Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #91  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:00 PM
knightmare1015 knightmare1015 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward View Post
I should have added depending on year. In my year, the auto is actually the stronger of the two.
I aint had any problems at all out of my old manual tranny. But most likely it wouldn't hold up to the 4.0 SOHC for very long if any.
__________________
SOLD: 2004 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0 V6 5 speed



www.knightmare1015.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:02 PM
richarddhoward richarddhoward is offline
Road Trippin' King!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,010
Send a message via MSN to richarddhoward
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015 View Post
I aint had any problems at all out of my old manual tranny. But most likely it wouldn't hold up to the 4.0 SOHC for very long if any.
Yeah, and that may be the case in a lot of them. I forgot where I had read that, but it was a reputable site for autos. The note as I remember in the article said that the manual and auto where pretty close in durability, just there had been mroe cases of the manual biting the proverbial dust
__________________
97 Ranger - 4.0 V6 auto, 4wd, 31x10.5x15s Wild Country XTX Sport All Terrains, Warn locking hubs, Pioneer deck with iPod attachment, Snugtop Topper, K&N filter, scan gauge II, Hella 500 Lights, More parts coming, waiting for the paycheck to get bigger!

Truck built in loving memory of Norm Howard
Outcast Racing
PNW Crew!!!
Afterhours Clan!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron_ariens View Post
I think Henry just shit himself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radness View Post
Its kind of like that carnival game "Whack A Mole" but with guns! Haha
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:06 PM
Rango88 Rango88 is offline
N/A
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,031
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward View Post
I should have added depending on year. In my year, the auto is actually the stronger of the two.
thanks for mentioning that
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:07 PM
nicksranger01 nicksranger01 is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,155
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMike515 View Post
Interesting, Not that I'm supporting the 3.0, but wouldn't the pairing of a cast iron block w/ and Aluminum head lead to more head gasket problems? I mean those two metals have different properties / rates for expansion and contraction.... just a question.
Not exactly the aftermarket has been making aluminum heads for cast iron blocks for years hence why my brother has a cast iron 350 small block with 400 Edelbrock aluminum heads as long as you dont over heat the damn thing then its all good

and from a mechanic stand point i find the 4.0 more reliable, i have fixed to many 3.0s and no 4.0s but im partial to 4.0s mine has been awesome to me

But to keep things fair the 4.0 does have that timing chain rattle problem and that thermostat housing issue

Last edited by nicksranger01; 06-30-2011 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:08 PM
knightmare1015 knightmare1015 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward View Post
Yeah, and that may be the case in a lot of them. I forgot where I had read that, but it was a reputable site for autos. The note as I remember in the article said that the manual and auto where pretty close in durability, just there had been mroe cases of the manual biting the proverbial dust
I remember seeing that article somewhere too. Plus the 3.0 didn't have but roughly around 135 horses and roughly about 178 ft lbs of torque. The 4.0 SOHC has about 207 Horses and about 238 Ft lbs of torque and the old manual tranny just wasn't built for that kind of power. Plus you throw in 7 years of abuse to those factors and you've got a grenade that's waiting to go off. I was really glad to see that my friend finished his Focus project. He was kool as hell when we worked together about 5 years ago. His parents still have a hard time with the english language a bit but you can still understand them, though.
__________________
SOLD: 2004 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0 V6 5 speed



www.knightmare1015.blogspot.com

Last edited by knightmare1015; 06-30-2011 at 09:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:12 PM
richarddhoward richarddhoward is offline
Road Trippin' King!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,010
Send a message via MSN to richarddhoward
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015 View Post
I remember seeing that article somewhere too. Plus the 3.0 didn't have but roughly around 135 horses and roughly about 178 ft lbs of torque. The 4.0 SOHC has about 207 Horses and about 238 Ft lbs of torque and the old manual tranny just wasn't built for that kind of power. Plus you throw in 7 years of abuse to those factors and you've got a grenade that's waiting to go off. I was really glad to see that my friend finished his Focus project.
Lol yeah, the manual is what I would prefer over the auto. But they are more personal preference in every one of these trucks

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicksranger01 View Post
Not exactly the aftermarket has been making aluminum heads for cast iron blocks for years hence why my brother has a cast iron 350 small block with 400 Edelbrock aluminum heads as long as you dont over heat the damn thing then its all good

and from a mechanic stand point i find the 4.0 more reliable, i have fixed to many 3.0s and no 4.0s but im partial to 4.0s mine has been awesome to me
I wouldn't worry about the aluminum no cast iron issues anymore. The OEM's have had enough time to figure out the expansion rates and all of that that have all but eliminated this issue in modern vehicles.
__________________
97 Ranger - 4.0 V6 auto, 4wd, 31x10.5x15s Wild Country XTX Sport All Terrains, Warn locking hubs, Pioneer deck with iPod attachment, Snugtop Topper, K&N filter, scan gauge II, Hella 500 Lights, More parts coming, waiting for the paycheck to get bigger!

