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-14-2009
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by red_rider View Post
GM's LS v8's and Chrysler's 5.7 HEMI would like to speak with you.
obama and fiat?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1996 15x7 Steel 5 spoke wheels, unavailable. Enduro Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 7 09-20-2011 01:16 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 08:50 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.