I am thinking about trading my '99 XLT w/2.5 (which is only rated @ 119 hp, I believe). Was going to go with the 3.0 V-6 until I looked up the engine specs. on Fords Web site. The '05 2.3 is rated @ 143 hp and the 3.0 is @ 148. I guess I need to test drive them to see for sure but 143-119=24, that seem a big difference for a little 4-banger. Who's got some experience to share on this?

 

How about the fact that it (the 2.3) is an all Aluminum Engine as opposed to the Cast Iron 3.0. Is that a good thing?? The mileage ratings are pretty impressive for the 2.3 but do you have to hang some John Deere tractor weights on the front end to keep it on the ground with that light (aluminum) engine??

 

What year did the 2.3 become an aluminum engine? I didn't realize that it was now aluminum.

 

Don't know when but according to http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/r...eatures/specs/ the 2.3 has an Alum. block and Alum head, whereas the 3.0 has a Cast Iron block and Cast Iron head, while the 4.0 has a Cast Iron block and an Alum. head. Other than lighter weight what is the advantage for/against Alum.

 

the new ones are, the old ones are not...

 

knoxnil -

Don't know anything about aluminum v. cast iron. I have an '03 Ranger with the 2.3L Duratech and 5 speed manual. We have also have a '96 Taurus with 3.0L V6 auto. I much prefer the 2.3 in my Ranger. Performance is about the same as the V6 but the gas mileage around town is about 5 mpg better (2 - 3 mpg better on the highway). If you're not going to be pulling anything, the 2.3 is great for running around in and light hauling. If you need more power, go with the 4.0 not the 3.0 but, from what I've read elsewhere on this board, say bye to great gas mileage.