View Full Version : What do you think? Which ranger engine do you like the best??
hi, im looking into buying a ranger (1993- 00) and i just wanted to get some inside info from you current owners, i have searched for a bit but i have not really gotten any good answers, so in your opinion which ranger engine is the best? 2.3, 3.0, 4.0? which is the best overall, which should i stay away from? most reliable? which tends to break down more often? i would like to use this as a work truck but nothing crazy, i wont be hauling anything heavy, maybe some seasonal mulch or wood around the house.. so let me know what you think and why, i thank you in advance, also are there any model years i should stay away from?
redneck9956
05-12-2009, 10:54 PM
3.0 litters are good motors i give mine hell everyday and its allways been good to me but the 4.0 has more power but some of my famly has them but they have a some trouble with them
hmiwb
05-13-2009, 06:18 AM
2.3 liter w/5 speed manual. I've had two of them, an older Lima SOHC and my current 2009 with DOHC Duratec. Both have been excellent drivers, trouble free and give great gas mileage. The new one definitely has the edge in power and torque, rarely need to downshift for any hills.
RangerJustin
05-13-2009, 08:01 AM
Since you won't be hauling anything heavy I would go with the 2.3 for the MPGs.
Since you won't be hauling anything heavy I would go with the 2.3 for the MPGs.
x2
Not only will the 2.3 get better MPG, a 2.3 Ranger will be a cheaper buy.
If you like power and speed then I would opt for the 4.0 but it doesn't sound like you have a need for it.
thanks alot for the replies so overall would you guys say the 2.3 is better than the 3.0 and 4.0? redneck9956 mentioned the 4.0's having trouble. are any of the years better then others? manual vs automatic? sorry if im asking too many questions but im literally about to buy one today or this week if the one im looking at today is sold. According to my research the payload of a 2.3 (1997) is 1250 lbs, im having trouble believing that though because my s10 4.3v6 had a payload of 1100lbs, but i wont buy another s10 not after the experience with mine.. i agree with most of you, i prob should buy the 2.3 because i will only be hauling things like mulch even though a yard of mulch can weigh up to 1000lbs but im sure the 2.3 will handle that, thanks again in advance
thanks alot for the replies so overall would you guys say the 2.3 is better than the 3.0 and 4.0? redneck9956 mentioned the 4.0's having trouble. are any of the years better then others? manual vs automatic? sorry if im asking too many questions but im literally about to buy one today or this week if the one im looking at today is sold. According to my research the payload of a 2.3 (1997) is 1250 lbs, im having trouble believing that though because my s10 4.3v6 had a payload of 1100lbs, but i wont buy another s10 not after the experience with mine.. thanks again in advance
I'm not saying the 2.3 is BETTER than the 3.0 and 4.0. The 2.3 seems more PRACTICAL for what you intend to use the truck for.
the difference in fuel efficiency between the 3.0 and 4.0 isnt much at all, so i think if i go v6 i might have to go with the 4.0 and its much stronger too, but it seems like the 3.0 is easier to maintain and cheaper, im so scarred from the ford taurus 3.0's even tho they arent the same engine, atleast i hope not lol on the other hand the 2.3 gets great mpg for a truck, i think im leaning towards the 4cyl, im not sure how reliable the 2.3's are though
98blownranger
05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
the 2.3 at times has a hard time doing 65mph into the wind. the MPG between the 2.3/2.5 and 4.0 ar not that different the 4cyc is better for milage and a good setup for normal driving but hills and any load or wind it kinda sucks. the older 4cyc seem to be really bad
hmiwb
05-14-2009, 01:56 PM
the 2.3 at times has a hard time doing 65mph into the wind. the MPG between the 2.3/2.5 and 4.0 ar not that different the 4cyc is better for milage and a good setup for normal driving but hills and any load or wind it kinda sucks. the older 4cyc seem to be really bad
The 2.3 liter 4 cylinder is way better than the v6 engines on gasoline. The new duratec seems to have plenty of power (mine is a manual trans) and I can easily get 29 to 33 mpg at 65 mph on the highway. Great combo unless you feel the need for 4wd or hauling a heavy trailer. Then you'd have to go with v6 power and pay the gas price penalty forever.
beaujt
05-14-2009, 10:57 PM
I like my 4.0L :) Its has pretty good power, and i haven't had any problems pulling anything yet hahaha. But my mileage sucks pretty bad, as for automatic or manual i haven't heard anything bad about the auto's. But i do know you HAVE to maintain them otherwise you'll be rebuilding it. So its kind of a trade off i guess, you'll get worse mileage with an auto though.
