Howdy so thanks everybdy for the info on my thread about ford ranger vs. f150 milage. Ive decided on the ranger for now while Im still an apprentice. Possibly an older one just to last me a few years while im doing my apprenticeship. But now I have todecide between 3.0L or 4.0L, preferably 4x4. Id really appreciate peoples opinions. Also I was looking mainly for 4.0L 4x4s but there is a couple 3.0L 4x4s in my price range, any thoughts on how well that engine performs with the 4x4? Thanks

 

Don't know about the 3.0, but for the 4.0 you'll either want the older pushrod version or a SOHC built after 2003 - the earlier 4.0 SOHC had issues with timing chain guides...

The 4.0 SOHC in my '04 has been pretty good to me so far - haven't had any major complaints yet. It's been able to tackle anything I throw at it.

 

If you try to make your decision on a Ranger based on fuel economy alone, you might be disappointed, a V6 F150 can rival the economy of a 4.0L Ranger. However, the Ranger is cheaper to maintain, easier to park, easier to get in and out of, most replacement parts are less expensive too.

Unless you need a larger truck, I think sticking with a smaller rig like the Ranger is a good idea.

As far as 3.0L V 4.0L, on average the economy difference is not significant, so the 4.0L in my opinion is the better choice of the two. The 3.0L is just way underpowered, costs as much or more maintenance wise, and is only marginally more powerful than the later 2.3L Duratec motors which get way better economy.

 

I would have to agree with KhanTyranitar.

I have a 3.0 Ranger and an 85 F150 4.9L, both 2wd. The old F150 gets just as good, if not better sometime, mileage than the Ranger on the highway but around town is where the Ranger beats the F150 for fuel. And there is no comparison when it comes to power. I do love driving the Ranger but really would like more power.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd go with the 4.0 or an F150 if I had it to do over.

 

With a 4x4, I'd sure go with the 4.0. My 2000 4.0 4x4 gets the same mileage as my 3.0 4x2, both ext cab and the same effective gearing. The '05' 4.0 I had got better than both with a lot more power.
Dave

 

I have owned 2 4.0 Rangers, a '93 SC with the pushrod engine and a current '03 with the OHC. Both 2wd, 5 speed manuals. The "93 had 3.08 rear and and the "03 ( an Edge) has 3.55 limited slip rear. BOTH average(d) a little over 20 mpg in my commute and would both get 23-24 highway. Several friends and co-workers had 3.0 Rangers and none of them got near the mileage I've gotten. No way would I even consider a 3.0.

 

Agreed. Only thing I will add (and this is anecdotal only) is the 3.0 seems to be a 300k motor. They will run and run and run with no problems. The others are not bad or problem prone, just the 3.0 seems to be indestructible.

 

X2 on the 3.0. My 2000 has nearly 210K on the clock and hasn't had a wrench turned on it yet. It has developed an on/off coolant leak, tho.

I would prefer the 4.0 as I have it in my 1990. More power than the 3.0, better mileage.

 

Trucks893- I have had several vehicles with the 3.0 motor. Its is ALMOST indestructible, just don't let people overheat and run out of oil, but that’s another story. In fact when I went looking for my current beater/driver I went looking for a Ranger with a 3.0 and 5 speed. I was not even interested in anything else... I have towed too many 4.0's and 2.3's home to even consider them. I really don’t understand people who say the 3.0 is under powered?? My first 3.0 was in a 88 Aerostar with a 5 speed that got 25 MPG, I hauled many trailers and one time I had to load a full size 1/2 ton van on my 18' trailer. I went right down the road at 60 with no problems. Several other times I had to go help stranded friends by hauling, towing or pulling them out of tight spots. When the 88 rusted down with 330,000 miles, I saved the motor and trans. I found a 92 Aerostar with a 3.0 and automatic it got 20 mpg, when the automatic gave out I put the 5 speed in and kept hauling 5 adult size kids and all their camping gear, until my teenage son totaled it with 245,000 miles, dont ask. I also had a Taurus with a 3.0 and had to put head gaskets on it at 250,000 miles. I had another Aerostar with the 4.0, no more usable power, even worse MPG… never again <O</O
So my new to me current driver is a 1999 Ranger Xcab Stepside 3.0 FFV, 5 speed, 3.73 gears with 206,000 miles. Looking forward to installing my class 3 hitch and would like to have 3.55 Explorer rearend to get better MPG and take advantage of the 3.0 torque. <O></O>
Just my two cents worth, happy trucking…

 

I have a 94 4.0, 310000 miles and this summer is the 1st time I had engine problems. Had what I thought was a blown head gasket, turned out to be the timing chain water jacket gasket. The 3.slo is just that. Dont know if you will want to tow, but a friend bought 1 brand new as the dealer said it was so gooooood, that he didn't need a bigger engine. Anyhow, he got it and when it came time to relocate to the east coast, UHAUL would not rent him a car dolly to tow a chebby cavalier on! So with new baby, wife had to drive the chebby while he drove the truck. So as far as the 4.0 not lasting well as I said this summer was the first time I had to work on it engine wise. replaced the injectors, all the ignition pieces (most were originals, coil, timing sensor, ignition pack) plugs and wires had been done several times. When I took it in for the water leak, had them r&r the timing chain and it showed little wear even on the tensioner. So no matter what I would say go for the 4.0 vs a 3.slo. particularly if you want to tow anything in the future.

 

3.0's will tow, thats not even a question. Just because UHAUL would not rent a tow dolly has nothing to do with power... It is a weight guide that kept him from renting the dolly. Heck even an over sized "Pinto" motor (2.8) would tow a cavalier on a dolly.

 

I have a y2k ranger xlt ext cab 3.0 4x4 auto w/86k mi. The truck is a little underpowered but I'm used to it now. What I can't get used to is the crappy gas mileage prob around 11 mpg, I say get the 4.0 or a f150.

 

Mine is under powered but 11mpg? My 3.0 was getting bad mileage when I got it back from my son but after a good tuneup and about $200 in parts it's doing 21mpg combined city/hiway. New plugs, coil packs, fuel filter, wires and cleaning the sensors was all it took.

 

What plugs are you using? I changed mine 30k mi ago and I think I used Autolite but I'll have to pull one to make sure.

 

I used Motorcraft SP-432's, that's the ones the local Auto Zone showed as factory replacement plugs. It had E3's my son had put in it and ran like crap. The plugs were probably the biggest change I saw. The fuel filter and cleaning the sensors helped and the coil and wires really finished smoothing out the way it ran and idled. Just last weekend we took it for a 240 mile trip that was about 60/40 hiway/city driving and averaged 20.88mg. It's still getting a CE light that I haven't had checked but think it's still the #5 cylinder misfire it had before I did all the changes. So it probably needs an injector also.