The Truth Behind the 3.0L V6 - Page 5 - 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
  #101  
Old 04-03-2011
BlutoBodine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteratarms93 View Post
It was deceiving because people were offered the choice to upgrade to the 4.0 and they didn't because they figured the 3.0 was probably powerful enough or more economical. Finally Ford realized it when they dropped it in 06-07
The 3.0 was offered when I bought my '08.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-03-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Havertown,PA
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlutoBodine View Post
The 3.0 was offered when I bought my '08.
Your right! I looked at a '08 3.0 before i settled on my truck. I test drove it and it felt improved over my '02 3.0.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-03-2011
fordguy86's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: OH
Posts: 39
i have the 3.0 in my 04 with 4:10s I drove my friends 4.0 with 3.73s auto and it was sluggish i couldnt even tell that it had the 4.0. I like my little 3.0.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-03-2011
cedrik101's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: aylmer, qc ,canada
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteratarms93 View Post
What's all this "It's a truck, you shouldn't expect it to go fast." That's a bunch of crap, if it's supposed to be a truck engine then it needs the power and torque to pull and haul and in turn be fast. If the V6 that a truck comes with can't provide the power to do truck stuff then it shouldn't be offered. At the end of the day the 3.0 V6 Vulcan is a joke of an engine for the vehicle it's in. For the size and gas mileage of the engine it should be pushing out at least 180hp. It shouldn't have ever been offered in the first place. The S10 had a 4 cylinder and the 4.3L V6, the Dakota had a 4 cylinder and the Magnum V6 and the V8. The Ranger was the only one that had two different V6s and one of them was subpar for the truck. It was deceiving because people were offered the choice to upgrade to the 4.0 and they didn't because they figured the 3.0 was probably powerful enough or more economical. Finally Ford realized it when they dropped it in 06-07 but it should have been dropped back in 2001 when the 4.0 SOHC came in.

I'm not trying to bash people that have trucks with 3.0s because the trucks aren't the problem, subpar powertrain doesn't make it a subpar truck. I know when I look at a nice Ranger that someone has put a lot of time, effort, and money into or is in excellent condition or low mileage I am disappointed when I find out it has a 3.0. If it was never offered it would have made trying to find a nice Ranger a hell of a lot easier.

I am really hating on Ranger today though, I test drove a 2011 5.0 F150 and I am in love LOL
Nearly all you said is rubbish....seriously a truck is not built to be fast vehicule, its bilt to work and pull, thats why you see 400 hp -600 ft torque of truck get blow by honda civic si... Kids need to understand that even a 1000 hp engine match to a really low gear tranny wont burn anything. You can you use your truck like a Gino and redline it at every red light agasint a ricer in a civic, but i use my trucks for work and so is most of the people who buy truck and i rather be able to pull something then to try to show to every 1 who is faster... its funny how nearly everything you say on this forum doest make sense, and is amaze me 2 how much your gona bash other people thing for nothing....
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-03-2011
d0sitmatr's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFL
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by tractorman View Post
Proof the 3.0 will require less parts?

Its funny you say how well you can pull, when my buddy didn't want to pull his 19 foot boat because his other friend's Ranger with a 3.0 is an utter dog and struggled on the hills.
huh ?
you make absolutely no sense.

the plain and simple truth is the 3.0 is a more reliable engine.
that doesnt mean the 4.0 cannot be as reliable, just to make it so requires more attention through the years.
your buddy "didnt want" to pull his boat, that doesnt say anything about whether or not he could, and if he didnt want to, perhaps its because he isnt comfortable towing, and not because his truck couldnt do it. (which my truck could have, and my truck was mostly stock, no engine modifications and the only suspension modifications was a 1" drop and KYB shocks all around.

let me ask:
how many miles is on your truck ?
how well do you keep up with maintenance ?
what type of mods have you done ?
what type of oil when/if changing ?

