4 vs 6
Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 4
From: Evansville, Indiana
the 4 cylinder and 3.0 vulcan from what I hear are very similar in terms of power. the 4 cylinder is better on gas, but you'll sound like anything but a truck. 3.0 v6 is a bit of a step up, I believe better torque but isn't as good on gas.
In my honest opinion, neither of them are worth looking for. 4cyl and v6 both are horrendously under powered for their application, having to work their iron guts out to get a heavy truck moving. Hence why they never added either of these options to the Ranger's sister, the Explorer.
I personally can't, and won't, recommend any engine except for either iteration of the 4.0 engine. 2001+ uses the SOHC, and the 2000 earlier uses the OHV.
That being said, the 3.0 vulcan is what I would go with out of the two. The 3.0 v6 may be a dog in terms of power, but it is one reliable engine and a half. My 3.0 hasn't failed me yet.
In my honest opinion, neither of them are worth looking for. 4cyl and v6 both are horrendously under powered for their application, having to work their iron guts out to get a heavy truck moving. Hence why they never added either of these options to the Ranger's sister, the Explorer.
I personally can't, and won't, recommend any engine except for either iteration of the 4.0 engine. 2001+ uses the SOHC, and the 2000 earlier uses the OHV.
That being said, the 3.0 vulcan is what I would go with out of the two. The 3.0 v6 may be a dog in terms of power, but it is one reliable engine and a half. My 3.0 hasn't failed me yet.
1997 Ranger 4cyl would have the 2.3l Lima engine, 112hp @ 4800 RPM (1996 - 1997)
1998 used the Lima 2.5l, 117hp @ 4500 RPM (1998 - 2001)
1997 Ranger 3.0l Vulcan V6 engine, 147hp @ 5000 RPM (1996 - 1998)
1997 Ranger also had 4.0l OHV V6, 160hp @ 4200 RPM (1990 - 2000)
2002 Rangers got the 2.3l DOHC Duratec 4cyl, 144hp @ 5750 RPM (2002 - 2012)
Rangers weight 3,000lbs to 3,400lbs and have the aerodynamics of a..............truck, so a brick with 4 wheel
You want peppy, fast and a smooth ride then you want a car, you wanna haul stuff, drive slow, and bounce on bumps, get a pickup
Rangers are the best mid-size trucks made, but they are still trucks, NOT cars
1998 used the Lima 2.5l, 117hp @ 4500 RPM (1998 - 2001)
1997 Ranger 3.0l Vulcan V6 engine, 147hp @ 5000 RPM (1996 - 1998)
1997 Ranger also had 4.0l OHV V6, 160hp @ 4200 RPM (1990 - 2000)
2002 Rangers got the 2.3l DOHC Duratec 4cyl, 144hp @ 5750 RPM (2002 - 2012)
Rangers weight 3,000lbs to 3,400lbs and have the aerodynamics of a..............truck, so a brick with 4 wheel
You want peppy, fast and a smooth ride then you want a car, you wanna haul stuff, drive slow, and bounce on bumps, get a pickup
Rangers are the best mid-size trucks made, but they are still trucks, NOT cars
Last edited by RonD; Sep 23, 2016 at 09:26 PM.
Member
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 16
Likes: 3
From: Edmonton, Alberta
I used to have a 2006 extended cab Ranger with a 3.0 and automatic. It used a lot of gas and felt like a slug on the road.
I now have a 1998 standard cab Ranger with a 2.5 and manual transmission. It feels a lot peppier than the V6 did and the gas mileage is significantly better. It's by no means a hot rod, but perfect as a second vehicle that can make the occasional dump run. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad main vehicle either.
I now have a 1998 standard cab Ranger with a 2.5 and manual transmission. It feels a lot peppier than the V6 did and the gas mileage is significantly better. It's by no means a hot rod, but perfect as a second vehicle that can make the occasional dump run. Actually, it wouldn't be a bad main vehicle either.
