Another 3.0 vs 4.0 thread? - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 02-10-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Jefferson City, MO
Posts: 13
My first Ranger was a '92 with a 2.9L and it was a "gutless turd"

Now I have an '02 Ranger w/the 4.0L and it will run circles around the 2.9L I had. No experience w/the 3.0L but I'd say get what you want or you'll be sorry you didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-10-2012
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Ha. I'm in my mid thirties. I just feel that a manual transmission lasts longer and they are also cheaper to fix. If not for those two reasons, I'd go with an automatic.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2012
djfllmn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,796
i love having a 5 spd too
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-11-2012
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
How about this, a four cylinder (2.3L) or a six cylinder (3.0L)? And why?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-11-2012
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Also, I was thinking of 2002 or up because I read somewhere that 2002+ are the best years. What about the mileage? How high is too high for these trucks?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-11-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: springfield il
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by digizure View Post
Also, I was thinking of 2002 or up because I read somewhere that 2002+ are the best years. What about the mileage? How high is too high for these trucks?


I am on my second manual trans 3.0 ranger, the 1st one was an 04 2wd regular cab styleside and was very reliable, it would pull a 16ft aluminum fishing boat at 70 mph no problem. i could pull down about 370 miles per tank on the highway about 25-26 mpg loved that truck. I traded that in for an 07 3.0 5 speed manual 4wd reg cab xl I only get 20-21 mpg highway with this truck and about 17 mpg city driving I have never had any problems with either trucks 3.0 and would not hesitate to purchase another

I have never owned an 4.0 engine so i can't reply about them but my 3.0 pulls a 16' aluminum fishing boat or 2 honda rancher atv's on a snowmobile trailer at 70 mph no problem. my 3.0 have served me well
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-12-2012
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 48
Right now, I am definite on sticking with a manual and prefer 4 doors (for easy access). I test drove a 4 cylinder Ranger today and it wasn't too bad. I am not concerned about the city driving but driving cross country, through the mountains.

I'm only buying a truck to haul my three dogs in and to sleep in during these cross country trips. I do foresee hauling some stuff but not very often and nothing very heavy.

Does a 3.0 offer more power than the 4 cylinder or am I just better off sticking with the 4 cylinder for its fuel economy?

BTW, I just read somewhere that the 3.0 has some issues with the cam and that there are some people out there who recommends 2.3 over the 3.0. Your thoughts?

Last edited by digizure; 02-12-2012 at 12:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-12-2012
Ranger Smith's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Smith View Post
The 3.0 is a boat anchor. I would rather have the 4 banger.
x2 haha
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-12-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rosedale, WV
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by digizure View Post
How about this, a four cylinder (2.3L) or a six cylinder (3.0L)? And why?
2.3 all the way there... why? i'll tell you. the 2.3 has almost the power of the 3.0 (lacking some 10 hp IIRC) but gets nearly 30 mpg...

but the 3.0 isn't a terrible engine, it's jsut that the 4.0 is so much better...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-13-2012
PSIJOE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,311
I you are using it for mainly highway usage and not so much city I'd still stick with the 4L if you can find it. I've started using cruse control a lot more in the month or so...HUGE difference on mpg's. Does pretty well now. around 20ish mpg. I know it's not amazing but thinking about the 2.3 pulling a trailer even though it's not heavy it will still be a slug up hills. It will waist a lot more miles per gallon trying to get up those hills. I like the 4cyl rangers. If they are empty they still get out of there own way pretty decent. It's just once you start loading them up is when your going to lose mpg's and a huge loss in power. (Driving wise I guess you can say?)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-13-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rosedale, WV
Posts: 215
the 2.3 would suck on hills with a load...lol
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-13-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: California
Posts: 52
I took off a really nice century cap and put it on my 2.3 5sp before I 'gave it away and I sure noticed the weight back there, but she had 300k and its still truckin, but i was used to driving with my foot pegged to the floor.
Either V engine will fit your needs for a long haul...just depends if you like to draft or pass!
I actually prefer my old 94 over this 08...ford did not skimp on the gauges, the in dash vents had shut positions, there was a bright white bed/backup light, there was a two position overhead interior light...lots of little stuff I am just noticing. Up to 02 there must have been stuff still in the parts bins.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-17-2012
cg257's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 12
If your going to get a Ranger do it right and get a 4.0
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-20-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 347
The 3.0 ain't that bad.

I've loaded the back of the Ranger with close to 600 lbs, and it really wasn't any slower than it was unloaded.

In fact, it seemed to like having a load on it.


I'd rather have the 3.0 than the 4.0... the 4.0 is a bitch to change spark plugs on. If it's real hard to do something like that which is supposed to be an easy job, forget it.

Either way, you can always swap a 302 in at a later date and get about the same gas mileage.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-20-2012
frosty's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 244
The 3.0L is okay just bear in mind that it is a very out dated engine. Hence the more modern 4cyl. having similar horse power but obviously getting much better fuel economy. That is why they dropped the 3.0L from the ranger line up in 07 or 08 (not sure on the exact year).
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-20-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by frosty View Post
The 3.0L is okay just bear in mind that it is a very out dated engine. Hence the more modern 4cyl. having similar horse power but obviously getting much better fuel economy. That is why they dropped the 3.0L from the ranger line up in 07 or 08 (not sure on the exact year).
Out dated and agricultural = reliable and simple...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-20-2012
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rosedale, WV
Posts: 215
the 3.0 is simpler than the other engines... but it's a turd, lol
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Location in Classified Thread = Thread Closed KLC Ranger-Forums Office 1 05-18-2012 06:02 PM
:::Full Thread Plugs Instead Of Half Thread? NDL SOHC - 2.3L & 2.5L Lima Engines 6 08-05-2011 11:51 AM
yes another thread. lol roll pan thread! Tys 4x4 FTW General Ford Ranger Discussion 21 02-08-2010 09:09 AM
People's Opinions From The Old VIP Thread (now made into contributor thread) gbgary Ranger-Forums Office 71 12-05-2004 05:35 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 03:32 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.