^i believe your right about the auto trannys, almost all the trucks i have looked into have had either the trans replaced or rebuilt and im not looking at high mileage trucks either, the reason i was leaning more toward auto in the first place was that i would imagine driving a manual while hauling or towing things would get a little tricky, i can see myself ruining the clutch while hauling something, maybe im wrong.. Im looking at a 99 stepside bed, its priced well but i would rather the regular bed for the space, i thought it was same but i looked around and found the stepside was a bit smaller. anyways so far im not reading anything bad about the rangers v6 either 3 or 4.0, seems like rangers in general are ok trucks if you take care of them, as with all cars/trucks. ill keep reading tho
scooby stew
05-15-2009, 11:12 AM
hi zib 2.5 turbo diesel anyday oooops for got u dont have 2.5 td in the us welcome to forum
scooby stew
05-15-2009, 11:17 AM
hi zib welcome 2.5 turbo disel 5 speed manual oooooooops forgot u dont have 2.5 td
you probably get decent mpg, but i bet it will get costly to maintain later on.. id rather a normal n/a ranger or whatever.. anyways the 4cyl ranger i was looking into was sold so im back on the hunt and at the same time waiting for more feedback on which to buy/stay away from..
TazDevil07
05-15-2009, 03:38 PM
I have the 4.0 in mine and I have 4.10 gears. My mileage (city driving) is usually between 15 - 17 and trust me, my foot is always in the gas! lol
98blownranger
05-16-2009, 02:03 PM
The 2.3 liter 4 cylinder is way better than the v6 engines on gasoline. The new duratec seems to have plenty of power (mine is a manual trans) and I can easily get 29 to 33 mpg at 65 mph on the highway. Great combo unless you feel the need for 4wd or hauling a heavy trailer. Then you'd have to go with v6 power and pay the gas price penalty forever.
look at the years he is looking at the new duratec is NOT in any of those years. so read again my post and i am right. the 2.3 2.5 20-25mpg the 4.0 OHV 17-22mpg not a huge change and a lot more power
so i looked at this 99 mazda b2500 and it ran ok and shifted well but had this tick that he called a "typical ranger tick" but he couldnt explain it to me what it was.. any ideas? he said it was a 2.5 4cyl with 8 spark plug wires, kinda strange
BigBlockRanger
05-18-2009, 01:38 PM
The 'typical Ranger tick' actually refers to the 2.9L engines that did have a tendency to develop a ticking sound.
8 plugs would be the twin plug motor.... quite normal.
Do yourself a favor and don't drive a 4.0L truck or those 3.0L's and 2.3/2.5L's will seem totally doggy by comparison.
the lone ranger
05-18-2009, 09:44 PM
I would go with the 3.0 or 4.0... personally from experience I prefer the 3.0. My Ranger gets about 26/28 and it is a 3.0 auto. It also does some great pulling. For towing it has done about 6000 lbs and the engine is still ran great. It's your choice but again the 3.0 is a good choice.
thats pretty good gas mileage for a 3.0, i didnt even think the 2.3's got that much, but ill keep that in mind, i just want to buy this 99 b2500 and get it over with, but that ticking sound is just not normal to me
the lone ranger
05-19-2009, 06:14 PM
anybody who says that a "tick" is normal is just trying to sell it... and get rid of it. Either way Mazdas are ok... and Fords run like train in my experience... we are a ford family and the only car that isn't a for is our impala and we HAVE to have that because it my grandpa's company car... Just keep shopping around and you will find the right thing.
DrivAPrerunner
05-19-2009, 09:38 PM
I love the 2.3's for the practicality and every day driving. I have a 3.0L Vulcan in my 2004 and it got the truck around before I started caging it but it's a complete dog now. The 4.0 makes a huge difference, but it can't stop the craving for a V-8 swap.
GreenRanger626
05-21-2009, 06:28 AM
You will have a 2.3 four cylinder manual forever! I bought mine when i was 16 as my first car im going to be 22 this august, ive put it through the test that any kid with his first car does, and its still my car today. Its so reliable that im going to be dishing in money to fix it up visually.
