Most relaible and longest lasting engine? - 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 05-30-2006
01xltranger4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger1
Because they are too cheap to spend the R&D money to figure out how an OHC works.

99% of 3.0 owners on here wish they had a 4.0L, for that reason alone i wouldn,t want a 3.0.
haha owned!



Defenitly get the 4.0
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-30-2006
bwester04's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
uhh too bad the SOHC is most likely gonna be replaced with the 35 Duratec.. guess it'll fix that timing chain rattle for good now wont it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger1
Because they are too cheap to spend the R&D money to figure out how an OHC works.

99% of 3.0 owners on here wish they had a 4.0L, for that reason alone i wouldn,t want a 3.0.
Umm I dont see you with the stock 400+hp OHV engine.. a 207hp 4.0L SOHC- kinda pathetic. My parents old '98 Lumina had 200hp out of its 3.8L OHV (That engine made it's debut in the VERY early 90s). I guess being cheap has it's perks.

Last edited by bwester04; 05-30-2006 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-30-2006
telemaster1952's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dover, Deleware
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwester04
Actually the SOHC 4.0L has been around in the Ranger since '01 and '97 in the Explorers. But yah the old 4.0L OHV was put to use in the early 90's in the Ranger. BTW the OHV 4.0L had like 160hp/220lb-ft compared to the 3.0L's 150hp/185lb-ft.. So I dont see a huge difference in PERFORMANCE, but down in the RPMs torque is where you'll feel a bit more power. Now the SOHC 4.0L makes ~205hp/240lb-ft and will feel the difference up in the RPMS. I personally like the 3.0L because it has low down torque (usable driving power), mate it with the manual tranny and it'll be peppy. Like 'Rangeredge02' said, I beat the hell out of mine as well and it has taken the abuse for a good 78k miles so far with no engine problems. I say, for DURABILITY- the 3.0L wins that case (IMO), the engine has been around for a good time, it's proven. Performance wise, eh I couldnt tell a huge difference in the 2006 4.0L/auto 4x2 Sport that I drove and the '05 STX 3.0L/manual, the STX actually felt peppier. I thought the 4.0L was slower than I expected, and I hated the way the tranny shifted- just seemed sluggish. I just expected more out of the truck since the way some of yall SOHC guys on here talk about em
Oh yah- forgot to add.. If you're wanting a Ranger for REAL performance, you're barking up the wrong alley- Get a Mustang GT- you'll be much happier- better mileage and MUCH MUCH MUCH more power

oh ya...oops

i didnt think about the sohc vs. the ohv

ok ya sry jeff that makes sense
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-30-2006
GrafixGuy's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 8,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabeard
those 2.3 seem to run forever.
yep they do...130K and still holding strong :)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-30-2006
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8
i like over head cams better, although harder to tune, they are more potent IMO, yea sure there are still extremely potent OHV, but they are just not the same as the OHC motors.

lets not forget that NASCAR barred the 427 SOHC from running during some seasons( older guys fill in here cuz i'm too young to know better )

anyways i drive a 3.0 and it does fine, the 4.0's are really cool however i wouldn't want to trade for a 4.0 as we cannot get it with a standard, i just dun like the feel of my bosses truck. either way performance is not our strong point, go somewhere else if that is the case, as both motors are well rounded for their tasks.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-30-2006
i_love_paintbal's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: atown
Posts: 197
I have a 3.0 when I first got my truck I wanted a 4.0 but now I wouldn’t trade it for a 4.0 mine is a single cab stick so I get plenty of power I pull boats and all kinds of crap and still have lots of power hell I pull my friend out of the mud all the time and he has a 4.0

PS. My friends is a 2wd and mine is a 4x4 but i still pull him out haha
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-31-2006
speed_racer_801's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 124
I have a 94 4.0 with 24 MPG and all I did was get one of the programers from Checker
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-31-2006
mx98ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 1,493
75,500 miles on my 98 4.0 ohv... no problems at all... runs like new
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-31-2006
HarryTasker's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,491
If you have a choice between a 4.0 and a 3.0 at the same price then go for a 4.0. It may need more work over the course of 10 years then the 3.0, but the performance is well worth it. If you want a bullet proof engine in a truck then buy a toyota.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-01-2006
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
Now, does it HAVE to be a ranger engine???

Well, imo the most reliable and longest lasting engine would have to be a 292 inline 6. Or a early ISB Cummins.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-02-2006
crooked02edge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montevallo, AL
Posts: 175
I have a single cab 2wd 5spd w/3.0. I run 32's w/steel wheels and get little over 20mpg. It has plenty of power with 4.10's. I never knew rangers were or ever been high performance vehicles. The only way to get that in a truck would be to find yourself a Lightning or a Dodge SRT(I think tat's right). Everyone talks about the extra power when you get on it, what's the point? Unless you are racing. I guess if you're planning on running some hefty tires on that thing, it might prove usefull. IMO, like a few others, the 3.0 serves its purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-03-2006
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
115k on my 98 3.0 and 35k of it has been non stop beating on by my and never has had a single problem it has its days where it seems a little more perky than others but other than Im happy with it besides the slowness in a way. And the belt squeek when it's raining or damp which I fixed with a gatorback belt.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-03-2006
Sonic04Edge's Avatar
RF Veteran

iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Madison. AL
Posts: 5,715
I have a 3.0 with an automatic and with my dual flowmasters and programmer its pretty quick. The programmer is what makes the huge difference and on the last trip I took I avg 23.4mpg with the ac on full blast and running 80-85 and I have 4.10 gears with 30.5 tires. However before the programmer I did want a 4.0, but now its got plenty of power.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-03-2006
DangaRanger99's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farmington, NH
Posts: 1,209
Your 3.0 Now probably has what a 4.0 got stock? LoL

