RIP Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 - no more in 2009 - 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.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 11-27-2008
Fenech627's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 908
I love my 3.0 I don't care what anyone has to say about it.
  #27  
Old 11-27-2008
racsan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: central ohio
Posts: 647
well ford has killed so many other good engines, 300,302,351,400,460. im still not sold on the 4.6/5.4 engines. the 3.0 in the taurus has been a excellent powerplant, and weve gotton as high as 28 mpg with it. im still wishing for a 200 cid inline 4 diesel. but then we would need better transmissions. but thats a whole 'nother topic..........
  #28  
Old 11-27-2008
Toreador4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 3,958
too bad ford is letting another good engine go, keep bringin in the mod motors and ohc garbage for us to work on.

if ford kept the 3.0, 300-6, 302, and 7.3 i might not have a job in a few years!

BTW: The cam synchro is a serviceable part with a 100,000 mile service interval. It will show signs of failure long before it locks up. All 3.0 owners must keep their eyes open for these signs. Mine has started to squeak for about 20 seconds on cold start up, and being someone that is **** about preventative maintenance, there is a new one sitting on top of my tool box. On a body lifted truck, it is less than a 30 min job
  #29  
Old 11-27-2008
skateboard34's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: fkj, nv
Posts: 39
Icon7

Quote:
Originally Posted by toreador4x4 View Post
too bad ford is letting another good engine go, keep bringin in the mod motors and ohc garbage for us to work on.

if ford kept the 3.0, 300-6, 302, and 7.3 i might not have a job in a few years!

BTW: The cam synchro is a serviceable part with a 100,000 mile service interval. It will show signs of failure long before it locks up. All 3.0 owners must keep their eyes open for these signs. Mine has started to squeak for about 20 seconds on cold start up, and being someone that is **** about preventative maintenance, there is a new one sitting on top of my tool box. On a body lifted truck, it is less than a 30 min job
hey i see you lifted your 3.0 does this mean you have a 3.0 4x4? and di you have to do your gear ratios to lift it? jw
  #30  
Old 11-27-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
I would gladly exchange my 3.0 for anyone with a 2.3 I4. When it comes time for it to come out a 2.3 will be going in, with forged internals, and plenty of boost.

That is if I don't get my hands on a nice SR engine first.

To be completly honest, when I bought the truck, i thought it was an SOHC engine (my mistake) - at the time I was just into rotaries, and didn't know much about piston engines, after having an Rx8, and 2 Rx7s. (this was my first piston engine)
  #31  
Old 11-27-2008
Toreador4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 3,958
3.0 5-speed 4x4

i regeared from 3.73 to 4.10 because i went from a 26" tall tire to a 33" tall tire
  #32  
Old 11-27-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by toreador4x4 View Post
too bad ford is letting another good engine go, keep bringin in the mod motors and ohc garbage for us to work on.
IMO it's the one thing I hate about my truck. I love OHC, preferable DOHC - so much more control.
  #33  
Old 11-27-2008
Sonic04Edge's Avatar
RF Veteran

iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Madison. AL
Posts: 5,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
Yeah we knew that. Good riddance to the little engine that never could.
Mine can, does and will thank you. Guys need to stop hating on the 3.0. It serves its purpose. I have no complaints with mine, power or fuel mileage. I get a consistant 18-19 city and 23-25hwy with 32's. Tell me a 4.0 can manage that? I dont know of a single 4.0 that can do that.
  #34  
Old 11-27-2008
skateboard34's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: fkj, nv
Posts: 39
one thing that goes unmentioned is that the 2.3 has a much lighter under body starting with lighter springs, shocks, i think even the axle and frame are different on a 2.3 my point is that the 3.0 2wd - 4.0 4wd share the same height and heavy under body...physically look under a 2.3 and you will see weak little springs and cute little parts but the 3.0 has the 4x4 parts (not the same front shocks as a fx4 and some different skidplates) but it will have heavier tougher parts thuss is why it is near same speed and power as a regular cab 2.3 that sits lower aswell....had to point that out
  #35  
Old 11-27-2008
Jp7's Avatar
Jp7 Jp7 is offline
Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: My LED lab or on the dyno
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic04Edge View Post
Mine can, does and will thank you. Guys need to stop hating on the 3.0. It serves its purpose. I have no complaints with mine, power or fuel mileage. I get a consistant 18-19 city and 23-25hwy with 32's. Tell me a 4.0 can manage that? I dont know of a single 4.0 that can do that.
It's not optimized, but how many Ford engines are? I've never met a Ford (or American) engine that is efficient for its power.
  #36  
Old 11-27-2008
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by racsan View Post
well ford has killed so many other good engines, 300,302,351,400,460. im still not sold on the 4.6/5.4 engines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toreador4x4 View Post
too bad ford is letting another good engine go, keep bringin in the mod motors and ohc garbage for us to work on.