honestly, it sounds to me like your 4.0 is acting up and your all pissy about it, then trying to take it out on everyone else.
this isnt a 4.0 vs 3.0 thread, this is a thread to help someone decide if he wants a 3.0 or a 4.0

the simple truth is it depends on what the truck is used for, what mods are going on it, and how well the general upkeep will be maintained that will be the deciding factor for someone.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-03-2011
SouthernMudSlinger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Demorest,Ga
Posts: 1,724
I dont understand why people compare the 2.3 to the 3.0 by hp. Hp isn't what moves a vehicle...torque is. If you have a truck...tq is alot more useful than hp is. Look at some of the diesel trucks...alot of them have almost twice as much tq as they do hp.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-03-2011
Masteratarms93's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Goose Creek SC
Posts: 4,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05blackranger View Post
RazorsEDGE bro, apparantly the 3.0 in your SAS ranger isn't capable of doing any kind of "truck stuff" so you better cut it out right now. You "wasted your time" working on it.... haha
"A subpar engine doesn't make a subpar truck"

Quote:
Originally Posted by cedrik101 View Post
Nearly all you said is rubbish....seriously a truck is not built to be fast vehicule, its bilt to work and pull, thats why you see 400 hp -600 ft torque of truck get blow by honda civic si... Kids need to understand that even a 1000 hp engine match to a really low gear tranny wont burn anything. You can you use your truck like a Gino and redline it at every red light agasint a ricer in a civic, but i use my trucks for work and so is most of the people who buy truck and i rather be able to pull something then to try to show to every 1 who is faster... its funny how nearly everything you say on this forum doest make sense, and is amaze me 2 how much your gona bash other people thing for nothing....
Thats why I said "needs the power to pull and haul and do truck stuff".




You guys have amazing selective reading skills. I'm impressed.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-03-2011
05blackranger's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Mequon, WI
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteratarms93 View Post


You guys have amazing selective reading skills. I'm impressed.
And you are amazingly narrow minded when it comes to the 3.0. It is a decent engine that serves its purpose and a lot of people are happy with it.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-03-2011
tractorman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0sitmatr View Post
huh ?
you make absolutely no sense.

the plain and simple truth is the 3.0 is a more reliable engine.
that doesnt mean the 4.0 cannot be as reliable, just to make it so requires more attention through the years.
your buddy "didnt want" to pull his boat, that doesnt say anything about whether or not he could, and if he didnt want to, perhaps its because he isnt comfortable towing, and not because his truck couldnt do it. (which my truck could have, and my truck was mostly stock, no engine modifications and the only suspension modifications was a 1" drop and KYB shocks all around.

let me ask:
how many miles is on your truck ?
how well do you keep up with maintenance ?
what type of mods have you done ?
what type of oil when/if changing ?

honestly, it sounds to me like your 4.0 is acting up and your all pissy about it, then trying to take it out on everyone else.
this isnt a 4.0 vs 3.0 thread, this is a thread to help someone decide if he wants a 3.0 or a 4.0

the simple truth is it depends on what the truck is used for, what mods are going on it, and how well the general upkeep will be maintained that will be the deciding factor for someone.
I make no sense? You have zero proof that one engine is more reliable than another.

Your 3.0 couldn't pull anything that I pull with the same ease and trust. That's a fact and I laugh at you for trying to argue otherwise. I've have gobs more HP, more TQ, and its available at a much lower RPM.

My 4.0 has 160k hard miles. The only thing ever done was oil changes, plugs, wires, coolant flush, and filters. Is that the "extra attention" you're talking about? It starts fast and runs strong every time. Nice stabs in the dark.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-03-2011
Masteratarms93's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Goose Creek SC
Posts: 4,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05blackranger View Post
And you are amazingly narrow minded when it comes to the 3.0. It is a decent engine that serves its purpose and a lot of people are happy with it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say a lot of people are "happy" with it. I would say people deal with it because that's what they have. I'm sure they would be much happier with an average of 20 MPGs across the board and 200hp which is what you see with some other 3.? V6s from other manufacturers.

