Most relaible and longest lasting engine?
#26
05-30-2006
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#27
05-30-2006
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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.
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.
99% of 3.0 owners on here wish they had a 4.0L, for that reason alone i wouldn,t want a 3.0.
Last edited by bwester04; 05-30-2006 at 10:58 AM.
#28
05-30-2006
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
#30
05-30-2006
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#31
05-30-2006
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: atown
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
PS. My friends is a 2wd and mine is a 4x4 but i still pull him out haha
#32
05-31-2006
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#33
05-31-2006
#34
05-31-2006
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#35
06-01-2006
#36
06-02-2006
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montevallo, AL
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#37
06-03-2006
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.
#38
06-03-2006
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.
#39
06-03-2006
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Farmington, NH
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#40
06-03-2006
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 350hp@1900rpm 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
#41
06-03-2006
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 350hp@1900rpm 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
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
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 
#42
12-27-2006
#43
12-27-2006
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Franklin Indiana
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#44
12-27-2006
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#47
01-13-2007
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington, IA
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#48
01-13-2007
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belleville IL
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#50
01-14-2007
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
