3.0 Vs 4.0
So still on the hunt for my first ranger. I live in MN and really want the 4X4. can you guys give your opinions on 3.0 vs the 4.0? I keep hearing the 3.0 is a slug. But when shopping around I feel like the 3.0 is more popular. Also I keep hearing the 3.0 is a tank and will last forever. Thanks in advance for all your opinions!
|
Both are very reliable motors as long as you treat them correctly. The 4.0 is the way to go. The 3.0 isn't as bad as people claim it to be. It definatly has significantly less power but I never found it to be an issue. Go 4.0 if you can, but 3.0's are alright also.
|
Quote:
Like beef said...go 4.0 if you can. |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
I just bought my first ranger with the 3.0 knowing it is a low power engine (but a tank). I don't need the power of the 4.0 to drive in my area, it's flat. In a mountainous area the 4.0 would/is the best option especially needing/wanting 4x4.
|
My buddy has a 3.0 in his truck, it gets 300 kilometers out of a tank, I have the same size gas tank on my older 4.0 and I get 450 km to a tank. IMO the 3.0 has the power of a 4 banger with the fuel consumption of a V10, lol
|
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
^^ he needs to take it in and get it fixed, whatever is wrong with it lol 300km or 186 miles a tank is awful for that truck. that's probably hurting performance, too.
|
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
the 3.0 is probibly one of the easyist engines to work on that was offered in a ranger. plenty of room to move around under the hood, everything is fairly accessable without needing to pull wheels or half the engine apart. parts & labor costs are fairly cheap and easy to find. it's reliable (other than the killer cam sync gear issue) and very simple in design. and it's capable of getting 25+ MPG on the highway, although that mostly depends on how you drive and how it's geared (alot of 4.0 guys claim to get 25+ MPG on the highway too).
as for the 4.0's i don't know much about them, personally i would rather have one of the pre- '01 OHV 4.0's, again because of their simpeler design. they make less power than the 01+ SOHC 4.0, but the SOHC engine can be kinda a pain to work on and some have issues with the timing chains & gears. other than that though they are also very reliable from what i've seen. |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
You won't see 25mpg with either v6 unless your drive is mostly downhill and you have a stick. From my experiance with a auto and standard on a 3.0 best you will see is 23 hwy 17 city.
just click on my Fuelly log in my sig to see my trucks mpg. |
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using FRF App |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
sucks to be you guys then, lol. i average 19-20 running around local up and down the mountian all day, and 24-25 if i run the highway all week. and i've got a 4x4 with an auto!
|
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
Quote:
|
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
Quote:
The primary benefit to the 3.0 is that it's cheaper. The primary benefit to the 4.0 is that it's more powerful. |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
Quote:
i will admit too almost everyone i've personally known with a ranger is happy to get 20 MPG, with any engine / drivetrain combo! they are not always great on fuel, that's for sure. i just can't figure why :confused: |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
Quote:
I also should add I have to merge onto the hwy 3 different times on the way to and from that eats the gas |
Re: 3.0 Vs 4.0
I like the 3.0 because Ford made millions of these engines and installed them in cars and trucks, easy to work on and the parts are much cheaper. When I was shopping I did not care what engine unless it was a V6. I always thought that the 4.0 was standard on 4x4 and the 3.0 was for the 2-wd
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 AM. |