I'm not narrow minded, I'm pointing out that for it's size and MPGs it's an insufficient engine. And apparently someone at Ford agrees with my sentiments since it was dropped after 2008. Thanks for the clarification on that from others, I thought 2007 was the 3.0s last year.

And go Ryan lol, tear em up
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-03-2011
05blackranger's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Mequon, WI
Posts: 406
I don't know, the guys I know with the 3.0 like it a lot and I honestly wouldn't care if I had it compared to my 4.0. I would have bought either engine. The 3.0 can take some abuse. I do agree that the 4.0 and 3.0 are probably just as reliable as each other as long as they are maintained well. Sometimes parts fail though due to abuse or a defect. You just do what you have to do.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-03-2011
d0sitmatr's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFL
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by tractorman View Post
I make no sense? You have zero proof that one engine is more reliable than another.

Your 3.0 couldn't pull anything that I pull with the same ease and trust. That's a fact and I laugh at you for trying to argue otherwise. I've have gobs more HP, more TQ, and its available at a much lower RPM.

My 4.0 has 160k hard miles. The only thing ever done was oil changes, plugs, wires, coolant flush, and filters. Is that the "extra attention" you're talking about? It starts fast and runs strong every time. Nice stabs in the dark.
LOL
your a tard.
you still seem to hover around a single part of a comment and not think about it in its entirety.
you keep up with the maintenance of your engine which has already been stated will net more reliability.
but the question is how many or what is going to be needed to break that 200-250k mark, or the 300k mark ?

here is more "proof" for you
I owned my truck for 6+ yrs, put over 50k miles on it, and only changed the oil once in that entire time.
once.
I had a tranny flush once at recommended miles
never did a rad flush
it had 174-175k when I traded it off, ran great and still managed to net me close to 24mpg.
hell, I would never have traded it if I didnt need more room for my family.

here is what I did do in the time I owned it:
checked the oil once a month and it was never dirty.
checked the coolant and it was never low or dirty.
checked all the fluids and never showed any signs of use or discoloration.

so, for the next 50,000 miles, dont do any maintenance on your 4.0, then lets compare.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-03-2011
BlutoBodine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 543
FWIW, I liked my OHV 4.9 inline six much more than either of the 4.6 v-8s in the '98 and '00 F-150s I owned - Don't care that it had the HP of a 4cyl half its size.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-03-2011
tractorman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0sitmatr View Post
LOL
your a tard.
you still seem to hover around a single part of a comment and not think about it in its entirety.
you keep up with the maintenance of your engine which has already been stated will net more reliability.
but the question is how many or what is going to be needed to break that 200-250k mark, or the 300k mark ?

here is more "proof" for you
I owned my truck for 6+ yrs, put over 50k miles on it, and only changed the oil once in that entire time.
once.
I had a tranny flush once at recommended miles
never did a rad flush
it had 174-175k when I traded it off, ran great and still managed to net me close to 24mpg.
hell, I would never have traded it if I didnt need more room for my family.

here is what I did do in the time I owned it:
checked the oil once a month and it was never dirty.
checked the coolant and it was never low or dirty.
checked all the fluids and never showed any signs of use or discoloration.

so, for the next 50,000 miles, dont do any maintenance on your 4.0, then lets compare.
Again, you seem to lose the fact that ONE example doesn't apply to all, or provide damning proof.

