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

  #31  
Old 04-22-2014, 07:34 AM
Keto Keto is offline
Ford Truck Driver
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 81
Thumbs up Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris View Post
People who post the 2.3 power and 4.0 mileage are just puking on the keyboard bullshit they read somewhere else. It is not true. If it is the case then something is wrong with the truck itself.
+1
__________________
Forzda B-Ranger 3000
a.k.a. 1996 Mazda B3000 SE Cab Plus, Manual, 2wd

How slow do you want to go? 4.slow, 3.slower, or 2.slowest?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:16 AM
Scooterjr Scooterjr is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brughs_ranger View Post
4.0 for the power for sure. I have a 4.0 and I get 12 mpg but it's also lifted 4 inches with 33s
I have 3 inch lift with 33s also and I get around 17 to 18 mpg in my 3.0.
__________________
My 02 EDGE Build
KR Photography
02 EDGE 3.0L 4x4-tint-leveling lift kit-LED interior-HIDs-SLP Exhaust-Kobalt tool box-OHC-Grille Lights-MORE IN BUILD THREAD!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:22 AM
yeatzee yeatzee is offline
<-- PAID OFF!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,044
Default

To follow with the above, with 5" of lift and 33's with 3.73 gearing I averaged around 18-19 mixed. With 4.56 it has dropped to 17-18. Highway I get 20 now, with 3.73's got somewhere around 21ish.

3.0 is slow but it does have better mpg then a fullsize, which would make me depressed if I was driving a little ranger with a 4.0 around seeing as trucks 3 times as big get the same mpg.
__________________
2002 DWB Ford Ranger XLT 3.0 V6 FF 4 Door
3" Doetsch spindle lift, 2.5" Camburg CRS coil lift, BTF uniball UCA's, ORW limit straps
Shackles, blocks, custom leaf pack, Bilstein 5100's/5125's F/R
33" GoodYear MTR's, 8.8 swap with 4.56 gears and L/S
Baja Designs 20" OnX, HID converted Hella's

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87rangerSummers View Post
He has a badass lifted 2wd. He is being a smartass
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:23 AM
ranger024x4 ranger024x4 is offline
dumpster fire
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,363
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

I get 19-21 in my 4.0 with the driving conditions I do.
__________________

2017 Ford Fiesta ST
2014 Ford Escape Titanium Ecoboost AWD
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:27 AM
Deens_Ranger Deens_Ranger is offline
Savage
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 201
Default

I own a 3.0 I have never had more problems with any engine in my life
__________________
2006 Ford Ranger Xlt 3.0
Mods:
2 inch Maxtrac Coils, 2 inch Lift Blocks, Pro Comp Es3000 Shocks,32x11.50r15 Dunlop Mud Rovers,50 inch lightbar, Smittybilt Bumper, Custom Skid Plate,3.73 Gears, Kicker Comp R 12, Experienced with Car Audio/Electrical Wiring, custom rear bumper, FlowMaster 40 Series
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:43 AM
Prages Prages is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,574
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

I love my truck, but the 3.0 isn't a powerful or efficient motor. It's a 5 speed manual, and you often have to downshift going up any kind of hill on the interstate. It gets maybe 19 mpg doing mostly interstate driving.

My old 93 Explorer had a 4.0 with 5 speed manual, and it would run circles around my current Ranger, never had to downshift on the interstate, and got 20-22 mpg most of the time.

I also had an '89 Ranger with a 2.3 and 5 speed manual. It was severely underpowered (5th gear was pretty much useless unless you were going downhill with a strong tail wind), but it did get 26 or 27 mpg on the highway. It was also the only 2wd of the bunch, so that helped with the gas mileage.
__________________
2000 Ford Ranger XLT
Extended Cab
3.0 Flex
4x4
Manual Transmission
Offroad Package

Last edited by Prages; 04-22-2014 at 09:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-22-2014, 10:21 AM
Big Time Big Time is offline
Ford Ranger Owner
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 57
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

I always liked the 3.0 in my truck, it's a real workhorse that does what it's designed to do, but if I had to buy another one I'd go for the 4.0.

