Tom Morana! - 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 11-24-2009
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
Tom Morana!

Has anyone seen their new stuff for the 3.0?

Tom Morana Racing Engines

Some cool stuff. Wondering if that supercharger kit is for the M90? I sent an email and asked a few questions i'll let you know what i get back.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-24-2009
Shaklakan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La Habra CA
Posts: 1,100
I know i just saw all that stuff. Im gonna be purchasing the stroker kit along with the 1.8:1 rockers to top it off. His stuff is pretty sick!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-24-2009
Roach2004's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,320
Why build up a turd?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-24-2009
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
Ok here's what I found out. The supercharger intake manifold is built for an M112 which is off of a mustang cobra 03-04. I asked about M90's and stuff. I want one for the M90, cuz MudSlanger has one that he'll sell me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-24-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach2004 View Post
Why build up a turd?
I'll second that,
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2009
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
i love my 3.0
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-24-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
I'll second that,
Turds don't last 200,000 miles.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-24-2009
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
Turds don't last 200,000 miles.
It could have 73498072398709 miles for all I care and I would still call it a turd. Also we mean turd as in slow no matter what is done to it.

Last edited by whippersnapper02; 11-24-2009 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-24-2009
08EscapeArtist's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Darlington, SC
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post
Turds don't last 200,000 miles.
I assume a turd is being referred to as a Ranger since they are not built for speed. My Ranger had 208,000 miles on it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
It could have 73498072398709 miles for all I care and I would still call it a turd. Also we mean turd as in slow no matter what is done to it.
And you have exploited every inch of a 3.0 to come to the conclusion it's a slow turd and nothing could ever be done to it to change that? Or are you just blindly parroting what everyone else has said? Or are you just one of those people that believe because there are larger displacement choices/options, that it can't possibly be better?

Because the 4.0 is a worse design than the 3.0...

Rod ratio, when extracting every little bit of horsepower out of an engine and building something capable of lasting in endurance racing, rod ratio becomes very important. The higher the better, endurance motors usually have a rod ratio between 1.9 and 2.2. The 3.0 has a ratio of 1.76 and the 4.0... 1.55. Here is a "short" list of what raising that ratio brings you:

Less rod angularity
Higher wrist pin location
Helps resist detonation
A lighter reciprocating assembly
Reduced piston rock
Better leverage on the crank for a longer time
Less ignition timing is required
Allow slightly more compression to be used before detonation is a problem
Less average and peak piston velocity
Peak piston velocity is later in the down stroke
Less intake runner volume is needed

Less rod angularity and piston rock promotes long life at any RPM by reducing wear and with less piston rock, better ring seal.

GM understood this principle when they needed an engine for Trans Am racing in the late 1960s, that still met the displacement limitations. They could of tooled up a 305, but what they produced was a 327 and 283 hybrid, resulting in a 302 cubic inch V8 with a very high rod ratio and with production performance heads it produced 403.8 BHP @ 7,400 RPM. The best factory 350 of that era, the ZQ3, could only muster 300 BHP.

Displacement is not the be all, end all, it's what is inside that matters and it is scientific fact that the 3.0 has far more potential than the 4.0.

But we can go back to hating on the 3.0 because it is the cool thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-24-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
There was someone that did everything you could do to a 3.0(stroker kit, forced induction, etc) and he was disappointed with the end result. I understand you can make a lot of power with a small displacement engine. Useable power? Probably not. Some engines just aren't made to produce power. In the end its a turd. My 4.0 is no better.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2009
GrafixGuy's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 8,703
3.0L FTMFW!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
There was someone that did everything you could do to a 3.0(stroker kit, forced induction, etc) and he was disappointed with the end result. I understand you can make a lot of power with a small displacement engine. Useable power? Probably not. Some engines just aren't made to produce power. In the end its a turd. My 4.0 is no better.
Please elaborate "everything you could do to a 3.0", if it is really "everything you can buy off the internet for a 3.0" then you really need to excuse yourself from this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2009
MudSlanger's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,462
Im sorry but after swapping in my 5.0 from the 3.0. I hate the 3.0 that much more. Im sure the 3.0 would be perfect for a lighter vehicle such as a car. But for me in a TRUCK, no way. I dont even know why they considered the 3.0 in the truck. The motor was a dog before i lifted it and it was a bigger dog AFTER i lifted it. So i continued to beat it up until it blew up. And now i say hello to 5.0 and ill never look back.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
lol i like how this popped up because well bullseye is running a 3.0L yes 3.0L ranger running at 500 or so horsepower. Im sure if done right you could get 600 or so and still last a long time because of the rod stroke ratio (as mentioned before). My theory is build it for power up top and boost down low. so you have a **** ton of pull all the way through. if you built a 3.0L to run up higher like the 7,000rpm range. and start getting boost at around 2,500rpm that sucker will pull. add a small shot of nitrous to spool even quicker. Its not always just about the horsepower but the power range. and if you build it for top end and then use boost and nitrous low end you'll pull a HARD!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2009
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
Please elaborate "everything you could do to a 3.0", if it is really "everything you can buy off the internet for a 3.0" then you really need to excuse yourself from this thread.
Yeah that is what I mean. He bought everything. So what though. Its still a turd no matter what you say. Even if you actually use your DOHC head which you probably wont do anyway.

