3.0 vs 4.0
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
The 3.0 and duratec 2.3 are real close in hp, but the 3.0 has the torque advantage for towing. The 3.0 is more of alternitive for the 2.3 if you need to tow, but you give up mpg for the slight towing advanatge. So it really makes no sense to get the 3.0 for towing as the 4.0 will do it better and really be no worse on gas. There really isn't a good reason to get the 3.0, unless your buying used and the truck you want allready has the 3.0 in it.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 3
From: Magnolia, TX
Originally Posted by B 3000
The 3. slow is a dog.
What's on the market to put a little more power in the engine without giving up little fuel mileage?
What's on the market to put a little more power in the engine without giving up little fuel mileage?
Nothing.
More ponies = more fuel. It's that simple. Always a trade-off my friend.
BTW - my 3.0 with 4.10 gears is a screamer, and 20.X MPG on the highway to boot. I'm very satisfied.
CMOS
Junior User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 82
Likes: 1
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by CMOS
Nothing.
More ponies = more fuel. It's that simple. Always a trade-off my friend.
BTW - my 3.0 with 4.10 gears is a screamer, and 20.X MPG on the highway to boot. I'm very satisfied.
CMOS
More ponies = more fuel. It's that simple. Always a trade-off my friend.
BTW - my 3.0 with 4.10 gears is a screamer, and 20.X MPG on the highway to boot. I'm very satisfied.
CMOS
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Aurora
Originally Posted by CMOS
Nothing.
More ponies = more fuel. It's that simple. Always a trade-off my friend.
BTW - my 3.0 with 4.10 gears is a screamer, and 20.X MPG on the highway to boot. I'm very satisfied.
CMOS
More ponies = more fuel. It's that simple. Always a trade-off my friend.
BTW - my 3.0 with 4.10 gears is a screamer, and 20.X MPG on the highway to boot. I'm very satisfied.
CMOS
. It would'nt be the first time that a manufacturer offered a powerplant or other option that in all reallity didn't make much sense. The 4.0 OHC is an EXCELLENT engine. 20.x mpg on a 3.0 is not uncommon for a 4.0(Wendell??!!). For many years, GMC'ers knew for a fact that the 305(5.0L) was underpowered for a full size truck and actually got worse mpg's than a 350(5.7L). Power to weight ratio again. People bought the silly 305 because they 'thaught' it would get better mpg's.Fred
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
That is true, an underpowered engine can't hurt mpg more than high hp, cause the engine as labor harder to move the weight. The wife had a bought an 04 dodge durango 4x4 with the 4.7 v8. Well, she got a recall on it and they gave her an 04 durango 4x4 with the 3.7 v6, that thing was a dog and used more gas than the v8. For the record, that was the only nonford product I ever let her buy in our marriage, and she hated it. She has a jeep kj now, but I don't count jeeps because we allways had a jeep of one kind or another around, thier a hobby, but we still have our 2 fords as our main mode. The durango was allright, it was huge, for her it was like driving a bus, I knew she wouldn't want it long, but I couldn't tell her nothing when she had the big eye for a new ride. Our old salesman from the ford dealer moved on to a dodge dealer and called her with a good deal (so he said) and got her hopped up. Anyway, that 3.7 really labored under the weight and it was hard on gas because of it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
steelheader1950
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
3
Jan 8, 2006 06:09 PM
GaryF629
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
2
Dec 25, 2004 02:03 AM
