Mileage as bad as a 4.0? - 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 10-28-2010
GM/Ford owner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jp7 View Post
31 years old. I drive like an adult in my trucks. If I want to have fun, I drive my IX.
Same here. Didn't buy my truck to drive fast, just get to work and back. If I want to get my rocks off, I pull out my other vehicle, and ruin people's day, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-28-2010
Turbo Roadster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM/Ford owner View Post
Same here. Didn't buy my truck to drive fast, just get to work and back. If I want to get my rocks off, I pull out my other vehicle, and ruin people's day, lol.
And your other ride is....?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-28-2010
GM/Ford owner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo Roadster View Post
And your other ride is....?
G8 GT.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-28-2010
Turbo Roadster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM/Ford owner View Post
G8 GT.
Those are nice ran one with my mazda not bad but couldn't keep up he was trying but couldn't hold the road and I was pulling him on the hills. Seems like they would be nice for long drives or cruising.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-29-2010
GM/Ford owner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo Roadster View Post
Those are nice ran one with my mazda not bad but couldn't keep up he was trying but couldn't hold the road and I was pulling him on the hills. Seems like they would be nice for long drives or cruising.
I believe you ran a V6. No offense, but GT and GXP would take you and are hella fast. You have to remember these things have wicked amounts of torque, but you definitely have the weight advantage. They are great at the track and are awesome cruising. I know many that are running low 11s and mid 12s on motor only. Stock they run 13.0 - 13.3 1/4 mile and 0-60 ~ 5.0 seconds.Not bad for a 4000 pound grocery getter.

Last edited by GM/Ford owner; 10-29-2010 at 01:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-29-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: mississauga, ontario
Posts: 104
id love to own one of those G8's with the 6.2L V8 and a manual.

they will out perform the bmw m5 on a track.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-29-2010
GM/Ford owner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by 07silver4.0Lsport View Post
id love to own one of those G8's with the 6.2L V8 and a manual.

they will out perform the bmw m5 on a track.
That is the GXP version. I know it outperformed the M3, not sure about the M5.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-29-2010
Turbo Roadster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM/Ford owner View Post
I believe you ran a V6. No offense, but GT and GXP would take you and are hella fast. You have to remember these things have wicked amounts of torque, but you definitely have the weight advantage. They are great at the track and are awesome cruising. I know many that are running low 11s and mid 12s on motor only. Stock they run 13.0 - 13.3 1/4 mile and 0-60 ~ 5.0 seconds.Not bad for a 4000 pound grocery getter.
Nope it was a V8 same motor as the C6 vette, sorry to pop your bubble but I could pull him an the straights take him in the corners and smoke him on the hills.
My mazda ain't stock Carrillo rods wisco pistons and a big turbo my sig says 274 hp that was with the little gt2554 now with the 2861 I am on the other side of 350 and 2200lbs crunch the numbers my hp to weight is almost equal to a zo6. Now that is one fast ride.
My mazda isn't set up for quarter mile but it still runs mid 11's with a 1.89 60 foot time and 128 mph at the trap.
Don't take me wrong the G8 is a nice car but it is no speed daemon and don't handle worth a [email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-29-2010
Turbo Roadster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM/Ford owner View Post
I believe you ran a V6. No offense, but GT and GXP would take you and are hella fast. You have to remember these things have wicked amounts of torque, but you definitely have the weight advantage. They are great at the track and are awesome cruising. I know many that are running low 11s and mid 12s on motor only. Stock they run 13.0 - 13.3 1/4 mile and 0-60 ~ 5.0 seconds.Not bad for a 4000 pound grocery getter.
I didn't see your G8 in your sig. before not putting you down but your hp to weight is over 10 lbs. Even with my old setup I was 8 lbs. per hp and as memory serves me I ran the G8 with my old turbo, 5 speed and 4.10 gears.
New setup with the bigger turbo mazdaspeed 6 speed and 3.60 gears my weight to hp ratio is 6 1/4 lbs per hp, it does all right.
It surprises a lot of people I especially like to mess with the C6 vettes and new dodge challengers even the new Rousch mustangs and V8 camero's disappear in my rearview. Need bigger injectors and a better intercooler running 550cc's now I have run out of headroom with the standalone looking into getting some 750cc with a little re-programing I should see the other side of 400 rwhp.
But I think it will give up it's street-ability with that big of an injector on a 1.9 liter motor.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-29-2010
Melt's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRanger04 View Post
How you drive? Do you drive like you're 97 years old?
Are you 97 years old? If so ... I'm sorry
my 93 yr old grandpa happens to have a 95 4.0 xcab auto and it gets 17 or so all hwy with me driving it
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-30-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: dayton
Posts: 67
Are you kidding? the 3.0 has PLENTY of power. People keep comparing the 3.0 to the 4cyl on paper - not knowing when you drive it - it's a totally diffrent experience. the 3.0 actually drives like a truck, and the torque feels excellent. Very exceptional. I came from owning high horsepower mustangs and I'm a good judge of torque. For what the ranger is - the 3.0 does a great job. and it's pretty quick imo.

