A newbie here, I would like to get a new truck, wife refuses to shift gears anymore, hence the question, what are the pro's and cons 3.0L vs 4.0 with auto??

 

Both can be had with an auto. I wasn't sure what your wife not wanting to shift gears had to do with engine choice. The 4.0 has a ton more power and similar but slightly worse fuel economy. 3.0 has been around for around 15 years and is very reliable and pretty cheap to work on. I'm not sure about the reliability or repair cost of the 4.0. Most 3.0s come with the 5R44E auto but a few can be had with the beefier 5R55E. I believe all 4.0s have the 5R55E. They are probably more likely to have a limited slip diff but these to can be found on some 3.0s.

 

Some call the 3.0 the 3.slow. I drove a couple of new Rangers with the 3.0 and had no complaints about the power. These were 5 speeds. I then found a 01 Edge with the 4.0, 5 speed and bought it. I could not resist.

 

I have a 2003 3.0 Auto 2WD EXCAB XLT. It’s the first automatic I’ve owned in 20 years. It’s not the most powerful engine in the world but I never really felt the need for more power. I only have about 5000 miles on it now but I have driven it through the hills in western Virginia and flat out while passing on the highway. (by flat out I mean 92 MPH when the governor kicks in). It pulls fine up the hills and the transmission is geared well for the highway. I don’t have 4WD and I haven’t ever towed anything (truck came with a hitch) so like I said I have never felt the need for any more power. We didn’t go to the dealer looking for a 3.0 Auto. They just happened to have one back in August and with all of the dealer incentives (this thing was cheap) we just had to buy it. I think its always a good idea to get the larger engine when that option is available and affordable and I would definitely get it if I were going to tow. I believe the mileage on the 4.0 is very similar to the 3.0. Over Thanksgiving on a trip to PA I got over 19 MPG, which is the best I’ve gotten so far. That was cruising between 75 and 90 the whole trip. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy the 3.0 again.

 

my buddy has a 2000 ranger super cab 4 wheel drive with the 3.0, 3.73's, and auto. it has plenty of power but the gas milage sucks. my 94 with the 4.0 and 5 speed gets a constant 18 mpg whiles hes talking 13 or less. when he first bought it the salesman told him the 4.0 in the same truck would get better mpg. although i do admit i think something may be wrong cause the last tank i dont think he got 10 mpg out of. He got 130 out of 3/4 of a tank.

 

Hmmmn, my 01, 4.0, 5 speed, 2wd, 3:55 gears gets 22 mpg at 70 mph.

 

The only advantage of the 3.0 is that it can be had in FFV form and if E85 fuel is available in your area that is a nice feature. Otherwise, I honestly don't know why Ford even offers the 3.0 in the Ranger anymore. No offense to anyone who owns them...I'm just being honest.

 

I couldn't agree more. I went from a 4.0 (94) to a 3.0 (98)--it was cheap and now I know why--and am regretting it. I can't believe the difference in power AND gas mileage. In the 3.0 I have a lot less power and the gas mileage is worse. Good for commuting and light work, but not much else.

 

I found a 1998 Mazda B-3000 4x4 single cab at an auto lot for an incredible buy. Only 55xxx on it and there wasnt a spot of rust. It was a manual 5-speed also. The truck came with pretty good sized tires to. After I bought I realized the 3.0 truck was under powered and got horrible gas milage. I dont really care for underpowered vehichles so I am currently throwing everything into it to beef it up. Gas isnt an issue to me but it would have been nice to have a 4.0. So I consider that the 3.0 being so cheap isnt a bad deal. If power is an issue a little beefing up will take care of that. As for the gas milage you better have a big wallet. heh *sigh*

 

I have a 1999 Danger Ranger w/ the 3.0 and at higher RPM ranges it is faster than the 4.0
But obviously you want the 4.0 if you need the power but you can still haul a good 7k pounds w/ a 3.0 auto
so if haulin much more than that you'd prolly wanna F-1 2 or 350
have fun (You can't go wrong with a Ranger)

(The average 3.0 engine lasts for 220K miles)

 

I got's a double ought Ranger supercab with the 3.0 automatic and I've never looked back. I love the way it handles on hills, flats, ------->city traffic<---------. Besides, I get 25 mpg with it, driving 40 miles a day to work and back. I'm thinking that the 4.0 would only increase my fuel consumption and I'd never be able to take advantage of the power. I can pass on the mountain passes accelerating from 70 to 80 quick enough to get by most semi convoys. Put a load in the back and well...okay you can feel the tranny having some problems sliding into 1st and 2nd gear.

I love the automatic tuning though. I've hit 80 mph on an on-ramp before it shifted to 3rd, then quickly to overdrive. Very good high rpm power.

 

I've never owned a 3.0, but I have test driven several, and my opinion of them is, "Why did they replace the 2.9 with this." I loved the 2.9 I had in my Bronco II, and test drove a couple rangers with it and loved them, then drove a 3.0. I thought something was wrong with it because it seemed like a dog. After driving a couple others I came to realize that they are an extremely weak engine. I now have the 4.0 and to me a couple miles per gallons less is worth the extra power. I can get as much as 22 if kept around 65MPH so it's not like its a pig. To me the 3.0 unloaded feels about like my 4.0 pulling dad's 18.5 Inboard-Outboard Tri-Hull. I suppose if you are not used to the 4.0 a 3.0 may seem alright, but the 4.0 really is a much better motor and has been proven very reliable as well.

 

I agree the 3.0 is slow, but after putting on the Gibson and using the Motorctaft Synthetic Blend oil, I can hit just near 25 mpg if I try, but high 22's, low 23's is what I normally get.

I do have a Snug Top lid on (Better for higway driving, but does add alot of weight for stop and go).

 

I don't understand how some of you guys are getting bad gas milage out of the 3.0. I have a 5 speed 2wd and I get about 21 mpg, and I have a lead foot. I have no complaints about the power, either.

Jim

 

Years ago I read that the 3.0 in the Ranger is actually a car engine, not a truck engine. Having driven the 3.0 previously and now owning 4.0 engine, I suspect that information was correct. I also owned a 2.9 Ranger in the past and I think it's also better in a truck than the 3.0. The 4.0 is an excellent engine for a truck the size of the Ranger and I recommend that all 3.0 owners try it before they buy their next Ranger.