Which motor is the better motor in a 2WD Ranger, 2.9L or 3.0L? I guess I'm looking at fuel mileage, longevity and which is most reliable, lowest maintennance.

 

I've got the 2.9 im my 87 Ranger & the 3.0 in my wifes 95 Taurus. Both are over 200K with no engine problems and both are still running very strong. My Ranger is a manual trans & gets about 26 MPG at 70 MPH, the Taurus is a automatic & gets about 29 MPG. But truck versus car is not a good MPG comparison. Both are XLNT engines. I'd buy either one again.

 

well both engines are very reliable. obviously your going to get better gas mialage from the 2.9l 4 cly than from the 3.0. but the 3.0 offers a little extra torque and horsepower than the 4 cyl. but either engine will get the job done well. as far as matinence is concerned if you do preventative matinence you will have less problems later on, but then again that's with any engine you have.

 

Isn't the 2.9L a V-6? Doesn't matter, thanks for the advice.

 

My two cents
both are 6cyl but from looking trough the forums they may be differant cats altogther. the 2.9 dates back to the 2.6. The 2.9 supposedly shares design with the 4.0. The 3.0 is newer than the 2.9 and a differant design. the 2.9 is known for it's torque and will outdue the 3.0 in the low end all things being equal. I would buy the newer design simply because it is newer and less old age problems, longevity is good in both though the 2.9's valve noise can be annoying. I would like the 2.9 in a truck and vouch for the low maintennance of this engine but with all the electronics that go with both I would go for newer and low mileage.I hate all the electonics cause when things go wrong they can really go wrong.
just wait for all my future posts!
I don't think the mileage will differ a great deal and never heard of it being a concern. anyway thats my two cents.

And if I said anything that is not correct about the engine design and breeding let me know!

 

yeah your right, it is a 6cyl. was thinking about something else while i was replying, my bad.

 

The 2.9 is also known for cracked heads, which can be replace with World Products heads that don't crack, when slightly overheated. I would rather have a 2.9 over the 3.0 for the power.

 

Interesting, my '89 Ranger with the 2.9 wouldn't pull a sick geriatric out of bed, while Mom's '88 Taurus with the 3.0 is a rocket ship. Both are automatics, the Taurus also gets around 21 mpg, while the Ranger usually comes in around 15. Of course, I realize there's a weight difference, although I don't know how much. -TD

 

the 3.0 in a taurus is a good match, i have a '93 taurus and it moves real well. however it doesnt do as well in a ranger chassis from all ive read. never driven a ranger-equiped 3.0 my guess is the difference in performance between taurus/ranger chassis would be 1. weight, dont know what either weigh, but the taurus is a unibody and the ranger is full-frame, and after rebuilding the front end of the taurus this spring, i can tell you you dont want to take on anything bigger than a raccon with one. 2. gearing, dont know what the taurus final drive ratio is, but gearing can make or break it with a motor (such as the 3.0) that makes its power at the upper end of the rpm range. 3. fwd, just the fact that the taurus "pulls" with the front wheels and the ranger "pushes" with the rears gives the taurus a bit of a mechanical advantage. the 3.0 is a more current engine and probapbly easier to get parts for.

 

Thanks for all of the advice, well taken. Both sound like good motors, I'll probably take either in looking for a newer Ranger; whichever comes along with the best price and the lower mileage.

 

I used to have a BII with a 2.9. It ended up cracking it's heads, but even with the cracked heads, it still was more powerfull than any 3.0 Ranger I've driven. I really wish Ford would have stuck with the 2.9 and beefed up the heads a bit. On paper the 3.0 seems like the better motor, it has more peak HP and Torque, but it requires considerably higher RPM's than the 2.9. I understand that a BII is lighter than the Rangers I've driven, but I have also driven the 2.9 in a 4x4 Ranger, Reg. cab, long box, and it would spank a 3.0.
In a nutshell, the 2.9 has more usable power than the 3.0.
1990 2.9
140 HP@4600 RPM
170 Ft-lbs@2600
1996 3.0
150 HP@4750 RPM
190 Ft-lbs@3650 RPM
Over the last 15 years, the output Numbers of the 3.0 have gone up and down with Ford trying to make the most out of it's power, but I have yet to drive one that felt as strong as a 2.9. I could also pull 25 MPG out of that 2.9 BII. Although I've gotten as high as 24 with my slightly modded 4.0 Ranger 4x4, which seems to be about the sanme ballpark as the 3.0. If you find a good 2.9, I would have it compression checked to make sure the heads are good. If so, as long as you keep the cooling system in check, a 2.9 will last a long time. Mine had 190k miles when the I blew the Radiator hose and cracked the heads.

 

Unfortunately, a compression check won't always tell you if the heads are cracked on a 2.9, because they tend to crack on top by the valve springs on #1 and #6. My 2.9 had good compression on all six when I got it (150-170 psi) but still had cracked heads. Pull the dipstick and the oil cap and look for water in the oil. I couldn't see the cracks in mine till I got it the heads off and cleaned up, but now that I know just where to look, it would be easy to spot with them still on the engine. -TD

 

Why go with a 2.9 with potential cracked head problems when you can have a 3.0 with no problems. Better yet, why not go to a 4.0 liter and have a lot of power. If gas mileage is your concern, maybe you should be thinking of 4 cylinder engine.

 

The 4.0 actually does better on fuel than the 3.slow.