If you want my opinion - i say stay away from the 4 banger ranger. A 4 cyl truck is not a real truck. the 3.0 sounds "trucky" and usually sits higher and just overall feels more quality than the POS 4 cyl (my opinion)

Do i like the 4.0? sure. But in all honesty - I prefer my 3.0. The Vulcan can go 300,000 miles on straight **** in the crank case.

Believe me - 3.0 over the 4cylinder. only 10-15 more horses - yes - but I tell you... Two cylinders more - makes for a much muhc more quality ride. just the way the 3.0 idles and gets off the line (with good gearing especially) is excellent. due to design - you can't get a small displacement 4 cyl to idle as smooth as the vulcan and react the same way. we're not only talking a few more horses - we're talking dynamics!

As long as your happy with whatever decision you make - thats what counts!



Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-30-2010
djfllmn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,796
i drove my buddies 3.0 ranger before i got my 4.0...for the engine size the 3.0 does have decent torque...but the 4.0 is no comparison...and i get the same mileage as he did
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-30-2010
BlackRanger04's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Louisville,KY
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by red_rider View Post
If nothing else, the 3.0 is better down low than my 2.3 lima, which leads me to believe that it would accelerate better over the low (and probably high) rpms. And even I can keep up with Metros, although school buses are a little tougher :)
Ok, We're not really talking about how much more HP the 3.slow has over the 2.5 Lima or the 2.3 Lima.
The main issue here is the MPG you get out of a 3.0 vs the MPG you get out of a 4.0 SOHC.
The 4.0 SOHC has 57 more HP than the 3.0 OHV and it doesn't use much more fuel than the 3.0. That's why Ford quit making them in 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-30-2010
BlackRanger04's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Louisville,KY
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfllmn View Post
i drove my buddies 3.0 ranger before i got my 4.0...for the engine size the 3.0 does have decent torque...but the 4.0 is no comparison...and i get the same mileage as he did
Thank You
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-30-2010
djfllmn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,796
the problem is you really have to work the 3.0...especially if you lifted it and put bigger tires on like my buddy did...the 4.0 really doesnt have to work all that hard to move the ranger...hell i can let my clutch out w/o any skinny pedal and it moves...try that with a 3.0 and youll stall
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-30-2010
BlackRanger04's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Louisville,KY
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by djfllmn View Post
the problem is you really have to work the 3.0...especially if you lifted it and put bigger tires on like my buddy did...the 4.0 really doesnt have to work all that hard to move the ranger...hell i can let my clutch out w/o any skinny pedal and it moves...try that with a 3.0 and youll stall
X2

If I floor my truck and get the RPMs up to 6000 to 7000 I can actually pass a Geo-Metro, but I don't feel like hearing my engine tell me that it's about ready to blow up.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-30-2010
djfllmn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,796
yea pushrod motors dont like high RPMs
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-30-2010
Melt's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,392
so does painting your stock intake give you more hp?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-31-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: dayton
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melt View Post
so does painting your stock intake give you more hp?
No - but it fixes a boring afternoon.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-01-2010
Turbo Roadster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melt View Post
so does painting your stock intake give you more hp?
It must I just painted the lettering and I swear I gained 20 hp. the whole intake has to be good for 30-35 ponies easy.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-01-2010
limE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 101
I have a 08 4.0 4x4 auto and my friend has a 02 with the 3.0 4x4 and auto. we both have 4.10's

now I know it's kind of an unfair comparason because of the huge age difference, but we get exactly the same fuel mileage and we have roughly the same km's ( i have 70k he has 85k)

about 17 in the city and 20 on the highway.

it just seems his is working harder to get to speed.