Ug.. where do I start. Well I dis-agree. However I completely understand why you guys (and an awful lot of others) feel that way.

The truth of the matter is that the OHC ***design*** is better. Less pressure / stress gets put into the block and moving valvetrain in odd directions. More pressure / stress goes into turning the crank and cams. It's simply more efficient and smoother.

The *problem* is that during fords transition for each power plant they at the same time tried to minimize costs. There-in is the real problem. When you take material thickness down to the minimum... it flexes easier. Those displacements get "felt" by the crank, the cams, ect...

Now had ford taken my approach in life.. of using superior methodes (OHC) and used some old school *over kill* on material thickness and excess clamping pressure points.... the OHC engines would be nearly bullit proof. Remove all that flexing of the block and heads and youd see the opposite in thier repair history. Gee.. I wonder why a BMW can make a 3.0L engine and have it live at much higher rpms and loads. But hey.. what do I know?


I will say this. I was in on the mod motor developement. I've personlly seen 5.0/5.8 engines that cannot hang with the 4.6/5.4 engines. The mod motors will take temperature inversions that will lock up & crack the old ones. And per cubic inch the mod motors win again. It's basic science. They are simply more efficient.

The reason those 3.0L engines are so reliable is because they are completley cast iron and made from excessivly thick castings. Like I said earlier... But hey what do I know?

Last edited by wydopnthrtl; 11-27-2008 at 08:07 AM.
  #37  
Old 11-27-2008
sniper_101's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sask, Canada
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by skateboard34 View Post
one thing that goes unmentioned is that the 2.3 has a much lighter under body starting with lighter springs, shocks, i think even the axle and frame are different on a 2.3 my point is that the 3.0 2wd - 4.0 4wd share the same height and heavy under body...physically look under a 2.3 and you will see weak little springs and cute little parts but the 3.0 has the 4x4 parts (not the same front shocks as a fx4 and some different skidplates) but it will have heavier tougher parts thuss is why it is near same speed and power as a regular cab 2.3 that sits lower aswell....had to point that out
The 3.0 & 2.3 use the same springs, the 3.0 isn't much heavier than the 2.3 (only 0.7L displacement difference). The frame and axle are the same, as they make within 40hp and 40lb/ft of each other. They have nearly the same speed and hp because 3.0 engines are not fast (unless HEAVILY modified), Ford designed them to be a minor step up from the 4cyl with a little more torque for hauling and towing, but not a huge gain. The 4cyl would only sit lower depending on the year, package, suspension adjustments or suspension sag, there is no meant in suspension height when compared to an equal model V6.

EDIT - wydopnthrtl, very good write up, very correct (IMO).
  #38  
Old 11-27-2008
Lefty04LevelII's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic04Edge View Post
Mine can, does and will thank you. Guys need to stop hating on the 3.0. It serves its purpose. I have no complaints with mine, power or fuel mileage. I get a consistant 18-19 city and 23-25hwy with 32's. Tell me a 4.0 can manage that? I dont know of a single 4.0 that can do that.

My 93 4.0 with over 170K on the ticker when it was totalled could do a round trip from Las Cruces, NM to Albuquerque, NM and back on a tank of gas. That's over a 500 mile trip. City I never calculated on my truck, but my mother's 92 exploder, 4x4, manual all around CONSISTENTLY got 18-20 in city. Of course that's with oem spec size tires and oem rims.