And I was so fixated on just one point that I shredded your argument in multiple ways? Try again.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-08-2011
d0sitmatr's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFL
Posts: 706
as stated, your a complete tard.

how about this, your the ONLY one saying the 4.0 is just as inexpensive to keep up, all the while other 4.0 owners will agree with most of my comments.
so... WOW, your truck might be a rarity in that it requires less maintenance than other 4.0's !
OMG, your my hero (dont forget to spell that with a "Z")

now, run along boy, so people who actually have a clue what they are talking about can get along again.

oh yea, are you going to step up and take my challenge ?
do NOTHING that relates to general engine maintenance on your truck for the next 50k, then lets talk. (no fluid changes, no re-greasings... nothing except for topping off the oil or coolant levels as needed)
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-08-2011
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 94
Wow, this thread really derailed......
Back to the topic......I like my 3.0, because its in my truck and gets me where I need to go everyday. However...It could use some more *****. The mpg's to ***** ratio is a bit skewed. I got an awesome deal on this truck so I jumped on it, but as soon as the opportunity presents itself (probably not for another year at least) I'm swapping out the 3.0 to a more efficient, more powerful power plant.
So, given the choice between the 2, I'd go for the 4.0L SOHC, not the OHV.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-09-2011
rangerstepside's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: eafb, sd
Posts: 545
i can respect the guys that go for the 4.0 as an engine with more power, for towing n such. and the guys that go for the 3.0 for a daily driver. ya the 4.0 can eat gaskets but so can a 3.0. ya a 3.0 has no power but some people just dont need it. bottom line, both are good motors, guys that got a ****ty 4.0 or 3.0 prolly didn't take care of them or it was ****ty from the factory. same for the 3.0. all i'm sayin is dont go and buy an f-450 just for the sole purpose of haulin your fam around. ya know? dont buy a motor you dont got use for. i got me a 3.0 and all i do is mod my exteror and show it nothing but love. my buddy has the same year 4.0 and beats the **** out of it. and both of our trucks run fine. i guess what i'm gettin at is for the pople on here that are going about this in a sensible way, thanks for using the forum for it's intended purpose. but for the guys sayin not to maintain the truck for 60,000 miles, well, seriously need to learn a little more about how to maintain a truck, cuz anything is gonna blow up if you do that.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-09-2011
tractorman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0sitmatr View Post
as stated, your a complete tard.

how about this, your the ONLY one saying the 4.0 is just as inexpensive to keep up, all the while other 4.0 owners will agree with most of my comments.
so... WOW, your truck might be a rarity in that it requires less maintenance than other 4.0's !
OMG, your my hero (dont forget to spell that with a "Z")

now, run along boy, so people who actually have a clue what they are talking about can get along again.

oh yea, are you going to step up and take my challenge ?
do NOTHING that relates to general engine maintenance on your truck for the next 50k, then lets talk. (no fluid changes, no re-greasings... nothing except for topping off the oil or coolant levels as needed)
When you can't provide facts, start flaming!

Fact: Point to the people in this thread that have said a 3.0 takes less maintenance than a 4.0

Fact: You did not go 50k miles with an oil change, you went 25k. I go every 10k on my Ranger, and it has done way more work than your Ranger ever did.

Fact: Your single experience with ONE 3.0 can't be applied to all production 3.0 engines. If you had a blown head gasket in it, would all 3.0's be junk? No.

Fact: My family has had 4 4.0. NONE had any issues, ever. All were over 100k, 2 over 150k miles. Mine was the only one that had the coolant changed, the others only had oil changes. THAT'S IT.

I'm sure the 3.0 is a fine engine. I just DON'T CARE. Hell, for what I'm pulling I should really have at least a half ton, possibly a 3/4 ton if my business grows this year as planned.

However, your nut swinging is retarded. The way you talk NASA should have powered the Space Shuttle with a 3.0.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-09-2011
rangerstepside's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: eafb, sd
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by tractorman View Post
When you can't provide facts, start flaming!

Fact: Point to the people in this thread that have said a 3.0 takes less maintenance than a 4.0

Fact: You did not go 50k miles with an oil change, you went 25k. I go every 10k on my Ranger, and it has done way more work than your Ranger ever did.

Fact: Your single experience with ONE 3.0 can't be applied to all production 3.0 engines. If you had a blown head gasket in it, would all 3.0's be junk? No.