The 3.0 Vulcan lasts a long time with regular maintenance but it's a real slug to drive and a total whore when it comes to gas mileage.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-22-2014, 10:52 AM
Keto Keto is offline
Ford Truck Driver
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 81
Thumbs up Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

Last longer trip I took in my truck was from Sacramento to San Jose, 128 miles. Filled up before I left, filled up when I got there, ~23.2 mpg. No load but me, cruising around 70mph.

Return trip was a different story, had a crated Chevy 454 short block, which I sure was push'n 500-600 pounds by itself, and some other misc parts... still managed ~17 mpg. The Altamont pass was fun with all that weight back there, lol.
__________________
Forzda B-Ranger 3000
a.k.a. 1996 Mazda B3000 SE Cab Plus, Manual, 2wd

How slow do you want to go? 4.slow, 3.slower, or 2.slowest?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-22-2014, 01:02 PM
Boris Boris is offline
Pooping, on you
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger024x4 View Post
trust me, the 3.0s dont get much better (if any) over the 4.0, and they dont really have much more power vs the 4cyl.

There is a reason ford dropped the 3.0 in the ranger line up.
I fully respect your opinion, we all got em, right brother!

However this has not been my experience. The Vulcan has way more power to do work than any 2.3 or the 2.5, BTDT. The 4 cyl engines work so hard they eat up 20-25% more gas doing it. The Vulcan for the most part ignores the extra weight working. Mileage is barely changed. Being in MI Ethanol is made all over the place here. My desire to support farmers instead of terrorist nations drives me to run E85 in mine. E85 makes more power than 87 does. E85 also has less drop in mileage doing work to the point it is not even noticed over unloaded mileage. The engine also runs so much better on it, the drop in mileage is still not enough to make 87 more economical and the loss in mileage filling up with 87 makes E85 even more economical for me. It hauls as if there is nothing back there.

Better mileage, less money spent on gas than a 4 cylinder, with more power. Nope, it does NOT match up to the bullshit I read on the web or hear from inexperienced. It matters not to me. I drive one, I put one to work. I can flat out tell you the Vulcan has more power than any 4 cylinder ever put in a Ranger. The Flex fuel Vulcans are even better run on E85. Once again this is soley based on experience. I did not read it on the web.

Would a 4.0 do better? For me no. It would do it but it would eat more gas and not have the E85 option. It would cost me more. My brother is the one with quads and a boat, he has an Ecoboost to haul that stuff and I get to ride the quads and drink beer on the boat, I dont need a 4.0 like some members here do. If the OP is just daily driving then the V6 engines are inane, they need to look at a 4 banger.

To keep it fair lets hear YOUR experience with the Vulcan you owned, The 4 bangers you owned and your 4.0 you obviousl own. What do you tow, haul and the frequency you tow and haul.

Last edited by Boris; 04-22-2014 at 01:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-22-2014, 01:07 PM
CFH665 CFH665 is offline
Ford Tough
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 226
Default

I haul dirtbikes and quads with my 4.0 and even with 33's you barely tell its there, but unloaded im only getting around 12 mpg, if im lucky i can get 15 on the hwy so the 4.0 is definitly a gas eatter but if you need the power its there
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-22-2014, 01:54 PM
Prages Prages is offline
Ford Ranger Driver
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,574
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris View Post
To keep it fair lets hear YOUR experience with the Vulcan you owned, The 4 bangers you owned and your 4.0 you obviousl own. What do you tow, haul and the frequency you tow and haul.
I already covered that.

1989 Ranger XLT 2wd long bed. 2.3L with 5 speed manual transmission. Never towed anything, but hauled lots of stuff in the bed. Loaded or unloaded, the thing had very little power. You could be on a flat bit of interstate doing 65, put it into 5th gear and floor it. A mile later you might be doing 70. Got in the range of 26-27 mpg on mostly highway driving.

1993 Explorer Sport 4x4. 4.0 with 5 speed manual transmission. Never towed anything. Hauled lighter loads of stuff (musical equipment mostly...certainly less than 500 lbs). Plenty of power in any gear. Never had to shift out of 5th gear on the interstate. Averaged 20-22 mpg on mostly highway driving.

2000 Ranger XLT Ext Cab 4x4. 3.0 with 5 speed manual transmission. Never towed anything. Hauled probably 1500 lbs or so in the bed a few times. It does fine in the first 3 gears. 4th gear is fine on most interstate hills even with a decent load. 5th gear is fine for flat ground or very slight uphills, but even with just me in the truck, if you're going up anything more than a very slight grade at 70 mph in 5th gear, by the time you get to the top you have to shift down to 4th. Gets 17-19 mpg on mostly highway driving.