My current 4.0, the SOHC did remarkably similar in mileage prior to the RCD lift, either with 31s or 33s. City mileage prior to the RCD lift was 16-19 and Highway ranged from 18-23. Lifted with the RCD is a different story, city's gone down to 15-18, sometimes 19 and Highway is about 17-22. You want consistency/numbers, look for my mileage log here at RF or look for NHBubba's mileage log here and at ORR.

The 4.go has more power and can do the mileage, whether 2wd as my old truck or 4x4 as my new truck, just as the 3.slow.

Gobble gobble.

EDIT: Here's the RF link to my mileage log via a post. https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...ht=mileage+log

Colin (NHBubba) may have reposted his log elsewhere. I think he has it up here or at ORR still even though in the thread he mentions it no longer accessible by web.

Last edited by Lefty04LevelII; 11-27-2008 at 09:22 AM. Reason: providing link
  #39  
Old 11-27-2008
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skateboard34 View Post
one thing that goes unmentioned is that the 2.3 has a much lighter under body starting with lighter springs, shocks, i think even the axle and frame are different on a 2.3 my point is that the 3.0 2wd - 4.0 4wd share the same height and heavy under body...physically look under a 2.3 and you will see weak little springs and cute little parts but the 3.0 has the 4x4 parts (not the same front shocks as a fx4 and some different skidplates) but it will have heavier tougher parts thuss is why it is near same speed and power as a regular cab 2.3 that sits lower aswell....had to point that out
you do know there are to completely different frame and suspensions the 3.0 were in, my 07 2.3 has the same suspension my 3.0 98 had theres no difference.

you need to learn about these trucks before you make stupid posts like you just did...
  #40  
Old 11-27-2008
jaycheetwood's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic04Edge View Post
Mine can, does and will thank you. Guys need to stop hating on the 3.0. It serves its purpose. I have no complaints with mine, power or fuel mileage. I get a consistant 18-19 city and 23-25hwy with 32's. Tell me a 4.0 can manage that? I dont know of a single 4.0 that can do that.
i can run my 4.0L to 21 - 22 mpg at 77mpg cruise controlled on the highway.. and i average 19 - 20 a tank with city and highway.. SO a 4.0L can do it. Sure i only run 31" tires but i dont need any bigger so i would say with the right set of things and the right foot its not impossible to get right next to a 3.0 in MPG and blow its doors.
  #41  
Old 11-27-2008
Lefty04LevelII's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark98xlt View Post
you do know there are to completely different frame and suspensions the 3.0 were in, my 07 2.3 has the same suspension my 3.0 98 had theres no difference.

you need to learn about these trucks before you make stupid posts like you just did...

Ehh he's new and it's Thanksgiving, let it slide for now. Easier said than done, I know. I'm a little pissed at the moment and it's taking every ounce in me to keep for doing any negative posting at the moment. I screwed up last night while doing u-joints, but thankfully salvaged part of my screw up and everything's fine. Unfortunately a phone was a casualty and now I've potentailly lost all my contacts/phone numbers and some heartfelt, cheerished texts from my gf back when we first started dating. Awkward, random post FTL.
  #42  
Old 11-27-2008
sniper_101's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sask, Canada
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycheetwood View Post
and i average 19 - 20 a tank with city and highway.. its not impossible to get right next to a 3.0 in MPG and blow its doors.
Considering the technology is about 15 years older and an entire liter of displacement difference that's not exactly something to show off.
  #43  
Old 11-27-2008
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
All I know is when I push that gas pedal down to go somewhere my little slow 3.0 gets me there, so i'm happy.
  #44  
Old 11-27-2008
Rolldogg's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 3,424
Well if I knew then what I know now, I would have never purchased my Ranger. I would have looked around for a 4.0 with 4wd.

However, with 230K km's (143K miles) on it now, I'm just hoping nothing major fails on it. It hasn't cost very much to run it and very little repairs have been needed besides the regular maintenance.