Get the programmer for the 4.0 and u might be onto something, but im still with everyone else, #1 If your looking for HP rangers are not the answer #2 If you have the choice of the 3 verse the 4.0, obviously go bigger, that way you can tow, put bigger tires etc, and #3 do what you think is best who cares what everyone else thinks, what we think and what you think may possibly be 2 differnt things.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-03-2006
thejsx's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwester04
a 207hp 4.0L SOHC- kinda pathetic. My parents old '98 Lumina had 200hp out of its 3.8L OHV (That engine made it's debut in the VERY early 90s). I guess being cheap has it's perks.

I don't think the lumina could haul as much as the ranger can... with trucks you don't need as much HP as Torque...the best example of this are semi-trucks... for exemple, my truck does [email protected] or so but pulls about 1600lbs/ft @ 1100rpm...

Hp is for speed and Torque is for moving weight...

so you'd rather be having more torque to pull your 4000lbs ranger than high output engine that wont be able to get yer truck moving...!!


As for reliabily my 4.0l has nearly 100 000miles on it and is going very well and for mpg i'm getting about 20 avg but im doing mostly 80% of highway
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-03-2006
bwester04's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejsx
I don't think the lumina could haul as much as the ranger can... with trucks you don't need as much HP as Torque...the best example of this are semi-trucks... for exemple, my truck does [email protected] or so but pulls about 1600lbs/ft @ 1100rpm...

Hp is for speed and Torque is for moving weight...

so you'd rather be having more torque to pull your 4000lbs ranger than high output engine that wont be able to get yer truck moving...!!


As for reliabily my 4.0l has nearly 100 000miles on it and is going very well and for mpg i'm getting about 20 avg but im doing mostly 80% of highway
If it were in my truck, it sure would buddy (200hp/225lb-ft) And seems we were gettin into SPEED and which engine is the fastest, so I felt like I had to throw that one in there for those knocking the GM engines. Hell I dont even use my truck for "TRUCK", I'm sure quite a few here on this site dont either. But then again, i dont care about going offroad anymore, i want speed
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-27-2006
Jeremy102579's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 431
almost 164,000 miles on my 94 3.0 supercab 4x4 with stick shift.

yes it is slow, but suppose to be reliable, same motors as those arrowstars, which ran forever also.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-27-2006
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Franklin Indiana
Posts: 87
I work as a tech at a pretty popular shop and a local news team runs a few of the exploder 4.0 sohc. They range from 40,000 to one is about 170,000 miles. I traded a 2004 regular cab 3.0 5 spd for a 05 edge s-cab 4.0 and the 4.0 got better mpg. With more power on tap you use less go peddle to move go.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-27-2006
Strider0O0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,588
my 2001 4.0SOHC will be hitting 100,000 miles soon... runs like it's brand new. i haven't done anything to it at all besides the normal maintainance stuff (oil changes, etc).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-27-2006
GrafixGuy's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 8,703
I love my new 07 3.0, its got enough power to get up and go....

just hitting the 3,000 mile mark :)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-13-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: weatherby lake, mo
Posts: 2
I have had them both, the 4.0 sohc is the only way to go.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-13-2007
Boomdock's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington, IA
Posts: 218
152,000 on the ticker and no probelms. I get "good" gas mileage and my truck has enough pep for its configuration. But I suppose if I had the chance, I'd take a 4.0 (I've never driven one though).
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-13-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belleville IL
Posts: 15
i say 3.0 if you do mostly city, and 4.0 if it's mostly highway

but i've seen alot more 3.0's with high mileage than 4.0's

my grandpa had a 99 ranger that had 300k and 2 transmissions on the clock when he sold it a year ago...still running

but..... all the 3.0 5spd's and 4.0 5spds i've seen in junkyards...(mostly) had good motors in them
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-14-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 116
I have a 06 Ranger with 4.0 and i get 18 mpg in the city and i really havent tested it on the HWY
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-14-2007
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger1

99% of 3.0 owners on here wish they had a 4.0L, for that reason alone i wouldn,t want a 3.0.
I guess I'm in the 1% that's just fine with a 3.0. I drove a 2.3 5spd for 6 years, and it didn't have quite enough power. The 3.0 I just bought runs great in my opinion. Of course, I'm a slow driver too though.

I have never driven a 4.0, and might like one even better if I did. For $500 difference, I would probably get the bigger engine. Especially if what people are saying about the mileage being somewhat similar is true.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most Reliable Engine? cschaffer General Ford Ranger Discussion 13 01-11-2010 08:20 AM
My Ranger and Me: Longest night and day and night I have had so far. Jimmeh Snapshots 23 10-22-2009 07:31 AM
most recomened engine size for an 03 smokinedge 8-Cylinder Tech 39 08-10-2008 08:27 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 08:17 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.