Level2
06-02-2009, 09:36 PM
r, im so scarred from the ford taurus 3.0's even tho they arent the same engine, atleast i hope not lol
Actually, there are 2 different versions of a 3.0L V6 used in the Taurus. One is the Duratech 30 3.0L dohc V6 like they used in the Escape/Mariner/Tribute/Fusion/Five Hundred and a few others I'm probably forgetting and then there is the same old tried and true 3.0L Vulcan V6 that is in the Taurus and Ranger.
Sky King
06-04-2009, 07:57 PM
^i believe your right about the auto trannys, almost all the trucks i have looked into have had either the trans replaced or rebuilt and im not looking at high mileage trucks either,
My 1991 2.3 Automatic went 292,000 miles on the transmission with filter changes and 3.5 quarts every 25k miles. If I had adjusted the bands in there(I didn't know it had them) it would have went longer. Still it didn't let me down it just wouldn't shift into overdrive any longer. Got it fixed for $800 (total rebuild). :) 18 years old and still going. (399,500 miles)
My son's 2000 Ranger automatic has 280,000 miles on it. No work has been done on this tranny except filter changes.
Personally, I prefer an AUTO. I gotta be able to eat my snoball while driving and I need both hands. :D
Good luck man !!
mrphdvr
06-05-2009, 07:00 AM
Foxxyfiveo made a good point. I bought mine new with the 3.0. I also drive my wifes Explorer with the 4.0. The difference is the gearing. The 4.0's in the ranger are geared lower for some reason. I average 20 mpgs street and highway (even when I was driving to work in Louisiana). You can tow light trailers and haul 500 + lbs without pushing it. I have 122000 miles and the only issue I had with the tranny (auto) was slipping in the winter time. I had the fluid changed and a new filter put in and the problem went away. I would buy another 3.0 in a heartbeat.
mrphdvr
06-05-2009, 07:18 AM
thats pretty good gas mileage for a 3.0, i didnt even think the 2.3's got that much, but ill keep that in mind, i just want to buy this 99 b2500 and get it over with, but that ticking sound is just not normal to me
I had a friend with a Trailhead that had 3 liter with the ticking. He took it back and they swapped the engine under warranty. It's not supposed to do that but several during that time frame developed the ticking and they are still running. I wouldn't buy it.
beaujt
06-05-2009, 11:04 PM
well my brothers ranger has a pretty good tick, but his 2.9L has like 240,000 on it i think, and holy cow is it a DOG compared to my 4.0L! I couldn't ever drive his truck, EVER... but my truck has a bit of a tick at cold start, just the lifters but i've run synthetic through it before and that solved the problem, but i've also got a quart of Marvel Oil in it, and that seems to help out with the tick. I've only got 165,000 on my truck with an auto, shifts fine and everything, been getting better mileage than i thought too :D about 17(hwy/city mix) with the lift and tires. but i really wouldn't mess with any of those 4 bangers unless it has 4 spark plugs. I had a buddy who needed to replaces his plugs... 5 hours later, yeah 5 HOURS LATER, I finally got 7 of em out, the 8th wouldn't come out cause the socket would catch on the block when it would come out. I had to take the whole in take off all the way to the manifold and even then it was damn tricky to get those three out.
Sky King
06-06-2009, 05:31 PM
but i really wouldn't mess with any of those 4 bangers unless it has 4 spark plugs. I had a buddy who needed to replaces his plugs... 5 hours later, yeah 5 HOURS LATER, I finally got 7 of em out, the 8th wouldn't come out cause the socket would catch on the block when it would come out. I had to take the whole in take off all the way to the manifold and even then it was damn tricky to get those three out.
No problem getting all the plugs out of my 1991. I love the 8 plug version, mine had allot more pep the my daughters 1996 4 spark plug verson (I think that was the year :) )
The biggest pain for me is getting the plug wires off the plugs.
beaujt
06-06-2009, 11:35 PM
No problem getting all the plugs out of my 1991. I love the 8 plug version, mine had allot more pep the my daughters 1996 4 spark plug verson (I think that was the year :) )
The biggest pain for me is getting the plug wires off the plugs.
maybe that was the difference... his was a 96 stepside 2wd. I wasnt a big fan haha. I did a lot of work on that thing :/ i don't think ive ever seen a ranger need so much work :eek:
DanPete
06-07-2009, 04:36 PM
I suggest the 2.3 for what you are doing. The gas mileage will be pretty good with the 2.3. Somewhere between 25mpg and 30mpg. I have no idea what the guy saying the 2.3 means. My Ranger does 95mph at 3400RPM no sweat even with a headwind. Good luck!