Also, the 1989 Ranger had 235k miles on it when I sold it, and other than some very minor problems, it ran fine right up until I sold it.

The 1993 Explorer had zero engine problems, and I sold it in 2003 with 189k miles on. My parents neighbor bought it, and he's still driving it.

The 2000 Ranger had to have a new engine at 157k miles. Has 183k on it now.

That's my real world experience. Like I said, I love my truck, and I'm not a big bad mouther of the 3.0, because I think it does what it needs to do, but a 4.0 offers much more power and equal or nearly equal fuel efficiency.
__________________
2000 Ford Ranger XLT
Extended Cab
3.0 Flex
4x4
Manual Transmission
Offroad Package
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-22-2014, 02:15 PM
01_ranger_4x4 01_ranger_4x4 is offline
OIF Veteran

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,044
Default

Oh goody! A 3.0 vs 4.0 butthurt thread!
__________________
2001 Ranger 4x4 Stepside
-RCD Suspension lift
-33x12.5 BFG KM2's on Mickey Thomson classic locks
-4:56 gears
-Auburn gear LS
-James Duff traction bars
-Headers
-Flowmaster duals
-SCT X-Cal2 and some small exterior mods

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2321189

2005 F-150 Lariat 4x4
-LED third brake light
-Weathertech floor liners
-Edge tuner
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-22-2014, 03:01 PM
ajstewart777 ajstewart777 is offline
Ford Pickup
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 114
Default

I have a 4.0 and my buddy has a 3.0. And he also had the 4 cylinder.
Anyway. The 4.0 is a super reliable motor. When I was on the search for a ranger I was told by at least 5 different mechanics not to get the 3.0. All in all they get around the same gas mileage. (which isn't all that great anyway lol) but the 4.0 has a lot of good power and torque. Neither truck is very "fast" but that's not why we buy v6 pick up trucks. I put my motor through hell and back. For every reason in the world look for a 2000 or newer 4.0. You'll get years of dependable service.
__________________
2005 Ford Ranger Edge Supercab 4.0 4x4. 4 inch Superlift. 3 inch PA body lift, 33 inch General Grabber AT2, 15 inch pro comp rock crawler wheels. 4:10 gearing. K&N Air Intake. Superlift front skid plate, Super ride shocks. Pioneer DVD radio and Kenwood sub. 20% tint front and back. 2.5 inch cat back exhaust, Dynomax bullet muffler, split at y pipe to dual 3 inch Magnaflow tips.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-22-2014, 03:01 PM
Boris Boris is offline
Pooping, on you
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
Default Re: Pros and Cons of the 3.0 vs. 4.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 01_ranger_4x4 View Post
Oh goody! A 3.0 vs 4.0 butthurt thread!
nope.

Just two people with different experiences.

The information presented is to give the OP facts. A 4x 3.0 obviously drinks more gas than a 2x 3.0. We both have extended cab XLT, mine has 3.73 gearing. I get the same mileage he does with E85 while hauling as he does on regular gas (I assume) on the highway.

We are just providing information through experience on differently set up Rangers.

So that leaves you. Are you butt hurt?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-22-2014, 03:07 PM
vulcan2000 vulcan2000 is offline
Ranger!!!!!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 715
Default

Just get the 4.0, and save yourself the biitching later. I own a 3.0, and have driven my moms sploder with the 4.0 (gets 22mpg BTW) it's a night and day difference.

Also 3.0 vs 4.0 thread

__________________
Brandon

2000 Ford ranger 4x4 steppie 3.0
Deep Wedgewood Blue
Cooper Discoverer AT'3 265/75/16
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pros and cons? shawn_house102 Lifted Suspension 17 04-06-2014 09:54 AM
What are the pros and cons to a turbo? jenn85 2.9 Liter Tech 6 08-28-2012 07:26 PM
Glasspack pros and cons? Rango88 Exhaust and Mufflers 35 02-27-2012 03:54 AM
pros and cons of 3.0 b2af 3.0 Vulcan Tech 13 09-16-2011 04:46 AM
SAS Pros and Cons beef08 Solid Axle Swap 12 01-05-2011 01:20 AM