Why did you buy a 3.0? - Page 5 - 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
  #101  
Old 11-28-2007
Oil Can's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 18
Had my 3.0 '89 ford aerostar totaled.

In 2003 I had a 1989 ford aerostar van that I used for part time work delivering lost airport luggage. The engine had just been remanufactured and it ran like a champ(original engine lasted 125,000 miles) . This van got about 20mpg with a 5 speed. That vehicle was totaled in an accident. I needed to replace the vehicle and i chose the ranger edge since it was a 5 spd with a 3.0. I also had a 1997 Taurus with the 3.0 that I liked. The dealer had made a mistake for the ranger, on the internet price, because he had discounted the vehicle from 16500 to 11500. That was a deal I couldn't refuse. I have used this vehicle for everything, commuting, moving my furniture, part time delivery work, construction sites, carrying softball equipment, and now leisure traveling. Still looks awesome, not a single problem. Matter of fact front brake pads were just replaced at 65500 miles! I've never had brakes last that long. I'm so happy and I hear folks on this forum talkng bout their rangers lasting 200K + miles.

Last edited by Oil Can; 11-28-2007 at 11:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-30-2007
cdn2x4ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: thief river falls,mn
Posts: 57
i got my 3.0 cause it's in a 91 2wd xlt with a 5spd, all new tires, new clutch, body in pretty good shape a little surface rust nothing big, for $500. oh yea and it has about 70 000 miles. runs great drives great. only had to change a lifter. i didnt buy it to go fast, i have a 94 grand cherokee for that. or i can do over 100 mph in real style driving thisName:  mykw.jpg
Views: 0
Size:  20.8 KB

i only drive my ranger about 100 miles a month. it's my little [email protected]#$box truck but i like it. and it gets around 23 mpg as well.
thats over 100 mph driving the kw not the wife lol.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-30-2007
S1att3r's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Emory, TX
Posts: 226
My parents bought mine when my first car gave out.
The only say so i had was that it was a v-6 instead of a i-4
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-30-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
If I didn't have heavy loads to pull, I would have bought the 3.0. The longevity on it is very important to me since I drive so much. I hope my 4.0 lasts somewhat as long as the vulcan.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-30-2007
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Same reason as above, truck was a gift. I'm happy with it, I wanted a truck not a sports car.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-03-2007
Splash_4by4's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Guatemala City
Posts: 43
I havent heard bad comments about a 3.0V6 what i can tell you is that i dont have any against my truck now that i have been using it for a coupple of months runs good sounds good and i feel great driving it...
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-03-2007
beaver25's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dearborn Heights, Michigan
Posts: 274
To be honest I bought mine because I didn't know that there was a 4 out there cuz I was a tard that didn't do ne research and I went out with intentions of getting a avalanche and didn't have any luck so I came across my ranger and just bought it. It sux and I feel stupid but I'm happy I went with a ranger over the avalanche. Thats the truth y I bought it.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-06-2008
t3ob's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 1,762
cuz thats just what my truck had in it when I found it, and my friends Ranger had a 3.0 and it was pretty peppy and good for my usual drivin and what not, but yeah I do wish I had the 4.0 though... oh well got a good deal on it at the time too!!!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-06-2008
Hillyard's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 1,018
I got too good of a deal not to buy the truck and I was really looking for the 2.3 but settled for the next step up. All around it is pretty good.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 08-06-2008
Roach2004's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,320
I probably said this before in this thread but I got it cause I didnt know **** about Rangers at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-06-2008
Hillyard's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 1,018
If you wanted a Regular cab short bed you really don't have a choice except in 01.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-06-2008
Zs02Edge's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ocala, Fl & Woodland, WA
Posts: 253
11 of the 13 Rangers I've owned since 1994 have had the 3.0.

I can't really compare the 3.0 to the 4.0 though. The 94 OHV I had was totaled the first month I had it and the 01 SOHC I still have sits at my cabin and only has 19k on the odo.

When it comes right down to it, the 3.0's been a damn good engine.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-06-2008
Rapala's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 826
I didnt know much about rangers then, I was in high school and I originally wanted a 67, 68 camaro... good thing I didnt get it or Ill be broke because of gas prices. My dad took me to the ford dealer, there was a white, and blue step side regualr cab, and there was one bright red extended cab. I wanted a red vehicle and it had to have some room to it, didnt know too much about the motor until I became a RPSer and then a R-Fer... since then it has much better git up, Ive even surprised a few folks... not to many modded rangers in town so they didnt expect much. But from other 4.0s Ive driven they have a tall first gear and as said seem to lack torque at the lower rpms compared to a 3.0... also I think a 3.0 has a better stock exhaust note even better one with a cat back exhaust.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-07-2008
goliath553's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 218
I knew alot about both engines.....