Fact: My family has had 4 4.0. NONE had any issues, ever. All were over 100k, 2 over 150k miles. Mine was the only one that had the coolant changed, the others only had oil changes. THAT'S IT.

I'm sure the 3.0 is a fine engine. I just DON'T CARE. Hell, for what I'm pulling I should really have at least a half ton, possibly a 3/4 ton if my business grows this year as planned.

However, your nut swinging is retarded. The way you talk NASA should have powered the Space Shuttle with a 3.0.
lmfao! i agree with this guy 110% i may be a 3.0 guy, but he makes a good point, no need to knock the 4.0.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-09-2011
KLC's Avatar
KLC KLC is offline
RF Veteran
iTrader: (29)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 13,115
Enough of the senseless bickering. Next time I see a complaint from this thread it's getting closed.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 04-11-2011
DillonT's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04blackedge View Post
It worked great for me as a daily driven truck. Cranked up every time, got me where I needed to go with enough power to have fun and get decent gas mileage.
ditto
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 01-10-2016
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Grants pass, Oregon
Posts: 1
I think i have a similar issue please help?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barebull98 View Post
The camshaft synchronizer was quite a shock to me when mine went bad.I have a 2002 3.0 liter..I didn't know what it was.I had a squeaking sound and luckily I found out on this web site what the problem was.I think the 4.0 also has the scynchronizer.The scary part of the synchronizer is that is connected to the oil pump.If you lose the oil pump you might lock up your engine.My mileage is not that good and power is not that great.It is what it is.Luckily I have not major problems.Just ghost type stuff that makes you scratch your head.Thanks to Toreador I was able to put lights in the instrument cluster.
My truck squeaks kinda as u describe mostly on startup but I'm thinking it's not the belt as the sounds coming from the rear of the engine..? Any advise would be appreciated
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 10-30-2016
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Key West, FL
Posts: 9
My new old Ranger

Just joined here because I bought a 1992 ranger with the 3.0 V6 engine. I got a great deal at $1500 and only 108,000 miles. Truck was always garage kept in Ohio and Tennessee, so it is all original and sweet. Seller drove it from Knoxville to Tampa where I picked it up. My drive from Tampa to Key West was punctuated by one fuel stop in Homestead for 10 gallons. hahaha. Mileage calculated was 24.2 mpg. And most of that was cruising at 70mph and 55mph on 225/70 14's until I got to the Keys. No oil consumption whatsoever. For a pickup with little or no aerodynamic styling to perform like this after 24 years is simply phenomenal. I joined here because I want to get as much assistance as I can to keep this little truck running for another 10-20 years.

Thanks
Attached Thumbnails
The Truth Behind the 3.0L V6-img_1187.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 05-22-2017
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Lebanon,TN
Posts: 1
93 ranger xtrcab, 3.0 5speed. Very durable for me as I have 331,000miles on the original engine. Avg 15-19 mpg. Just enough power but nothing to brag about.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 05-28-2017
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 7
5 years worth of views and little argument.

Ford figured out worth the 3.0 needed a 3.73 with P225/70 R15 tire about 27.4 inches tall.
Ranger Edges got the same 3.73 and a P235/75 R15 tire about 28.9 inches tall.

BTW:These are 2wd Rangers figures. Earlier Rangers got the same tire size but a 3.45 gears. The 3.0 really wakes up with the 3.75. Changing to a 4.10 same the tire makes a happy tow truck. Most guys who lift and add big tires believe they can use a programmer to correct the speedo but forget to regear.

Check the gears first, with the right gear the 3.0 can be a solid not quite peppy Daily Driver.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Ford Killing the Ranger?? the truth scooter General Ford Ranger Discussion 44 10-01-2009 04:28 AM
Here you go-TRUTH about blue Ricer bulbs T4EaterJonny Exterior Semi-Tech 13 02-03-2008 03:55 PM
OK! It's time to tell the truth!!! RescueRangerFX4 General Ford Ranger Discussion 25 08-23-2005 03:35 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 12:43 PM.


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.