I think its funny that I'm not the only one with this opinion on the engine yet you choose to pick on me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MudSlanger View Post
Im sure the 3.0 would be perfect for a lighter vehicle such as a car. But for me in a TRUCK, no way. I dont even know why they considered the 3.0 in the truck.
For the same reason why the C32B wasn't an engine choice from the factory on your Integra, at the very beginning of the car's design something of that size would be considering extreme overkill and make it extremely hard/costly to design around. Back when the Ranger was brought into as it's own model and not a trim level of an F-series, a four cylinder or a six cylinder was all a SMALL TRUCK like the Ranger needed, it weighed around 1,000 lbs less than an F-series. Today, (And with your truck), only a few hundred pounds separate a Ranger from an F-series.

Even with that, look at the Ranger's competition, how many of them are V8 powered?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whippersnapper02 View Post
Yeah that is what I mean. He bought everything. So what though. Its still a turd no matter what you say. Even if you actually use your DOHC head which you probably wont do anyway.

I think its funny that I'm not the only one with this opinion on the engine yet you choose to pick on me.
And when that day comes, you will still be here, still complaining about a truck you hate and not doing a damn thing about it.

As for why you, it because time and time again, when someone asks for help or an opinion about the 3.0, you always seem to pop up with your educated opinion on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-24-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Actually I am doing something about my truck. I'm saving money to buy something else. Ever heard of that concept? And I'm sorry that my complaining bothers you. I didn't know this was your internet. Oh wait. It's public isn't it? Too bad for you.

Well again the 3.0 is a turd. I'm not the only one that has said it. Funny how you didn't log in for a while then all of a sudden you pop back up. Maybe because you couldn't make friends on the other forums. Who cares though. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I still don't see a your DOHC 3.0. Where is it?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-24-2009
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
While both your your opinions are noted, kindly STFU and get back on topic. If you don't have anything RELEVANT to what I POSTED then don't reply.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
Sick of your trolling, Christian...it's constant. Stop that sht.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-24-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
if you talking about the 3.0L duratec which is a DOHC it is possible to make it fit it is 25" wide from the the end of bank1 and bank 2 the only snag is that i believe the heater? and blower motor gets into the way of the head... unless you can find away to move the "big box" on the left side of the engine bay then you cant get it in there. i have no idea what the big square/rectangular box is thats right next to the left of the engine. is that the heater box?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-24-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Yes I'm the bad guy because I defend my opinion. Ok.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-24-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickranger3.0 View Post
if you talking about the 3.0L duratec which is a DOHC it is possible to make it fit it is 25" wide from the the end of bank1 and bank 2 the only snag is that i believe the heater? and blower motor gets into the way of the head... unless you can find away to move the "big box" on the left side of the engine bay then you cant get it in there. i have no idea what the big square/rectangular box is thats right next to the left of the engine. is that the heater box?
No he wanted to use a SHO head on the pushrod block. Too much work IMO.

https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...ve-vulcan.html

Last edited by whippersnapper02; 11-24-2009 at 09:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-24-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
how would that work? considering that the cam is in the middle of the block? im sure that you could but that would be a lot of work. and if i had a SOHC or DOHC i would be talking to the Coates industry to see if they could make a Rotary cylinder head for the motor. Now that would be a sick setup!!! but yes back on topic. I could see pushing plenty of power out of the 3.0L one of its biggest problems is the ****ty heads. If you get over sized valves and backcut the larger valves and to some heavy duty work to it you should be set.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Going to Summit Racing tom. need opinions! cchsbuzz19 General Ford Ranger Discussion 7 05-22-2010 01:22 PM
Tom Morana 1/8th mile comparison Rapala 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 10 05-02-2010 07:10 PM
cchsbuzz19/Clayton & Toms994x4/Tom ROCKS!! Fx4wannabe01 Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews 15 11-02-2009 03:10 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 11:27 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.