1) Money - It was cheaper, and you could still have an extended cab.
2) Longevity - From what I understand the engine is many years old 10+? and I would like to keep mine for awhile.
3) My dad has an 01 3.0 Edge 5sp, so I knew what I was getting into. Its 7 years old only has about 80 000 km (not miles) and the only somewhat costly repair he has done is brakes (rotars and whatnot).

I love my decision, a little better at the pumps than the 4.0 and lots of acceleration in town with a 5sp. Now 2/3 people and luggage on the highway - different story. But for the most part my truck is a city truck.

I hope everyone enjoys whichever engine they purchased. WIth the ranger there really is an engine for everyone. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-07-2008
kawaboy13's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Orange, Texas
Posts: 38
^^^ not really, they should put a 5.0 V8 in them also
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-07-2008
WowMike2001's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stevenson, WA
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindex1963 View Post
The 3.0 has quite a bit more torque than the 2.3.

A co-worker has a 4.0 and gets 14-16 mpg, he is forever getting
CELs, he cusses the truck and now has urned 100,000 and wants to get rid of it. Another co-worker has a 3.0 with 173,000 and zero complaints and yet another has a 2.3 and loves it. There are 5 Rangers here. The last one is a 2.5 with about 1,000,000 miles on it.

The 3.0 guy convinced me to buy a 3.0 and so did the 4.0 guy. I'm getting 23 MPG and it pisses off the 4.0 guy.
Sounds like he has just a lemon of a truck.. Im pushing 125k on my truck right now.. never had a CEL, perfect engine.. no burps or stutters in it ever yet, maintanence is usually the best thing to keep an engine going, unless you pull out one of those vehicles that just seems to have problems left and right
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-07-2008
Yessick's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: mobile,Alabama
Posts: 842
i love my lil 3.slow shes taken in water and all kinds of abuse with a lil bit of lucas oil additive she was good as new again lol but she will be up for sale when i hit 180k or around that... only because my dad wants me to buy a new truck for when i go to college so i have something reliable mmmm.... FX4 LEVEL II FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-09-2008
Cooke15's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 1,490
my first ranger was a 2.3 my second ranger was a 3.0 my third ranger is a 4.0.. basically you get what you pay for. They are all good reliable engines. If you want good value, decent power and torque go with a 3.0. If you are lookin for top end power you get a 4.0

Its really all your own personal preference
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-09-2008
Roddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,332
if ford would have offered a 3.0L V6 with the 4x4 i would have either bought a ranger or a B3000 with this set up... but in order to get the 4x4 i had to get the 4.0L. But im fine with that now :D
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-09-2008
Yessick's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: mobile,Alabama
Posts: 842
i think you can get a 3.0 with 4x4 now you probly just have to ask around and not so much as look around ya know..
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 08-10-2008
Roddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,332
^^^^^^^^^^^Nope not even offered in 2008. im not sure if thats a canada only thing, but im sure its the same in the states
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-10-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
I wanted a v6 5 speed manual and the ford vulcan, however wimpy is reliable and has a good amount of torque.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-10-2008
blegit's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 219
since i dont plan on driving my truck past 100k and the gas mileage to performance ratio is downright ****ty on the 3.0s the 4.0 is perfect for me =)
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-10-2008
cchsbuzz19's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North Canton, Ohio
Posts: 2,417
I knew I wanted a ranger for my first truck. The first thing I looked for when looking at rangers was if it was a 4.0L because I come from a ford muscle car family and so I automatically wanted the biggest engine you could get in it. And I tell you what It took me a while to find what I was looking for b/c all i found were 3.0L's.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-10-2008
Prerunner-Ranger's Avatar
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lancaster, CA.
Posts: 2,280
Didn't do my research...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
did you see what i just did there? SVT01RANGER Snapshots 17 04-30-2010 11:30 AM
Why did you buy a ranger OneTireFire General Ford Ranger Discussion 59 03-06-2010 10:44 PM
Why did you get a Ranger? Riddla General Ford Ranger Discussion 55 02-03-2010 09:09 PM
where did you buy your spindle lift from billabong98z Suspension Tech 2 04-26-2009 11:25 AM
why did you choose......... Robuilt General Ford Ranger Discussion 103 02-21-2009 06:00 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 04:33 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.