Truck built in loving memory of Norm Howard
Outcast Racing
PNW Crew!!!
Afterhours Clan!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron_ariens View Post
I think Henry just shit himself
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radness View Post
Its kind of like that carnival game "Whack A Mole" but with guns! Haha
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:17 PM
knightmare1015 knightmare1015 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward View Post
Lol yeah, the manual is what I would prefer over the auto. But they are more personal preference in every one of these trucks



I wouldn't worry about the aluminum no cast iron issues anymore. The OEM's have had enough time to figure out the expansion rates and all of that they have all but eliminated this issue in modern vehicles.
Yep. O.E.M has gotten alot better over the years in terms of calculations and what have you. They have started to open up to the aftermarket alot more than normal as well (except Ford, go figure). Here's a little something that will indeed make any one's man berries vibrate to no end:

http://www.ford-v8-focus.com/RS-8.html

And they call us crazy, L.O.L.
__________________
SOLD: 2004 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0 V6 5 speed



www.knightmare1015.blogspot.com

Last edited by knightmare1015; 06-30-2011 at 09:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:52 AM
cdawall cdawall is offline
Jeep recovery vehicle
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,197
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMike515 View Post
Wait, so you're saying the 5r44 (which is in the 3.0's) is more durable than the 5r55 in the 4.0's?

If so I take it the manual trans (HD) is the way to go w/ the 4.0's if possible....
Meant the 5R55 is a lot more durable than the 5R44.
__________________
'05 Ranger Edge SAS'd, 5.38's, D60/D60U, 38.5" TSL SX's, October 2012 TOTM, build thead
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-02-2011, 02:24 PM
TheMike515 TheMike515 is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall View Post
Meant the 5R55 is a lot more durable than the 5R44.
Ok, thats what I figured was the case but I was just checking - Thanks for the clarification!
__________________
Not a Ranger owner yet!
Searching for a 4.0 4x4 extended Cab
Possibly lifted

Current Rides:
99 Audi A4 2.8M Quattro
95 Honda CB1000
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:00 PM
GeorgiaRanger GeorgiaRanger is offline
Bronco!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,188
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

So im not looking through 7 pages of ramble. What is the verdict that everyone has basically said?
__________________
Bronco in the near future!

2002 Gold Ranger (46k miles) : Totaled May 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaddwalters View Post
Lmao like a good neighbor, FRF is there!
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:02 PM
matt224 matt224 is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 591
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

4.0 hands down
__________________
2006 Fx4 Level 2 with a 5spd, Superlifted on 33's.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:09 PM
GeorgiaRanger GeorgiaRanger is offline
Bronco!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,188
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt224 View Post
4.0 hands down
ok so does that mean your going to come to my house and drop a 4.0 in my ranger?
__________________
Bronco in the near future!

2002 Gold Ranger (46k miles) : Totaled May 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaddwalters View Post
Lmao like a good neighbor, FRF is there!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-02-2011, 03:39 PM
rangeredge01 rangeredge01 is offline
Ford Ranger Owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 60
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

I don't understand why people put down the 3.0 so bad. I would never compare the 4.0 to the 3.0. Sure, the larger motor is going to have more power and torque. However, just looking at the 3.0 overall I'm impressed with its power in its class. I have been running my 3.0 for two years now and nothing bad to say about it. It is what it is.
__________________
2001 Ranger Edge

245-75-16 Firestone Destination M/T
FX4 Rims
06+ Mirrors & Tail Lights
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-02-2011, 05:45 PM
mchale20 mchale20 is offline
Buy a Ford
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 195
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

All I have to say is, a 3L floored it today in an attempt to block me from merging in front of them, and when I dropped the hammer, it was as if they slowed down to let me over. 4.0 ftw
__________________
2005 Ranger FX4
Green with matching A.R.E. bed cover / Buggman LED Oval and Black with chrome Emblems.
Pioneer Premiere FH-P800BT DD Head Unit / Rockford Fosgate P500-1BD Amp / Rockford Fosgate P2D412 Sub
Keys/Shackles Lift (2") / PA Body Lift (3") / Bilstein 5100's
Mickey Thompson Classic Lock / BFG AT's 285 75 R16 (32.8)
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-03-2011, 04:10 PM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: 3.0 vs 4.0

Yeah, they had that discussion before on TCCA, the 3.0 Push-rod Vulcan being all iron, weighs more than the 3.0 Duratec which being DOHC has a larger top end, but since it's all aluminum, it's lighter. 95+ 3.0's also have the dreaded Cam Synchronizer issue. And yes older engines with iron block/alum heads did tend to have HG issues, remember the 3.8L? honestly. All in all, I prefer the simplicity of the Vulcan over the 4.0. BTW fords most reliable engine would have to be a tie between the 300 I6 and the 302 V8. The 3.0 is a great engine, but it should have NEVER been put into Rangers. The 2.3 Duratec and Cologne 4.0's (Push-rod & SOHC) were made for a truck, the 3.0 Vulcan was made for a car. The Lima 2.3/2.5 was kind of a gray area, made for a car, but it was a RWD car, lol.
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.

Last edited by EMB1230; 07-03-2011 at 04:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search