Sky King
06-10-2009, 09:12 AM
I suggest the 2.3 for what you are doing. The gas mileage will be pretty good with the 2.3. Somewhere between 25mpg and 30mpg. I have no idea what the guy saying the 2.3 means. My Ranger does 95mph at 3400RPM no sweat even with a headwind. Good luck!
Roger that! My 2.3 Ranger was never short on power until recently and it'll still pull a trailer at 70MPH. Of course mine has 4:10 gears (from the factory) I believe they do this so it can handle loads with gusto. I pulled my son's boat 70 miles one way at highway speeds and never knew it was back there...power wise.
Good Luck,
Gene
durb323
09-14-2011, 05:14 PM
hi, im looking into buying a ranger (1993- 00) and i just wanted to get some inside info from you current owners, i have searched for a bit but i have not really gotten any good answers, so in your opinion which ranger engine is the best? 2.3, 3.0, 4.0? which is the best overall, which should i stay away from? most reliable? which tends to break down more often? i would like to use this as a work truck but nothing crazy, i wont be hauling anything heavy, maybe some seasonal mulch or wood around the house.. so let me know what you think and why, i thank you in advance, also are there any model years i should stay away from?
4.0L 00 and older. just go for the big, we are all guys and we know how we are.
rangerrebel94
09-14-2011, 05:52 PM
i have a 3.0 an it treats me great. =) mine sat for 4 years an the only things i had to do was give it a tune-up. i had to get some extra parts on the side. but that was because of one of its past owner's faults. i feel the 3.0 is a good balance between power and gas milage. its also a 5spd manual. that also gives it a few more mile to the gallon. i had no knowlege what so ever on how to work a truck when i fisrt got my mine. lol so i was dreading trying to fix it myself. but after starting it. it wasn't to bad it was pretty strait forward. my truck is a 1/2 model so the engine is a 94 year while the body is a 93. watch out for that. lol good luck on the buy. but beware, i looked up my truck on internet and according to ford it had some recalls. but overall the reveiws for it were positve for being reaible and all around pretty solid. =) so far i encountered no really big problems that i couldn't takle myself. but again, good luck on the truck hunting. =)
hifiwest
09-14-2011, 06:47 PM
The 3.0 is stoneage. Even by 1980's standards it was. Pushrods, solid iron, I just can't appreciate an engine that was so obsolete when it was brand new. I mean, simplicity is good and all, but that was pretty backwards... Why was detroit so terrified of 4 valvers for so long??
mopar9012
09-14-2011, 07:18 PM
i have the 3.0. I love it and hate it. Im getting close to 200k on the dash and love it because it seems like its a reliable engine (knock on wood) but then again I have never owned the 2.3 or the 4.0
If you dont tow anything or need power, I might go for the 2.3 for the MPG. However if it were me I would be driving around in the 4.0 if I could.
2011FPKP4X2
09-14-2011, 09:39 PM
i like my 2.3 5 speed
bameenach
09-14-2011, 09:46 PM
I love my 99 2.3 5speed i wouldnt trade it for the world i looked at a f150 jacked up with a built 302 and turned it down cus i didnt want to give up the danger ranger its 2wd and i take it mudding and rem the piss out of it all the time has 216,000 miles and i can still power brake for as long as i want i left a black mark for a good 200ft the other day go with the 2.3
----------
And i pull a 18ft boat with the 2.3 with little to no problems
zcg4755
09-15-2011, 06:49 PM
I've owned my 4.0L Ranger for 4 years and never had a single problem with the engine. Currently I have about 100k miles on the truck; I drive it everyday. Now it all depends on your driving style, but I personally get 20 MPG (with bald tires and old spark plugs). I'm a poor college student, don't criticize me! As far as power goes, I couldn't imagine driving a 3.0L (no offense). The 4.0L has an acceptable amount of power, but it's nothing special (wishing I had the SOHC). To be honest, you can't go wrong with any of the Ranger engines. Just buy what suits you best, don't worry about reliability. Take care of the truck and it will take care of you.
|