IMO I think if you tow, or have plans to lift it with bigger tires, I would go with a 4.0 for torques sake if anything, but if all you do is drive to work with it and haul the occasional load a 3.0 would be ok.

Around here you can get a used 3.0 for a lot cheaper than a 4.0.

Last edited by limE; 11-01-2010 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-01-2010
ranger024x4's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: nova
Posts: 5,061
imo, I think the 3.0 is a useless motor. As already stated, it gets about the same mileage with less hp as the 4.0. And the hp ratings are just a hair over the 4cylinder.

op: 4.0 sohc, manual, 4.10's and 31's I average 20mpg. I drive up and down 29 every day that I drive it
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-05-2010
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: dayton
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger024x4 View Post
imo, I think the 3.0 is a useless motor. As already stated, it gets about the same mileage with less hp as the 4.0. And the hp ratings are just a hair over the 4cylinder.

op: 4.0 sohc, manual, 4.10's and 31's I average 20mpg. I drive up and down 29 every day that I drive it
IMO - i feel the Ranger is a useless truck. I got a full size with a real Engine in it that does real things and is much more comfortable.

I don't think anyone gets a ranger for "the engine"

It's just a nice little beater car to have. i bought my 04 for 4,100 bucks..and its the best looking ranger i've seen in town. Spending any money on it - imo is awaste. buy a stereo, level it out for 50 bucks and call it a day. these cars were made to rag on - and they take the ragging pretty damn good.

I would never put my truck through the abuse i put my ranger in. but i know that my 3.0 is easy to work on and i dont feel bad using it for work...

My 2010 tundras a diffrent story. She only takes my mustang to the track and looks cute for me on the weekends :)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-05-2010
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 1
HAHAHA i swear by my little 3.0L.

I have had THREE Rangers all with the 3.0L and i had ONE ford Explorer with the 4.0L sohc.

I Still prefer the 3.0L . Its a stronger built motor, its SIMPLE, Its decent on fuel, An it just always works.

The 4.0L i had had all kinds of problems (head gasket, timing chain guids, and lastly oil flow problem to the heads resulting it a big bang) All in the span of 120,000kms

My first 3.0L was in a reg cab 2wd. Truck went 112,000kms before i sold it NEVER had a issue. This thing averaged 22mpg.
My second was in a ex cab 4x4. This thing had 285,000kms on the clock and only problem it had was a Idle air control motor. This thing was ABUSED too even managed towing 5000lbs of motorcycles and tools when i moved. Averaged only 17mpg though as it was kinda heavy.

And my current truck is a 2wd ex cab with the 4:10s. Peppier than the other two but milage is not quite as good as the first one due to the 4:10s at a average of 19mpg. Good little truck and one i plan to keep for a long haul. Currently she only has 36,000kms on the clock but not a hint of worry and i dont expect any for MANY miles to come.

Oh and when i wana go fast i dont go for a vehical with 4 wheels. Plane and simple is cheaper and more fun to get your go fast kicks on 2 wheels. Hell my daily rider will get 12s all day long on the 1/4 and its built for touring LOL. The bike im building right now im hoping to get into the 11's.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-05-2010
djfllmn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDanger117 View Post
I got a full size with a real Engine in it My 2010 tundras a diffrent story.
you have the 5.7 IFORCE? i work at the local toyota dealer and the 5.7 tundras haul ***!and they are so comfortable...pricey though
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bad gas mileage? 2XRAD Ranger General Technical & Electrical 32 12-10-2010 07:46 PM
The_Dealer: Bad Deal Bad Member Bad Sell! LayingFrame89 Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews 34 12-01-2007 07:59 AM
Stock Drivesaft with RCD = BAD BAD BAD PICS INSIDE ranger General Ford Ranger Discussion 32 07-31-2007 12:50 PM
Really bad gas mileage ? ks ranger 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 2 10-25-2006 10:09 AM
ALL offroaders are BAD BAD BAD! FMD General Ford Ranger Discussion 13 04-25-2006 08:21 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 11:24 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.