What is it, 155 hp / 185 tq currently? I'd like to see the dyno graphs for it...the torque figure isn't exactly amazing...rather lacking really... but I bet it comes in quite early.

 

so the current 3.0 is 155/185... thats sad to think it only progressed that far. being it replaced the 2.9l as the base v6 which put out 130/170 stock in 86...20 years later.. 1 liter larger and only a 25/15 difference. and yet the 2.9 had alot of pep to it and when matched to a 5 speed could get over 20mpg (i know mine does with 147K on it)
i know that cologne 2.9L and the vulcan 3.0 are completly different blocks and design but if going to replace something, shouldn't it be better than what was there. (i know it is numbers wise, just marginly though. and even with 25 more hp yet yeilding only 15 more lbs of torque. and torque is what turns the tires. but performance is lacking with out mods and by the time you mod it up you could have just gone with the 4.0 option and be way up the ladder already. JMO.)

 

The 3.0L is designed purely for durability it seems. In the modern Ranger, the 2.3L is almost equal to it on power and torque, admittedly higher in the powerband and revs, but nonetheless, it's sad that the "upgrade" engine, the 3.0L V6, is almost bested by a 2.3L four banger...

And the mileage ain't nothing to write home about either...

 

i remember when i put a 94 2.3L in a 91 stang.. it had alot more @ss than the stock 2.3 that was in the car, from 2500 or so rpms till 4500 that car could carry the mail. it was not 5.0 but it moved fast enough to keep the grass from growing under it as you drove.



though it did keep a fenders length on a 96 trans-am with v8... but thats another story for another time.

 

How about 0.1 liter larger?

 

yeah .. err thats what i ment lol forgot the decimal. but even at that rate. if the 2.9L could have been kept and got mass air, varible cam timing, and all the other goodies. i feel it could have blown right by the 3.0. not to mention it could get such technologies from the 4.0 like sohc which could have yeilded more gains.

 

Well...the 2.9L was developed into the 4.0L engine, same families, and though the 3.0L was designed to replace the 2.9L, the 4.0L was the large engine replacement for the truck, so in a sort of roundabout way, the 2.9L (family anyways) did end up blowing past the 3.0L.

 

Let's keep in mind that one of the reasons FORD put the 3.0 in so many cars/trucks is because of 2 things: 1) it's very durable and long-lasting and 2) it's inexpensive to manufacture/maintain.

There are LOTS of variables that go into the decision as to what engine goes where, admittedly not always obvious to the casual observer such us.

Heck, mom's Aerostar has 169,00 miles and that 3.0 is still going and still doesn't burn a drop of oil.

CMOS

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_XLT
Perhaps the situation is similar to the 2.3 in the Ranger -- I read it is de-tuned a bit for the Ranger compared to its applications in the Escape/Fusion/Mazda3/Focus in an effort to have it be more durable and handle the heavier loads of truck duty.

I can be easily confused, but not this time (I don't think). I was only suggesting that the 2.3 4cyl is kept tuned to a lower horsepower rating in the Ranger than in the Escape, for example, due to the fact that Ranger duty is anticipated to be more taxing. This I thought might also be done on the 3.0 Vulcan for the same reasons - I was really just thinking out loud. I was not thinking about the 3.0 Duratec at all, although I can see how you could think I was, since the 2.3 and the 3.0 Duratec is/was shared by the Escape/Fusion/Mazda3. It's all good.

 

I can see now what you meant. You were referring to the 2.3L, and I was thinking about the 3.0L vulcan.

 

Are they equal on hauling ability? also is the 2.3l going to shift gears more than the 3.0l ?

 

Of course not. The V6 (either of them) by their nature will out-pull the 2.3L. The 2.3L isn't a pulling engine (though I do know people who tow with them in Ranger with no difficulties). The 2.3L is a grocery-getter, gas efficient little truck. It wasn't designed to be worked by pulling trailers.

And of course, the 2.3L will shift more than the 3.0L. The 3.0L can rev down lower before dropping way off in power and having to downshift, whereas the 2.3L, with a higher powerband, will have to shift down much earlier.

For buying the 3.0L, one might as well get the 4.0L. 52 more horsepower with nary a loss in mileage.

"The 3.slow...the mileage of the big six with the power of the four." That's how many have described it on this forum, and for good reason. It's just a strange middle of the road engine.

 

i got 165,000 miles now on my 94 3.0 supercab 4x4 stick shift xl............

honestly, i dont need speed with a truck, i would rather have an engine that is known for it durability.

if i want to have fun driving, i drive my 00 civic ex.

 

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but since it' pertains to the 3.0L I figured I'd put it in here.

Are these engines known for oil consumption? It seems that I'm loosing about a 1qt of oil every 1000 miles. There is only one leak I know of and it's from the oil level sensor. The leak isn't very bad and I'd notice a 1qt every 1k oil spot in my driveway.

I know I burn a touch of oil at startups, but that's about it.
Although I don't know how many miles are on the truck, so for all I know I could have a bad case of blowby..

 

Actually, the current 3.0L Vulcan in the Ranger is only 148 HP. Only 5 more hp than the 2.3 Duratec in the Ranger.