I'm really not sad to see Ford scrap the 3.0L. It's about time this old tired engine design goes the way of the Dodo bird.
  #45  
Old 11-27-2008
skateboard34's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: fkj, nv
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark98xlt View Post
you do know there are to completely different frame and suspensions the 3.0 were in, my 07 2.3 has the same suspension my 3.0 98 had theres no difference.

you need to learn about these trucks before you make stupid posts like you just did...
well sorry i dont own old vheicles for myself but the facts are my friend who is a tech from a ford dealer brought me to the lot and showd me the 2008 2.3 springs and they wer half the size of my 3.0 springs thats a fact. further i have diffrent front shocks he also told me that i have the frame and suspension of the 4x4 even thou its 2wd and thats an advantage of this sport model? that it has alot of stuff the sport 4x4 has.....no i didnt buy it off him i bought it off the dealership manager for $900 over invoice haha.....dont make me go back to the lot and take pics of the springs and burn your ***
  #46  
Old 11-27-2008
skateboard34's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: fkj, nv
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_101 View Post
The 3.0 & 2.3 use the same springs, the 3.0 isn't much heavier than the 2.3 (only 0.7L displacement difference). The frame and axle are the same, as they make within 40hp and 40lb/ft of each other. They have nearly the same speed and hp because 3.0 engines are not fast (unless HEAVILY modified), Ford designed them to be a minor step up from the 4cyl with a little more torque for hauling and towing, but not a huge gain. The 4cyl would only sit lower depending on the year, package, suspension adjustments or suspension sag, there is no meant in suspension height when compared to an equal model V6.

EDIT - wydopnthrtl, very good write up, very correct (IMO).
check my post above about how the springs are completely diffrent have you even looked under both 2008 trucks 2.3 xl and 3.0 sport? until you do dont even try hahaha cause i can easily go take pics of the half sized cute springs myself.....the lot is only 15mins away from my house
  #47  
Old 11-27-2008
skateboard34's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: fkj, nv
Posts: 39
oh the sport comes with heavy duty suspension package standard!!! go figure....theres not many 3.0 XL's ( theres like 10 on craigslist) compared to 2.3 XL's that are everywhere so most 3.0 do have a heavy duty suspension package.
  #48  
Old 11-27-2008
edgeofthecliff's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Safety Harbor, FL
Posts: 392
My old truck ('02 Edge 3.0 Supercab) felt faster and got better Mpg then the '94 Explorer POS before that.
  #49  
Old 11-27-2008
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skateboard34 View Post
oh the sport comes with heavy duty suspension package standard!!! go figure....theres not many 3.0 XL's ( theres like 10 on craigslist) compared to 2.3 XL's that are everywhere so most 3.0 do have a heavy duty suspension package.
wrong, there is no heavy duty suspension package, its called a torsion bar suspension lol.

and there are plenty of xlt 3.0 2wds out there that are coil sprung, hell most extended cabs are 3.0 autos, the 3.0 is more common in 2wd than the 4.0 is.

BTW, you need to learn your trim packages and suspension before you go making stupid posts, again like you did because you know nothing really. My 2.3 is a xlt, yes an xlt. Just because its a smaller engine means its a basic work truck
  #50  
Old 11-27-2008
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by skateboard34 View Post
check my post above about how the springs are completely diffrent have you even looked under both 2008 trucks 2.3 xl and 3.0 sport? until you do dont even try hahaha cause i can easily go take pics of the half sized cute springs myself.....the lot is only 15mins away from my house
Id love to see these springs on the 2008 sport, because there are none
hahahaha

Torsion bars they have, not springs.

The springs have no changed on the coil sprung trucks since 98, and all the springs were the same no matter what engine the truck had.
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RIP '95 Ford Ranger - Lost in the Black Forest Fire MichaelV General Ford Ranger Discussion 11 06-23-2013 08:02 PM
RIP Ranger 5/5/12 (Kind of pic heavy) 99DangerRanger General Ford Ranger Discussion 37 05-12-2012 12:03 AM
My first 87 Ranger..340K..RIP RangerXLT18 Snapshots 12 04-29-2011 10:25 PM
DeLorme SA 2009, SA 2009 PLUS Takeda General Technical & Electrical 0 04-09-2008 11:24 AM
About ready to rip Ford a new one! SONICEDGE03 General Technical & Electrical 28 06-28-2005 01:45 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 09:10 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.