|
06-30-2011, 09:00 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward
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.
|
Register and never see these ads again. |
|
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 09:02 PM
|
|
Road Trippin' King!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,007
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015
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
I think Henry just shit himself
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radness
Its kind of like that carnival game "Whack A Mole" but with guns! Haha
|
|
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 09:06 PM
|
N/A
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,031
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward
I should have added depending on year. In my year, the auto is actually the stronger of the two.
|
thanks for mentioning that
|
06-30-2011, 09:07 PM
|
|
Ford Ranger Driver
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,155
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMike515
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.
|
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 09:08 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward
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.
Last edited by knightmare1015; 06-30-2011 at 09:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 09:12 PM
|
|
Road Trippin' King!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,007
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightmare1015
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
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
I think Henry just shit himself
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radness
Its kind of like that carnival game "Whack A Mole" but with guns! Haha
|
|
|
|
|
06-30-2011, 09:17 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,010
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by richarddhoward
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.
Last edited by knightmare1015; 06-30-2011 at 09:23 PM.
|
07-01-2011, 06:52 AM
|
|
Jeep recovery vehicle
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,186
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMike515
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.
|
07-02-2011, 02:24 PM
|
Learning to use the forums
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
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
|
07-02-2011, 03:00 PM
|
|
Bronco!
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,188
|
|
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
Lmao like a good neighbor, FRF is there!
|
|
07-02-2011, 03:02 PM
|
|
Ford Ranger Driver
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 591
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
4.0 hands down
__________________
2006 Fx4 Level 2 with a 5spd, Superlifted on 33's.
|
07-02-2011, 03:09 PM
|
|
Bronco!
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,188
|
|
Re: 3.0 vs 4.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt224
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
Lmao like a good neighbor, FRF is there!
|
|
07-02-2011, 03:39 PM
|
Ford Ranger Owner
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 60
|
|
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
|
07-02-2011, 05:45 PM
|
|
Buy a Ford
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 195
|
|
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)
|
07-03-2011, 04:10 PM
|
|
On my 3rd Ranger
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
|
|
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.
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|