3.0 vs 4.0 - Page 7

knightmare1015 · #91 06-30-2011, 09:00 PM

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.

richarddhoward · #92 06-30-2011, 09:02 PM

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

Rango88 · #93 06-30-2011, 09:06 PM

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

nicksranger01 · #94 06-30-2011, 09:07 PM

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

knightmare1015 · #95 06-30-2011, 09:08 PM

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.

richarddhoward · #96 06-30-2011, 09:12 PM

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.

knightmare1015 · #97 06-30-2011, 09:17 PM

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.

cdawall · #98 07-01-2011, 06:52 AM

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.

TheMike515 · #99 07-02-2011, 02:24 PM

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!

GeorgiaRanger · #**100** 07-02-2011, 03:00 PM

So im not looking through 7 pages of ramble. What is the verdict that everyone has basically said?

matt224 · #**101** 07-02-2011, 03:02 PM

4.0 hands down

GeorgiaRanger · #**102** 07-02-2011, 03:09 PM

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?

rangeredge01 · #**103** 07-02-2011, 03:39 PM

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.

mchale20 · #**104** 07-02-2011, 05:45 PM

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

EMB1230 · #**105** 07-03-2011, 04:10 PM

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.