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

  #1  
Old 05-12-2009, 09:47 PM
Zib Zib is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-12-2009, 10:54 PM
redneck9956 redneck9956 is offline
92 Ranger 4.0 5 speed 4x4
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 35
Send a message via Yahoo to redneck9956
Default

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
__________________
1992 ranger 4.0 5 speed 4x4 ext. cab stx
R.i.p = 2001 ranger edge 3.0 5 speed
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-13-2009, 06:18 AM
hmiwb hmiwb is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:01 AM
RangerJustin RangerJustin is offline
~+!)@(#*$&%^
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to RangerJustin Send a message via Skype™ to RangerJustin
Default

Since you won't be hauling anything heavy I would go with the 2.3 for the MPGs.
__________________
Sold:2004 XLT 4x2 Ext. Cab. 3.0 Mods: 3" spindle, AAL, shackle, 32x11.5 on 15x8s, billet grille, clear corners, flow 40 dumped, line-x, CB/PA, traction bars, lil sound system, auto up down windows
Sold:2005 XLT 4x4 Ext. Cab. 4.0 Mods: ProComp lights w/ HID swap on tabs, 32x11.5 on 15x8s, CB/PA, black out heads/corners, lil sound system, cranked t-bars, flow 40 dumped, line-x, shell, bed rug, 06+ tails, metal tail gate handle since plastic one shattered, OHC, Mustang Dome.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:05 AM
Tom Tom is offline
Ranger Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerJustin View Post
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.
__________________
2006 Ford Ranger Sport 4.0 2WD on 32x11.50R15s
-3" Doetsch Spindle Lift


Using the forum:
How to Post on the Forum
Creating a signature (do this before asking any questions)
Upload an Avatar (image of your Ranger)
How to Post Pictures on the Forum
Switch the site layout: Light Theme or Dark Theme

Things to do:
Participate in Truck of the Month
Participate in the Ranger Photo Contest
Participate in the Non-Automotive Photo Contest
Become a Site Contributor
Shop at the FordRangerForum.com Store
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:21 AM
Zib Zib is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9
Default

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

Last edited by Zib; 05-13-2009 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-13-2009, 08:24 AM
Tom Tom is offline
Ranger Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zib View Post
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.
__________________
2006 Ford Ranger Sport 4.0 2WD on 32x11.50R15s
-3" Doetsch Spindle Lift


Using the forum:
How to Post on the Forum
Creating a signature (do this before asking any questions)
Upload an Avatar (image of your Ranger)
How to Post Pictures on the Forum
Switch the site layout: Light Theme or Dark Theme

Things to do:
Participate in Truck of the Month
Participate in the Ranger Photo Contest
Participate in the Non-Automotive Photo Contest
Become a Site Contributor
Shop at the FordRangerForum.com Store
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Zib Zib is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9
Default

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

Last edited by Zib; 05-13-2009 at 01:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
98blownranger 98blownranger is offline
Custom KeyChain R Me
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 718
Default

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
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrumedge View Post
98blown you should be an MD! that's the same stuff my doc asks and ur spot on man!!!
98 4.0 2wd-----supercharger fully build heads cam...all show with go......3 time world of wheels champ 5 time national winner


lots of ranger parts for sale leftovers from my 94/96
96 sitting on the frame, waiting to go lower


custom billet parts by me intake adapters and billet steps for the step sides

please sign my guestbook!!
http://breyperformancemachine.shutterfly.com/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-14-2009, 01:56 PM
hmiwb hmiwb is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 98blownranger View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-14-2009, 10:57 PM
beaujt beaujt is offline
beaujt
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 302
Default

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.
__________________
93 ranger ext. cab 4.0L auto 6" SJ/custom lift--37" super swamper truxs M/T tires--lock rite locker w/ 4.56 gears up front--warn hubs--exploder 8.8 w/ disc brakes 4.56 gears and detriot locker--one-piece driveline--bushwacker cut-out flares--Bilstein 5150 shocks--2 10" xcite subs w/ 1600W Crunch amp-- tinted windows

waiting for: dual steering stabilizer, put on 3" body lift(in my room), dual shock setup, electric fan, possible SAS with a waggy D44
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-15-2009, 08:19 AM
Zib Zib is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9
Default

^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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-15-2009, 11:12 AM
scooby stew scooby stew is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 963
Default

hi zib 2.5 turbo diesel anyday oooops for got u dont have 2.5 td in the us welcome to forum
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-15-2009, 11:17 AM
scooby stew scooby stew is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 963
Default

hi zib welcome 2.5 turbo disel 5 speed manual oooooooops forgot u dont have 2.5 td
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-15-2009, 03:15 PM
Zib Zib is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1989 2.3L engine HPvs 2004 2.3L engine HP? Kitsap 4-Cylinder Tech 4 12-02-2009 02:25 PM